Housing in communism

Skip a minute or two in

Attached: Hostile Waters Remembrance.webm (480x360, 14.61M)

Putting green shit on buildings is good for mental health, the immune system, the climate, oxygen and CO2 levels, and can provide some food.

There's nothing inherently dystopian about a bloc. You can build a much more livable space if you plan it out than if you just have people build shit independently all willy nilly.

One of the most underrated youtubers.
And yeah, the shitty design of skyscrapers is a monument to the incredible stupidity of capitalism's "anarchy" of production.

FUCK Robert Moses

Are commie blocks a meme? Just ordinary apartments like you'd find in any city?
Or were they a larger than usual concentration of apartments? If so, what did they have against suburbs?

They were pretty poor accommodation by western standards but by Russian peasant standards they were practically palatial. They tended to be in large concentration around places of work for reasons of efficiency, after all there weren't many cars in the USSR early on and transport in general was limited, much easier if everyone could walk to work. I would argue it's a much better system than the American suburb sprawl model, huge apartment complexes also allow a feeling of community that is absent in the atomised Western way of living, you could walk a few hundred meters and potentially meet up in a courtyard with thousands of others.

The only reason they have a bad reputation is because westerners don't find them shiny enough, but the people who live in them would have been very grateful for the improvements, this attitude is incidentally the same reason why Grenfell had its murderous decorative cladding added, to not offend the sensibilities of dwellers in nearby highrises who didn't want to be confronted with the sight of poors.

In the UK the remainers of the social housing blocks which could easily be considered Socdemblocks are being torn down to replace with more expensive housing for the rich, some could see this as 'redevelopment' but for the people who live in the aging buildings there is no replacement for them to move to, their only real solution is to be displaced dozens or hundreds of miles from the area they have spent their whole lives.

TLDR: It's just another way for porky to degrade the poor and sweep away their communities in the name of 'progress'.

Attached: demolished 2.jpg (700x467 62.97 KB, 47.64K)

I'm no expert on commieblocks, but they appear to have been large apartment complexes worse than the fancy burger apartments, better than the projects, and better than what is available now on a working class budget. As a burger who grew up in some burbs outside Houston they're shit and serve as either a haven for richfags or a refuge for poorfags after gentrification made living in the city too expensive. More than a few cities will have to be redesigned to allow mass transit or even walking.

They were cheap, rapidly-built high-density housing solutions for a rapidly growing and urbanizing population. They have a bad reputation because they were expensive to maintain and hard to upgrade. It's not exactly easy to upgrade or expand a 20 story building, especially if your economy or population doesn't grow enough to pay the upkeep on such massive, depreciating buildings. They probably were great in the 1950s, but the Soviets couldn't have anticipate economic stagnation and collapse that ruined their ability to adequately maintain all those big apartment blocks.

The same thing is true of big residential buildings across the world: great if you can afford them, terrible if you can't. Pruitt-Igoe was a pretty nice place when it was built, but then the tax/funding base collapsed as all the people with money fled to the suburbs and the place went to shit fast.

No.

irrefutable proof that Zig Forums is revisonist

Attached: albania_005.jpg (1024x768 32.41 KB, 276.2K)

Pretty sure socialists warned against it.

Attached: The-Time-Machine-Original-Morlock_09.jpg (915x1200, 635.22K)

Attached: hoxha you dont get to 700 thousand bunkers.jpg (489x781, 75.49K)

From what little I have read about commieblocks, they were a part of a massive urbanization project by the Soviet Union as a way to quickly and cheaply construct new cities around their booming industries using prefabricated parts. It was essentially UK or Yuropoor public housing at a much larger scale. From what I gather they were fairly comfy to live in when properly maintained, if a little dull to look at, again it's basically public housing, but what is interesting is the urban planning that went into all of this. The housing units were built in clusters (microdistricts) surrounded by greenspaces and all the various amenities that these communities would need (schools, kindergardens, etc.), and they were of course very close to workplaces. The idea was that this would create a more communal living space, and in a lot of ways it's pretty similar to more contemporary ideas of liveable, walkable cities that are becoming popular today.

I liked his ideas but he's an Albanian and I'm biased.

Meant for
Also suburbs are fucking trash and should be burned to the ground. They are alienating, far more depressing than any commie block, and are overall a tremendous waste of space and resources.

Suburbs are infinitely superior to everyone being crammed into apartment complexes. A series of manlairs is better than a series of cells.

Attached: bunkers.jpg (700x417, 45.77K)

t. Americlap

Attached: suburbs are literally hell.jpg (600x400, 105.63K)

Niggas like you is why gulags were invented.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (528x393, 512.93K)

Telecommuting.

I can only imagine that the overwhelming majority of jobs and economic sectors, from knowledge and art to service and even most light industry, have zero reason today to demand that people live in close proximity to each other. Thanks to the likes of computers, delivery, and rapid transit, the population and congestion of cities could be slashed greatly.

