Social housing.

[kilésengati]

Should social housing be build as simple and as cost-efficient as possible, often consisting of utilitarian housing blocks on cheaper plots of land further away from a settlement's centre?
Or should social housing be integrated within the settlement, with high-end housing located in the same area of the development offsetting the cost for social housing offered for rent or even sale to lower income brackets?

The social benefits of the former are apparent, but that doesn't come cheap or fast.

The business plan for the former is pretty simple: Build cheap housing and make the government pay for it.
The business plan for the latter is a bit more risky, as it relies on buyers and renters for the higher-end offers to subsidise social housing rented or sold under market value to those in need.

What do you think is the better option?

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

I too like concrete block buildings, comrade. I know a comrade who knows a comrade who knows a thing or two about concrete block buildings, comrade.

[A͓̽p͓̽o͓̽t͓̽h͓̽e͓̽o]

There is no one definitive answer to the question of whether social housing should be built in a simple and cost-efficient manner on cheaper plots of land or integrated within higher-end housing developments. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages that should be carefully weighed and considered.

On one hand, constructing social housing in a utilitarian manner on less expensive land may be more economically viable, requiring a lower initial investment and faster construction. However, such housing blocks may become isolated from the rest of the community, with limited access to essential amenities and services such as schools, transportation, and shops. Additionally, the social stigma that may be attached to such developments could adversely affect their resale value and discourage residents from moving out.

On the other hand, integrating social housing within a mixed-use development that also includes high-end housing can bring about a range of benefits. This approach can help to reduce social isolation and promote diversity within the community. It can also enhance accessibility to crucial amenities and services, such as schools and transportation. Furthermore, the inclusion of high-end housing within the development can help offset the cost of constructing the social housing units, making this approach a more financially sustainable option.

Nevertheless, there are potential drawbacks to integrating social housing within higher-end developments. This may entail additional challenges in securing planning permission and local approval. Furthermore, there is the possibility that social housing units may be stigmatized as being of lower quality compared to their high-end counterparts, which could generate resentment and division within the community.

Ultimately, the decision regarding which approach to adopt should be based on a range of contextual factors, such as the availability of funding, the specific needs of the community, and the preferences of local decision-makers. A comprehensive strategy that accounts for the perspectives and needs of all stakeholders is likely to result in the most effective and equitable provision of social housing.

[kilésengati]

Q-T_3.14.exe の投稿を引用：

I too like concrete block buildings, comrade. I know a comrade who knows a comrade who knows a thing or two about concrete block buildings, comrade.

:USSR_Ushanka:
:theDoge:

WBS[en.wikipedia.org] is love. WBS is life. But there are vast differences between developments even there.

There are panel building developments of both concepts.

★ᴹᵒᵒᶠⁱⁿ★ の投稿を引用：

There is no one definitive answer to the question of whether social housing should be built in a simple and cost-efficient manner on cheaper plots of land or integrated within higher-end housing developments. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages that should be carefully weighed and considered.

On one hand, constructing social housing in a utilitarian manner on less expensive land may be more economically viable, requiring a lower initial investment and faster construction. However, such housing blocks may become isolated from the rest of the community, with limited access to essential amenities and services such as schools, transportation, and shops. Additionally, the social stigma that may be attached to such developments could adversely affect their resale value and discourage residents from moving out.

On the other hand, integrating social housing within a mixed-use development that also includes high-end housing can bring about a range of benefits. This approach can help to reduce social isolation and promote diversity within the community. It can also enhance accessibility to crucial amenities and services, such as schools and transportation. Furthermore, the inclusion of high-end housing within the development can help offset the cost of constructing the social housing units, making this approach a more financially sustainable option.

Nevertheless, there are potential drawbacks to integrating social housing within higher-end developments. This may entail additional challenges in securing planning permission and local approval. Furthermore, there is the possibility that social housing units may be stigmatized as being of lower quality compared to their high-end counterparts, which could generate resentment and division within the community.

Ultimately, the decision regarding which approach to adopt should be based on a range of contextual factors, such as the availability of funding, the specific needs of the community, and the preferences of local decision-makers. A comprehensive strategy that accounts for the perspectives and needs of all stakeholders is likely to result in the most effective and equitable provision of social housing.

