The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

Okay, I'm convinced that rental control is a counter-productive in the medium and long terms.

At the same time, I'm also seeing rent (and property prices) increase to the point that it's driving out large number of people from the city - including the people that's needed to make the city work. If the trend continues - and I see no reason that it won't - I expect it to lead to an acceleration of transfer from the poor and middle classes to rentiers.

Is there anything constructive that can be done to address this, or is it just simply the way of the market and people will just have to suck it up that they're trapped in poverty due to ever increasing housing costs?

More Brutalist high rises in remote suburbs.

This worked in the '60s and '70s to eliminate slums, as a matter of fact.

For a few years.
Then they just became new even worse slums with many of the same problems and several whole new ones derived from the collapse of communities.
There were smarter ways to go.

[Tamas]

Okay, I'm convinced that rental control is a counter-productive in the medium and long terms.

At the same time, I'm also seeing rent (and property prices) increase to the point that it's driving out large number of people from the city - including the people that's needed to make the city work. If the trend continues - and I see no reason that it won't - I expect it to lead to an acceleration of transfer from the poor and middle classes to rentiers.

Is there anything constructive that can be done to address this, or is it just simply the way of the market and people will just have to suck it up that they're trapped in poverty due to ever increasing housing costs?

More Brutalist high rises in remote suburbs.

This worked in the '60s and '70s to eliminate slums, as a matter of fact.

For a few years.
Then they just became new even worse slums with many of the same problems and several whole new ones derived from the collapse of communities.
There were smarter ways to go.

If people ran down their highrises they would have run down whatever sufficiently Victorian-looking solution built for them.

[garbon]

Having skywalks out of easy police reach wasn't such a grand idea.

[Josquius]

Also the destruction of Community was a huge factor.

And let's not forget these high rises actually had worse  density than the terraces they replaced.

[Duque de Bragança]

Okay, I'm convinced that rental control is a counter-productive in the medium and long terms.

At the same time, I'm also seeing rent (and property prices) increase to the point that it's driving out large number of people from the city - including the people that's needed to make the city work. If the trend continues - and I see no reason that it won't - I expect it to lead to an acceleration of transfer from the poor and middle classes to rentiers.

Is there anything constructive that can be done to address this, or is it just simply the way of the market and people will just have to suck it up that they're trapped in poverty due to ever increasing housing costs?

More Brutalist high rises in remote suburbs.

This worked in the '60s and '70s to eliminate slums, as a matter of fact.

For a few years.
Then they just became new even worse slums with many of the same problems and several whole new ones derived from the collapse of communities.
There were smarter ways to go.

Not just for a few years. Over here, the shanty towns and slums were pretty much eradicated, but the lack of maintenance, rushed design and construction caused problem later on. The faulty urban planning, with poor public transportation, lack of close-by jobs (bedroom communities) did not help as well.
People forgot over the shanty towns of Nanterre or Champigny, near Paris, to give a couple of examples.

Not to mention the end of the Glorious Thirties, economic downturns and the fact that later residents did not pay much attention to their own housing and yet complained at the same time.
That brutalist architecture is still common in Central and Eastern Europe and the locals don't complain as much nor is it as dilapidated.

Ah, those concrete grey 15-story towers in Moscow built for the 1980 Olympics under Brezhnev (with forced expropriation of the terrain cabin owners) with an impeccable view of the railway ring. 

[Sheilbh]

If people ran down their highrises they would have run down whatever sufficiently Victorian-looking solution built for them.

I agree with G and Tyr's additional comments - but I don't see how this is people running down their buildings. The reason expensive apartment buildings don't run down is not because the people living in them are more conscientious but because they pay money to have people doing maintenance and for security etc. Part of the reason for issues with high rises was the failure to maintain them by the building's owners, normally councils, or looking for cheap solutions (like flamable cladding that make them more superficially "attractive").

Having said that I live in a council owned block - it's an inter-war "Homes for Heroes" block that is only 5 storeys high but probably more dense than a tower block because we don't need a big park around us as they decided to do in the 60s. And it's pretty well maintained. I have no complaints - it's pretty well looked after and my understanding is the local council generally has a decent reputation for maintaining their buildings.

[Richard Hakluyt]

If we want high-density housing those medium-rise slab blocks are about the best; high-rises tend to have windswept spaces between them or become dystopian if crammed together.

[Tamas]

If people ran down their highrises they would have run down whatever sufficiently Victorian-looking solution built for them.

I agree with G and Tyr's additional comments - but I don't see how this is people running down their buildings. The reason expensive apartment buildings don't run down is not because the people living in them are more conscientious but because they pay money to have people doing maintenance and for security etc. Part of the reason for issues with high rises was the failure to maintain them by the building's owners, normally councils, or looking for cheap solutions (like flamable cladding that make them more superficially "attractive").

Having said that I live in a council owned block - it's an inter-war "Homes for Heroes" block that is only 5 storeys high but probably more dense than a tower block because we don't need a big park around us as they decided to do in the 60s. And it's pretty well maintained. I have no complaints - it's pretty well looked after and my understanding is the local council generally has a decent reputation for maintaining their buildings.

In terms of highrises you have a point, maintaining those as buildings go beyond the tenants' abilities.

However, as a general note I find linking people's income and their desire to clean up after themselves and take care for their own immediate environment highly offensive.

I grew up in a rural environment were near-everyone was on varying levels of low income, with the combination of fairly high maintenance households in terms of the size of buildings and gardens (both quite large compared to UK terraced standards, for example).

Yet, most of those households were maintained in perfectly decent condition. Not all, mind, and "surprisingly" the bums who could not bother to not live in a pest-infested garden littered with litter were usually the same who could not manage to hold down a job either.

It is perfectly possible to be poor and have dignity. I personally never had to combine the two but my grandparents and parents did, and they, like the vast majority of their peers, managed.

[Josquius]

It's a class factor Tamas. I totally get what you mean. In the past the poor were working class. Today the poor tend to be lumpens, products of generational unemployment and possessing a huge aura of not giving a shit about everything and everyone.

Also a factor is women's lib and general declining wages. My nana was super house proud. Would spend hours cleaning her step. Because being a housewife was a full time job and it was expected you do these things in her day.
No longer do most households want or afford  a full time house carer.

If we want high-density housing those medium-rise slab blocks are about the best; high-rises tend to have windswept spaces between them or become dystopian if crammed together.

Yep. This is what you see across Europe,

[Duque de Bragança]

It's a class factor Tamas. I totally get what you mean. In the past the poor were working class. Today the poor tend to be lumpens, products of generational unemployment and possessing a huge aura of not giving a shit about everything and everyone.

Also a factor is women's lib and general declining wages. My nana was super house proud. Would spend hours cleaning her step. Because being a housewife was a full time job and it was expected you do these things in her day.
No longer do most households want or afford  a full time house carer.

If we want high-density housing those medium-rise slab blocks are about the best; high-rises tend to have windswept spaces between them or become dystopian if crammed together.

Yep. This is what you see across Europe,

Nana?! Gallicism! 
Yes, I know it's also a Zola novel, but it fits.

[Josquius]

I don't get it.

[Duque de Bragança]

If it's totally internalized, better yet!

[Oexmelin]

I don't get it.

I think Duque suggested that "nana" is borrowed from France, where it means girlfriend, whereas nana/nan in the UK/US is grandmother, and has nothing to do with French.

[Duque de Bragança]

I don't get it.

I think Duque suggested that "nana" is borrowed from France, where it means girlfriend, whereas nana/nan in the UK/US is grandmother, and has nothing to do with French.

Yep.

[The Larch]

This should be in the running for "Worst ad ever, in hindsight".