Cities today exist only as a necessary evil for the economies of scale in heavy industry. For people unrelated to such industry, most cities (and their ilk, such as suburbs and towns) could be demolished and abandoned for greener pastures.

Attached: DSC_0621.JPG (800x533 367.11 KB, 144.68K)

>ditto the smells from smoking, cooking and some of the farts and hangovers I've had

Attached: guards this hothead has lost his composure.png (424x480, 114.08K)

All valid points. Thanks for the effortpost, user

I've lived in both scenarios in different places in the world and I can see that both have their benefits. Suburban living is ok until you realize you need a fucking car to do anything because suburbs are basically places where people merely sleep. I'm living in an apartment right now and I do miss the suburbs though. I'm sick of lying in my bed and hearing construction or people outside or people above me stomping around and making all sorts of noise. There is no peace.

Surely there's a compromise between the two. Surely there can be a paradigm of design whereby people are given maximum privacy and freedom while maintaining the socially-minded close proximity of apartment blocks. I'm not too learned in architecture or civil engineering or whatever but I've seen and read some quite interesting views.

The problem is that many of these radical departures from tradition would mean razing civilization to the ground and building it anew. Not that I'm against that - in fact I'm all for it - but I don't see that as happening any time soon

Suburbs are an oppressive, hopeless morass of routine misery. Living in one is like living on the edge of society but without the privacy, freedom of movement, or natural bounty.

Did you live in Section 8 or something?

Where do I mention a landlord? Non-rhetorically, how will changing things to [insert system you want] fix the things I listed? Some could be fixed with better noise insulation between flats, but how about the others?

Happy to help, and glad to be appreciated. I'm not against apartment living, I just wanted to bitch report all the bugs I found in it so they can be worked out.
Same, both with my parents and now by myself. Only place I really couldn't stand was a big building.
Yeap, that was the problem I had with them, I was lucky there was a grocery store within walking distance.
This also, fucking construction. The other tenants I don't mind tho, they're noisy but I can ignore it if I know where it's coming from atp.
The best compromise I can think of is townhouses or the top and bottom halves of houses (or thirds or quarters or however-many in the case of McMansions and other large structures where you could divy up the space). You'd still have to deal with one other person in the same building, but there would be a balance of power and fewer people to put up with. I'm not totally against living in an apartment complex either, but most of the places I've seen would take a lot of work to make habitable. For stuff designed from the ground up, elevators would help a lot, even in buldings with few enough floors that the stairs aren't that much of a drudgery. That and sound insulation. And nice, wide halls.
Agreed, bringing things up to a decent standard would be a lot of work.

those things are even more restricted in the city

Nah, just the Hab Block of the Damned. It was the place everyone bugged out to when their previous living situation dissolved unexpectedly or in a way not as planned, most of whom, myself included, then bugged out or were kicked out after tiring of the maintenence issues and noisy-ass Failed Chads that lived there. The lack of elevators made the noise worse since the foot traffic was heavier.

One apartment I lived in was in the middle of a huge city. The building was about 60 floors high. I was on the 10th floor but fuck that was annoying; you could take the stairs down (obv. for emergencies etc.) but not up and during certain times in the day it was a nightmare being crammed in a whole sea of people just to get to my apartment. A very inhuman feeling but the apartment was quite well made sound-wise so once I got there I did have some peace. It was wonderful being in the center of everything (and I am in a similar but "lite version" situation now) but I'd definitely have traded it for the peace and quiet of a middle class suburb where I can go and piss in my backyard when I feel like it and be surrounded by green nature. I just want peace, not to lie in bed at night and hear the trains, cars, and loud screams, and drunk/high morons, clubs, and so on. Gosh I can't wait to get out of this shitty rental contract

Trust me, man. Townhouses suck dick. They are the worst of both worlds with no benefit. They were only ever created for working class people to have a shitty prison cell somewhat close to their place of work. Of all types of living, I probably hate townhouses the most, even the fucking new modern looking ones. Walking down a street of townhouses is one of the most depressing things you can do.

Just like me my man, advocate for complete and total destruction of this bullshit world so we can start anew. Even though we might not experience such a new better world, maybe the generations that come after us will not have to go through the shit we had to go through.

Yes, let's have billions of people abandon the cities to live… Where, exactly? Also, let's dig internet cables to every cabin in bumfuck nowhere, I'm sure that would be way better than having people in a place with centralised infrastructure. This is beyond retarded.

Streetcar suburbs, row houses and brownstones are all perfectly acceptable forms of 'suburban' housing that can be made car-independent. Don't lump everything together with post-WWII meandering auto suburbs, which are of course wasteful and exclusionary (but can still be nice places to live).

