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?

[ZZZZZ]

modern buildings are always better, the governments usually dont hold on the buildings forever anyways and will sell them to 3rd party sooner or later.. so why waste ressources with doing a bad job if u can do a right job to begin with

[kilésengati]

RRW359 lähetti viestin:

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.

Now that you mention HOAs, that's a concept I can't wrap my head around. It makes sense for an apartment building, but I doubt it does for developments larger than a single building. Why should meth-head Karen from down the road have a say on which flowers I can plant in my garden? Most of the stuff that's relevant to public safety as well as design guidelines either are or can be regulated by actual government bodies already.

DRUNK_CANADIAN lähetti viestin:

Q-T_3.14.exe lähetti viestin:

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:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ this reply made me lol.

But on to the topic, social housing should be placed as far away from urban centers as humanly possible, in its own niche community with transit access for those who need to commute it....

...I genuinely fail to understand the logic behind providing housing to those who do not do the work to cover the costs of it when there are those who are working their asses off to live in a particular center and they are actively competing against the government coffers and 'special interest groups' for housing, so they end up commuting further or having worse living conditions because society decides to house the scum in prime locations.

What kinda logic is that? When people either have no jobs or jobs that don't make ends meet, they should have it even more difficult to find or have a job, let alone a decently paid one? How are these people supposed to get out of poverty then?

[Ulfrinn]

kilésengati lähetti viestin:

Ulfrinn lähetti viestin:

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.

Ulfrinn lähetti viestin:

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.

You're also not going to invest large sums of money into a nice place just to someone in government can slap projects next-door. They'd leave, and those property values would plummet to the point it'd all end up turning into lower income housing anyway. If all you want to do is attack people with money for not wanting to leave near people without it, that'd be the way to do it, and I think it's morally wrong regardless.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

kilésengati lähetti viestin:

RRW359 lähetti viestin:

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.

Now that you mention HOAs, that's a concept I can't wrap my head around. It makes sense for an apartment building, but I doubt it does for developments larger than a single building. Why should meth-head Karen from down the road have a say on which flowers I can plant in my garden? Most of the stuff that's relevant to public safety as well as design guidelines either are or can be regulated by actual government bodies already.

DRUNK_CANADIAN lähetti viestin:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ this reply made me lol.

But on to the topic, social housing should be placed as far away from urban centers as humanly possible, in its own niche community with transit access for those who need to commute it....

...I genuinely fail to understand the logic behind providing housing to those who do not do the work to cover the costs of it when there are those who are working their asses off to live in a particular center and they are actively competing against the government coffers and 'special interest groups' for housing, so they end up commuting further or having worse living conditions because society decides to house the scum in prime locations.

What kinda logic is that? When people either have no jobs or jobs that don't make ends meet, they should have it even more difficult to find or have a job, let alone a decently paid one? How are these people supposed to get out of poverty then?

They don't, that's key. I'm sorry bud but if you are that inept you require the government, and by association the taxpayer to uplift you, you are getting a free pass as is, curb your entitlement.

(speaking to a metaphorical person her).

Why should the middle class, which has been constantly being eroded by braindead logic like yours be forced into even lower conditions because the literal failures of society can't function without their aid.

By my logic, they are being placed in a community that has subsidized housing (partial or full), it has transit access so they can commute to resources/employment if they have the willpower to do so....problem is they don't which is why they belong isolated from those members of society who contribute and are even uplifting these dead weight individuals.

TLDR: Garbage belongs in the garbage bin, not on my front lawn

[RRW359]

kilésengati lähetti viestin:

RRW359 lähetti viestin:

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.

Now that you mention HOAs, that's a concept I can't wrap my head around. It makes sense for an apartment building, but I doubt it does for developments larger than a single building. Why should meth-head Karen from down the road have a say on which flowers I can plant in my garden? Most of the stuff that's relevant to public safety as well as design guidelines either are or can be regulated by actual government bodies already.

DRUNK_CANADIAN lähetti viestin:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ this reply made me lol.

But on to the topic, social housing should be placed as far away from urban centers as humanly possible, in its own niche community with transit access for those who need to commute it....

...I genuinely fail to understand the logic behind providing housing to those who do not do the work to cover the costs of it when there are those who are working their asses off to live in a particular center and they are actively competing against the government coffers and 'special interest groups' for housing, so they end up commuting further or having worse living conditions because society decides to house the scum in prime locations.

What kinda logic is that? When people either have no jobs or jobs that don't make ends meet, they should have it even more difficult to find or have a job, let alone a decently paid one? How are these people supposed to get out of poverty then?

I've never lived under one but from what I can tell the idea is that they collectively try to make bylaws and have services that keep property values up, mainly for people that either don't want to take care of their property on their own or are just interested in buying and selling due to keeping value up.

[RRW359]

Also to add to my previous post, keeping property values up increases property taxes which is probably why actual governments are reluctant to take action against them.

[Angel]

Simple housing as they will still need to be funded with tax payers income to build them. And a similar answer to location as wealthier areas costs more for the land.

[kilésengati]

Ulfrinn lähetti viestin:

kilésengati lähetti viestin:

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




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.

You're also not going to invest large sums of money into a nice place just to someone in government can slap projects next-door. They'd leave, and those property values would plummet to the point it'd all end up turning into lower income housing anyway. If all you want to do is attack people with money for not wanting to leave near people without it, that'd be the way to do it, and I think it's morally wrong regardless.

I think you completely misunderstood me.
In a mixed development, there are no "projects". In an urban context, apartment buildings and row houses would offer various types and sizes of apartments and commercial spaces for rent and sale within a single building. In a more suburban and rural context, there would be various plot sizes and types for different needs directly next to one another and small apartment buildings with spaces of similarly mixed types sprinkled in between - also some for rent and some for sale.