Diversity is such a buzz word. Diversity is useless without social integration. If a low-income family is neighbours with a mid- or high-income family, or are just from the same neighbourhood and know each other from a club, pub or even just through their kids attending the same school, chances are higher they form personal and business relationships beneficial for both, leading to a more cohesive neighbourhood.

I don't see how social housing necessarily has to be of lower quality, if it is financed through the higher-end developments and local business - especially when they are in the same house.

[Ulfrinn]

Who is paying for and who is managing the process you have described?

[KalGimpa]

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

don't see how social housing necessarily has to be of lower quality, if it is financed through the higher-end developments and local business - especially when they are in the same house.

read any

dystopian

novel and you will see where it ends up

giant buildings to house the poor and the worker bees that have everything they will ever need

all inside one place

no need for them to ever leave

[Ulfrinn]

Oh, I read OPs plan is "make government pay." This tells me something. They want something done that most experts in business won't do themselves for good reason. Rich people don't want to live beside poor people, and wouldn't buy those houses. This means for all the investment put into them, they wouldn't sell, and they'd go bankrupt. So how would forcing government (remember, this means taxpayers, AKA middle class) to pay for it not be a waste of taxpayer money?

Also, do we need more people with too much time on their hands sitting around trying to think up more ways to spend other people's money?

[Hanzo The Rain]

They’re all situated in the working class suburb/lower socio-economic areas here. It should be focused in those areas because there’s less stigma and no one really cares. Other than that will bound to have some problems.

[Kargor]

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

Should social housing be build as simple and as cost-efficient as possible, often consisting of utilitarian housing blocks on cheaper plots of land further away from a settlement's centre?

That creates slums, and you want to avoid that.

[kilésengati]

Ulfrinn の投稿を引用：

Who is paying for and who is managing the process you have described?

In my country, it's either private investors, co-operatives or state-owned enterprises. Social housing is either subsidised or prerequisite for buidling permission.

KalCuey の投稿を引用：

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

don't see how social housing necessarily has to be of lower quality, if it is financed through the higher-end developments and local business - especially when they are in the same house.

read any

dystopian

novel and you will see where it ends up

giant buildings to house the poor and the worker bees that have everything they will ever need

all inside one place

no need for them to ever leave

The entire point of a mixed development is to prevent that.

Ulfrinn の投稿を引用：

Oh, I read OPs plan is "make government pay." This tells me something. They want something done that most experts in business won't do themselves for good reason. Rich people don't want to live beside poor people, and wouldn't buy those houses. This means for all the investment put into them, they wouldn't sell, and they'd go bankrupt. So how would forcing government (remember, this means taxpayers, AKA middle class) to pay for it not be a waste of taxpayer money?

Also, do we need more people with too much time on their hands sitting around trying to think up more ways to spend other people's money?

That's the reality of social housing. Unless it is done out of private charity (like the Fuggerei) or a partially charitable business model (like the alternative I have described), the government usually mandates and pays for it in one way or another.

It is not that rich people don't want to live next to the poor, but that decent people don't want to live next to scummy people. It has nothing to do with income.
Poor people can be decent (and they often are!) and rich people can be scum.

Sleepy の投稿を引用：

They’re all situated in the working class suburb/lower socio-economic areas here. It should be focused in those areas because there’s less stigma and no one really cares. Other than that will bound to have some problems.

How does this solve issues regarding social segregation and resulting lower social mobility?

con の投稿を引用：

going to speak from my current experience that's currently still ongoing, i live in a small but nice apartment that i privately rent for a considerable amount.

my downstairs neighbours were housed through estate agents that are implementing some sort of government social housing scheme - not sure why the circumstances arose, but the landlady of that apartment was very preoccupied with a very sick relative who co-owned with them and did not put much thought into accepting and thought it would be the right thing to do to give them a chance.

they lied to the estate agents and landlady about how many people would be living in there (a grand total of 6 or so adults instead of 2 in a small 2 bedroom apartment) and are constantly screaming, arguing, blasting roma music, filling the whole building with the overwhelming smell of cigarettes and awful cooking that comes into the other apartments irregardless of whether doors/windows are closed or open. no amount of polite conversation or letters from the building management has amounted to them changing their behaviour, and every time they are asked by us or the other people in the building they make sure to beat on the walls and slam the ceiling in retaliation. they have left litter around the main entrance and laugh at the groundskeeper when he asks them to please consider taking inside or putting in the bins.

