Ginny [they/she]

Yeah, I swiped it all out on the phone, and I accidentally a few words. Sorry, that’s my bad.

I think that when we’re talking about housing, it should perhaps be implied that I’m not talking about the cathedral and the other tourist attractions. I’m talking about:

• High density, mid-rise housing incorporating 5 over 1s (as an aside, that term seems very American to me, but I’m not sure why as it’s a pretty good description of what is meant) providing convenient access to shopping and leisure facilities. Pretty much everything you could conceivably need within a 15 walk.
• Thoughtful design of roads, with wide thoroughfares with dedicated bus lanes, for moving traffic, and narrower streets, ideally one-way, for access. As few stroads as possible.
• Cycle lanes everywhere. (Admittedly, Eixample would be better if more cycling lanes were physically separated.
• Each housing block having enclosed shared spaces where people can build community with their neighbours. (Some may scoff at this, but experience in Britain tends to show that high rises that aren’t luxury developments tend to become shitty places to live, because people don’t get to know their upstairs and downstairs neighbours and as a result a lot more people treat communal areas disrespectfully. That could be a distinctly British problem, I suppose, but I’m not convinced that’s the case.)

Yeah, a lot of the buildings in Eixample are more ornate than they would be if you were building them in bulk, quickly, and I’d probably throw in more parks, too. But the plan is sound, and very achievable.

I’m not American, I’m British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with “5 over 1s” and similar, and it’s fine, and works well. Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.

Solving homelessness isn’t aesthetically pleasing enough? I know a certain GERMAN political party that agrees with your sentiment…

Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.

We’re a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn’t they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re the best and most ideal solution now.

Now, as it stands, I don’t think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you’re curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:

• People tend to prefer “human scale” architecture in places that are supposed to be comfortable and large clusters of high rise buildings tend to make people feel small.
• They require steel and concrete to build, which is a concern in terms of carbon footprint, whereas 5 over 1s and similarly sized buildings can get away with using wooden frame construction.
• High rises cost more per occupant to maintain than a similarly constructed mid rise, as a general rule.
• The need for access to lighting, etc. means that the buildings must be spaced a fair distance apart, so the effective footprint still ends up being similar to a wider-based mid rise bulding. And while this does allow for green space, it’s green space that has to be kept low (so as not to interfere with the lower floors) and needs constant maintenance, so it tends to be fairly bland.
• The physical separation between the blocks and the reliance on public transport to reach facilities tends to promote social isolation in a similar way to suburbs.
• High rises mean that the vast majority of the occupants must either rely of lifts (and there are never enough working lifts) or be able-bodied and fit.

If you’re asking me what I’d prefer instead, I’m thinking something like Eixample.

How is it bleak and inhumane to build free, strong, effective houses?

That is obviously not what is being complained about. The chief complaints are:

1. Large areas consisting of one or two buildings copied-and-pasted dozens of times.
2. The area between buildings being more-or-less featureless.

The only people that like those new fuck ugly “mixed use” developments is rich old smarmy people who’s family left their home town 20 years ago.

I’m not sure what you mean by mixed use developments but if you mean this, then you are flat out wrong. Mixed use developments are the cornerstone of the kinds of urbanism that encompass walkable neighbourhoods and the 15 minute city, which is overwhelmingly preferred by the non-car-brained.

And they have the worst fucking interior taste I’ve ever seen…

Not really relevant since interiors can be ugly or not independent of the ugliness of the buildings.

When OP asked “why is the outside so neglected?” I believe you have interpreted the question as “why has the outside been neglected?” As in, the outside has been allowed to become ugly. What I believe they meant, however, is “why was the outside neglected?” As in, the people who designed it neglected to consider the outside. OP is arguing the blocks were ugly at inception, not just since 1991.