RRW359 lähetti viestin:

Also to add to my previous post, keeping property values up increases property taxes which is probably why actual governments are reluctant to take action against them.

LOL, everyone but the elites in my country is trying to keep property prices as low as possible for exactly this reason. If something like HOAs would exist, they would be daft to actively drive property prices up.

[RRW359]

DRUNK_CANADIAN lähetti viestin:

kilésengati lähetti viestin:

Now that you mention HOAs, that's a concept I can't wrap my head around. It makes sense for an apartment building, but I doubt it does for developments larger than a single building. Why should meth-head Karen from down the road have a say on which flowers I can plant in my garden? Most of the stuff that's relevant to public safety as well as design guidelines either are or can be regulated by actual government bodies already.




What kinda logic is that? When people either have no jobs or jobs that don't make ends meet, they should have it even more difficult to find or have a job, let alone a decently paid one? How are these people supposed to get out of poverty then?

They don't, that's key. I'm sorry bud but if you are that inept you require the government, and by association the taxpayer to uplift you, you are getting a free pass as is, curb your entitlement.

(speaking to a metaphorical person her).

Why should the middle class, which has been constantly being eroded by braindead logic like yours be forced into even lower conditions because the literal failures of society can't function without their aid.

By my logic, they are being placed in a community that has subsidized housing (partial or full), it has transit access so they can commute to resources/employment if they have the willpower to do so....problem is they don't which is why they belong isolated from those members of society who contribute and are even uplifting these dead weight individuals.

TLDR: Garbage belongs in the garbage bin, not on my front lawn :vitality:

Because most of the middle class is a lot closer to being temporarily homeless then some people think, and with these policies temporarily homeless means permenantly homeless. However if you can get back on your feet you will pay more in taxes, making the person who was a drain on tax dollars now a net increase to tax revenue. Also study after study has shown how much money roads cost for people without a driving privilege as does spreading out utilities for r1 housing but nobody cares about those wasted tax dollars. And would you rather they be on the street (lowering property values a lot more then commie blocks would) or should we just shoot anyone who looks like they will become perpetually homeless?

[kilésengati]

Jester on Mushrooms lähetti viestin:

Parliament and government buildings alike should be surrounded by social housing, so that every time policy makers go to "work", they get to witness the effects of their policies in action.

I catch your drift, but it could lead to out-of-control social spending.

[craigsters]

I live in Canadian subsidized housing a 17 story apartment building, it was built in the 1960's, they are slowly renovating my building, first the got rid of the rusted balcony's and jack hammered out the cracked concrete on are balcony's and then they put in steel framed tinted plexiglass or safety glass railing , that was ten years ago

Then they put in waterless tankless toilets, they take several flushes to get the you know what to flush properly at times, that was a few years ago

And a couple of years ago a huge water solar heating panel was built on one side of the buildings, it looks like aluminum siding, but there's a system of pipes behind the aluminum siding heating the building, that cost them a lot of money

And then they removed all the corridor carpet leading to are apartments because of bed bugs living in them, they replaced the carpet with gray linoleum flooring

Owe the stupid fire department made the landlord remove the gasket and under brush from are apartment doors, they where considered a fire hazard and now bugs come in around the gaps and under the door

The windows are are original to the building and need replacing badly, frost get's in between the glass and the cold air get's in easily

As for slum living, there are people from Haiti and South Africa in my building, meddle age to senior age, they speak mostly french and are pleasant to live with and there's no crime in my building

I have lived in this building for 23 years and well continue living here tell the building fall's down

Regular market rent is 1400 to 1800 a month for a 1 bedroom here in Ottawa and some have bugs like my building does

[Ulfrinn]

kilésengati lähetti viestin:

Jester on Mushrooms lähetti viestin:

Parliament and government buildings alike should be surrounded by social housing, so that every time policy makers go to "work", they get to witness the effects of their policies in action.

I catch your drift, but it could lead to out-of-control social spending.

It already has, in most western countries. It's part of the reason debt is skyrocketing through the US, Europe, and in other "western" nations. They don't need taxes to fund their ideas and projects, they just print the money they need to fund it. This davalues money, and that money being devalued is inflation. It's a backdoor way of taking money from poor and middle class without going in front of a camera to tell you they're taxing the poor and middle classes.

Spending has been out of control for a long time. More spending isn't going to lift people out of poverty, as we can see the results of this kind of free spending is actually sending more into poverty. The people in government in your country, in mine, in all of ours couldn't care less.

[Apollo702]

There are definite differences and the worst style of architecture for this is called "brutalism." For samples of it go watch the original Total Recall in which they actually filmed portions of it in Eastern Europe where they built so many things Soviet style.

That is the style with the cheap, minimal, concrete, boxy, boring, depressing builds. Even our capital, Washington DC has too many government buildings in this style. They send a bad message.

It is even worse for public housing. Indeed, it creates a greater slum, makes the problem worse and ends up costing the taxpayers more money by cheaping out. All it does is lock in poverty- which then raises the cost of policing, hospitalization, welfare...

The taxpayers would make a profit by spending more in advance and making these places to take pride in. It is a documented fact that people are a product of their environment.

The sad part is many voters are sadistic. They hate others so strongly that they don't want to hear this. All they want is to stick it to people they don't like- and end up paying more.

[Adversary]

I will not eat the bugs. I will not live in the pod. I hate the Antichrist.

[RRW359]

ᚨᛞᚡᛖᚱᛋᚨᚱᛃ lähetti viestin:

I will not eat the bugs. I will not live in the pod. I hate the Antichrist.

So you can force us by law to live and eat how you want but we can't even have the option?