• Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    129
    ·
    9 days ago

    Social housing typically doesn’t look as good as high-end apartments, but it doesn’t have to look terrible. Here’s some pretty neat looking social housing in south Paris.

    It’s kind of the China Town of Paris.

    It’s right next to an accessible tram station, has green spaces and social areas spread around, a couple of malls with great independent restaurants right next door. There are cycle lanes all around the place.

    If you’re curious, here it is on Google Maps

    I’d live here. I only wish there were more neighbourhoods like this.

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    They’re called commieblocks if they’re affordable to the average person. If not, they’re “highrise apartments”

    I live in a city with neighbourhoods built during Socialism, they’re spacious, full of greenery and with important services within walkable/bikeable distance. Meanwhile we have new “urban villas”, which are drab concrete boxes with apartments that have bizzare floorplans and seem to be built for money laundering purposes.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      drab concrete boxes with apartments that have bizzare floorplans and seem to be built for money laundering purposes.

      I am so happy I’m not alone seeing it. Modern “development” is such a massive scam, in every country it seems like. It’s the new equivalent of logging or mining barons- they buy up land, build shit on it, sell it overpriced, wash their hands and move on to the next project with little regard for long term urban city planning. They are creating forced gentrification.

      • Slotos@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        Soviet development that was driven purely by economic considerations tends to have all the issues of modern development. Well, except car centric planning, but we know why that wasn’t a consideration ever.

        Apartment complexes that didn’t focus just on economy, tended to be way better. And that is missing from modern considerations almost always.

        Still, there’s a reason pre-Soviet areas to this day remain some of the most sought out ones.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    9 days ago

    Also part of why it looks depressing is because it’s old and poorly maintained.

    Just a touch of renovation and the houses start looking way better:

    1000103747 1000103748

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      9 days ago

      Ugh. Disgusting.

      Give me a single structure on a plot of land, 10ft from my neighbours walls, and a lawn to maintain, any day I live for the additional costs on the place I never spend the best hours of my day in. Worth every gallon of commute fuel. My brain is so aerodynamic.

          • Aljernon@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            This. It’s call a Ranch style house for a reason. Because the kind of place they were initially common had tons of land available in the form of pasture.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          9 days ago

          Moving to a countryside can give you both decent enough isolation and teach you to reconnect with others in a more healthy way

          • [deleted]@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 days ago

            I like how living in the countryside lets me disconnect from others in a more healthy way. I live in the suburbs now due to supporting family, but would love to be back in a residence clearly disconnected from anyone outside my household. It doesn’t even have to be that far as long as there is separation due to natural barriers like dense foliage or elevation changes.

    • no banana@piefed.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yep, my building hasn’t had a good amount of care in a while but the one right next to it has recently and it looks just fine.

      • SigmarStern@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 days ago

        Stayed in an probably illegal Airbnb in a Samsung apartment in Jeju 10 years ago. It was nice. Apartment complexes are not bad. We have to them in beautiful Switzerland too. If the building is well maintained and the surrounding is full of greenery, and local shops, and entertainment, then they are a valid option and I’d prefer them over sprawl and cul-de-sacs.

        • no banana@piefed.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Sure, in the end a building like this is going to be what it is. I personally live on the inside of my apartment, so that’s what I care most about. If I owned a house and spent a bunch of time looking at it from the garden, I would care more.

          edit spelling

  • kurikai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    take notice of your capitalist car park next time you go to big box centre. more depressing than housing

  • renzhexiangjiao@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 days ago

    this is more to do with it being in moscow and built some 50 years ago, not with it being “left-wing” (whatever that means). Social housing around the world can look much better than this

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Also seriously who gives a shit about how it looks, it’s a place to live. I’ll take one of those apartments please, I can’t afford to buy a fucking condo for $500K, and that’s all they build now because that’s what makes them most money. So tired of this bullshit.

      • asret@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Looks matter because it’s a place to live. Many commieblocks deal with that just fine by having the green space around them though. I kind of like the look of some of them though - solid, practical, maintainable. Some of the modern builds in my local city look more like temporary emergency shelters - like the people staying there don’t belong.

  • JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    9 days ago

    How the hell is this “left wing architecture”?? Apartment buildings have looked like this all around the world for at least 50 years.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s “left wing” because the buildings are identical, because they were built through central planning.

  • nexguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 days ago

    The only thing more depressing than left wing architecture is right wing architecture

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    I don’t see this as left or right wing

    This is architecture that could be done better.

    Yes, we need to stop homelessness, but you also want to avoid creating spaces where nobody wants to live because it’s ugly and depressing and guaranteed, the poor end up having to live there, and with that comes crime and what not and you end up with ghetto style areas where even police is uneasy

    Take a little bit more space, put a little bit more thought into the designs, add spaces for children to play, add parks, make it look nice. Wr don’t need luxury villas either, but there has to be something better than this

    • no banana@piefed.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      In my country this type of building came about in a society where many still lived in wood sheds without electricity or running water. Where people shared outhouses with their neighbors in the yard of actual residential buildings. Where every residence on average was overpopulated.

      The architecture of the time homed huge amounts of people with running water, indoor toilets and electricity. Indoor heat without needing a fire.

      The areas where they were erected weren’t much to look at before. The buildings today may be unappreciated but I find them lovely in a way. They’re a shadow of a society that cared for it’s citizens.

    • AlexLost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      It was built cheap and efficiently, not to please the eye. It could certainly be better, and we know that our environ plays a bigger role in our outlooks than we did before. If they built it today, it would have a few more trees and green spaces but would maintain it’s very essence, which is a large domicile to house people for cheap.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Also correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t a lot of these have murals and shit painted on them back in the day. Could’ve sworn I’ve heard about these building having their outer paint stripped only to reveal a mural or mosaic.

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      where nobody wants to live because it’s ugly and depressing and guaranteed, the poor end up having to live there, and with that comes crime and what not and you end up with ghetto style areas where even police is uneasy

      you should not give lectures about something you know from bad tv show at best.

      what a suprise, these communities look according to how you maintain them and people who live there are happy to have a place to live. and when it undergoes revitalization, it looks quite nice.

      the photo in the post is typical manipulation, everything looks grayish if you capture it in the middle of the winter with bad sky and trees without leaves.

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        But they aren’t wrong either. Some places with these type of buildings have been build wrong. Like in the Netherlands in the 60’s they build an entire new neighborhood that had only these mega modernists apartment buildings that followed Le Corbusier futuristic vision. And nobody wanted to live there, because other neighborhoods with history were much more pleasant to live in. So eventually only the poor and desperate moved into the neighborhood. And the neighborhood turned into a rundown ghetto. Today almost every one of those 1960’s apartment buildings in that neighborhood has been torn down. Was much cheaper to rebuild from the ground up than to renovate. Same is true in many suburbs of Paris.

        • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          thay may very well be true, but that is not problem of the houses. architecture is not responsible for solving issues in the society. if you devastate your neighborhood, it is your fault, not the architect’s.

          same country, same houses, different residents:

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      in prague, it is 2 monthly median salaries per squared meter. there was a lot wrong with the fucking “communism”, but accessible housing was not it.

      this post is a work of some ignorant teenage edgelord, the title does not even have anything to do with the screenshot.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Wtf is a left wing architecture.

    The shit far right comes up with sometimes melts my brain.

  • turdas@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 days ago

    Lots of trees there. That place still looks pretty nice in the summer.

    A quick web search had someone say it’s Yaroslavsky District, Moscow and while I’m not entirely convinced (having trouble matching the photo to a map), in the summer it will probably look similar to the photo of Yaroslavsky District on Wikipedia.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      We lived in similar housing back in the 80’s, and the surrounding area was nothing but lovely greenery and forests, by design. Then the 00’s came around and they privatized everything, sold the apartments, and cut down all the greenery. I don’t know why, it’s just something they do, like, they had to create low income jobs somehow and decided the best way is to equip parks&rec with chainsaws and just go around and cut shit down to validate their own existence, so they could show their amazing statistics.

      Now everything is barren concrete, and it looks way more like actual grey communist dystopia than it did before. Go figure.

  • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 days ago

    Semi relatedly, there’s some new blocks in my city that are both ugly and expensive to live in. It’s this soulless, almost corporate feeling type of architecture. Doesn’t fit into how the city looks at all. They had the opportunity to decide whether to build affordable housing or something pretty that aesthetically fits into the city and picked neither. No doubt the shareholders shed a tear of joy.

  • karashta@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 days ago

    I hate our society’s fixation with ugly utilitarianism. We could be making beautiful things for all of us