Attached: 1539301899761.jpg (1080x1350, 326.7K)

Literally the entire rest of the planet, you degraded urbanite subhuman.
That wasn't terribly difficult back in the days of copper POTS lines. I'm sure modern fiber optic and directional wireless technology is up to the task of surpassing it.
As opposed to pushing food, water, and other bulky physical resources hundreds of miles to feed and clean squalid and utterly dependent cities almost entirely full of people that go to anachronistic phony retail and office jobs?

Yes, let's turn all untamed wilderness into some third-world rural hellhole. God forbid someone live within 50 meters of another person. Your ideas are delusional and unworkable, only viable let alone preferable in the mind of an autistic recluse who loathes human interaction. Increased population density and urbanisation is the only way forward unless you somehow manage to conjure up enough land for everyone to have their own personal estate. The question then comes how do we make cities into some place more liveable rather than a place where you go work and study for a few years before fleeing to some godforsaken suburb. But the idea that 'telecommuting', a form of job that is pretty much only viable for middle-class professionals, will allow everyone to live in a cabin up in the mountains is ridiculous. It is a pipe-dream, plain and simple.

Privacy may be but not freedom of movement. It is very easy to move about from within a city, as there are numerous mass transit options going everywhere. With suburbs, a person's only escape is often to drive a great distance.

Logically, planned Urban environments made for the common good are efficient and enable community.

Personally, I'm filled with disgust when I can hear children screaming outside. And I guarantee be one is going to want to give up their precious "fur friends" and are willing to make the rest of us suffer instead.

youtube.com/watch?v=xqJbE1bvdgo
Have a somewhat tangentially related video on the history of public housing and bigass apartment blocks.

lolno.

Lawns are kind of awesome without fences, tbh.

We have the data on the health impacts, mental and physical, of urbanization alone, without even getting to air quality and the chance of being murdered by a semipsychotic negligent driverr.
It ain't pretty.

Attached: rural vs urban life expectancy.jpg (528x408, 146.99K)

news.stanford.edu/2015/06/30/hiking-mental-health-063015/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987044/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204431/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6143402
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2872309/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548093/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5860224/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30240934
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988203/
You stupid piece of fucking shit.

Is this the fuckin best you got? LMAO. Everyone knows that green spaces are good for you, that's not the same as suburbs being good for you, in fact they're about the worst form of habitation devised. And everyone living innawoods is laughably impossible. Urban areas are most always (ie. not in America) interspersed with large parks and other small natural features, this could be accelerated even more in socialism like

Attached: shota laughing.png (708x1000, 632.04K)

...

all of them.

construction workers, bauarbeiters can also construct their own homes freely. the only thing, no landlords. personal property exists & is protected but private does not.

your answer is smart. on a personal level. the only problem is you will have slow internet, more autonomy sure but slow ass internet.

I have the same problem as you rn I'm figuring out ways to become autonomous but with good internet since thats from where money will be made from. Also no, some will realize this is more comfy & stable others not most will stay in the city as this one develops into something else.

>

Attached: 59e543f2fa0de6cf58a010a441f6cc25d9ad0cce146728a897601c37921276cb.jpg (2560x1332, 444.04K)

"The image of cities is often traffic-clogged, polluted and energy-guzzling, but a new study has shown that city dwellers have smaller carbon footprints than national averages.

The report by London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) looked at 11 major cities on four continents, including London, Tokyo, New York and Rio de Janeiro.

It found per capita greenhouse gas emissions for a Londoner in 2004 were the equivalent of 6.2 tonnes of CO2, compared with 11.19 for the UK average.

The rural northeast of England, Yorkshire and the Humber, were singled out for having the highest footprints per capita in the UK.

In the US, New Yorkers register footprints of 7.1 tonnes each, less than a thrid of the US average of 23.92 tonnes.

The use of public transport and denser housing are two of the reasons for urbanites' comparatively low carbon footprints, the authors said, adding that the design of cities significantly affects their residents' emissions.

"Tokyo has considerably lower emissions per person than either Beijing or Shanghai and this shows clearly that prosperity does not lead inevitably to greater emissions," said report author David Dodman. "Well-designed and well-governed cities can combine high living standards with much lower greenhouse gas emissions.""

And that's only one metric, another obvious one is that rural people use much much more physical space. So get fucked.

Attached: 1464456570351.png (456x429, 357.57K)

Okay, glad you trimmed that little equivocation, distortion, and redefinition back.
…so, the sound comparison one establishes a drastic effect on physical health. Yay!
However, a -> b =/= b -> a. While the effects MAY have been caused by mental health, what was STUDIED was physical health. The particular vector, likely or not, is not a finding of that study.
You LITERALLY posted an infographic that amounts to "lol poor people get shitty healthcare."
I don't think you have room to talk.

...

Somewhat related

youtube.com/watch?v=OU3pjTOQlCc

Attached: urban-farming-technology-18-638.jpg (638x479, 111.26K)