after 8 months of the other people in the building complaining, they are finally being re-housed but the kicker is they are now allowed to be picky over where they are rehoused to, so are now dragging their feet with the same estate agents who have to re-house them.

i am not going to lie and say it hasn't skewed my opinion on integrated social housing. my life for the last 8 months has been miserable thanks to my downstairs neighbours, headphones and white-noise machines and candles not being able to stop the majority of the issues. i know integrated social housing isn't going to be like this every single time, but the fact that it takes so, so long to evict problem neighbours means that people will just up and move away rather than waiting for long convoluted processes to fix them.

tldr: sounds great in theory, but i think there should be better and more streamlined processes to protect the rights of those who already live there if issues arise, i.e get the ♥♥♥♥ out and fast if you cannot behave yourself. idc who my neighbour is or how much cheaper their rent is compared to mine, i just want to be able to relax in my own home and not be disturbed every minute i'm home

You experiencing an… uhm… infamous and centuries-old cultural… uhm… challenge?

Obviously those issues can arise and there should be ways to solve them.

Collecting evidence and reporting such issues to your landlord and the responsible authorities can help, but could also fall on deaf ears. But sometimes can also cause vindictive behaviour by the problematic neighbour.

I hope you can resolve your situation. Wish you all the best.

Kargor の投稿を引用：

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

Should social housing be build as simple and as cost-efficient as possible, often consisting of utilitarian housing blocks on cheaper plots of land further away from a settlement's centre?

That creates slums, and you want to avoid that.

Depends, but I also think that's usually the case.

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

i think the movie candyman shows what social housing turns into

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

Q-T_3.14.exe の投稿を引用：

I too like concrete block buildings, comrade. I know a comrade who knows a comrade who knows a thing or two about concrete block buildings, comrade.

WBS[en.wikipedia.org] is love. WBS is life. But there are vast differences between developments even there.

There are panel building developments of both concepts.

Got plenty of those in my hometown. One build when it was under construction was built like that.
I know because I was building one.

[kilésengati]

Q-T_3.14.exe の投稿を引用：

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

WBS[en.wikipedia.org] is love. WBS is life. But there are vast differences between developments even there.

There are panel building developments of both concepts.

Got plenty of those in my hometown. One build when it was under construction was built like that.
I know because I was building one.

Iirc, the GDR exported and licenced WBS 70 and other panel house systems across the globe, including friendly Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Finland.
Very versatile system and great to live in, if done right. Commie blocks, traditional city blocks, row houses, single-family homes and much more - everything is possible with these.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

Q-T_3.14.exe の投稿を引用：

Got plenty of those in my hometown. One build when it was under construction was built like that.
I know because I was building one.

Iirc, the GDR exported and licenced WBS 70 and other panel house systems across the globe, including friendly Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Finland.
Very versatile system and great to live in, if done right. Commie blocks, traditional city blocks, row houses, single-family homes and much more - everything is possible with these.

Heh, the reds did something good it seems.

[kilésengati]

Q-T_3.14.exe の投稿を引用：

kilésengati の投稿を引用：

Iirc, the GDR exported and licenced WBS 70 and other panel house systems across the globe, including friendly Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Finland.
Very versatile system and great to live in, if done right. Commie blocks, traditional city blocks, row houses, single-family homes and much more - everything is possible with these.

Heh, the reds did something good it seems.

The GDR churned out a lot of innovations and inventions in many fields, but most of the time was incapable of capitalising on those either due to an incompetent leadership or embargoes and ended up selling or licencing these to foreign companies, which then took credit for it.

[RRW359]

I know things are done different in Europe but in the US allowing up zoning would be a good idea and would allow more condos/apartments making both cheaper due to supply. As well we should remove a lot of laws and make a lot of HOA rules unenforceable that exist solely to prevent property owners from decreasing property values.

After all that if there are still homeless people we need to decide to either make camping legal or pay for housing construction. I don't care which but you can't both make it illegal to not have a home and not build more homes.

Also probably have more laws about how quickly landlords can raise rent, especially after one group buys another's renters.