How would housing and apartments be managed under socialism?

High buildings. Such as Chinese cities.

European cities are suffering a massive housing crisis right now due to lack of living space, rents are unaffordable. You can only live in cities where the housing sector hasn't be entirely privatized due to neoliberal reforms, and where the state is still sort of regulating the real estate market. But by the end of the day, we need to be building higher - migration into cities amongst the younger generation is not going to go away anytime soon.

Back to reddit. High-rise apartment buildings are a functional necessity.

You will put shops and places to work in them and bridges between them, you little tankie shit.

You get housing from birth and till you die, you don't need to buy a house or own a house or pass a house down to your kids or worry about a mortgage

Go LARP your arcology fantasy elsewhere and let adults discuss urban planning.

It's funny though, the only way to even realize planned cities adhering to arcology would only be possible with a hardcore tankie government. But you don't realize that, do you?

whoever promises to build more of these things gets my vote

Yes

Are you saying you would hate to live in pic related? Why not just build massive suburbs that surround the industrial zone, and connect to it via rail systems.

No.

im interested to see what commiehouses would be like but id hate to live with commies or under commienusm. bump

Massive waste of land and space. Might be possible in USA, Canada, Russia and Australia. But not in Europe or Asia.

It's also hard to connect American style suburbia properly with trains - people would have an average walking time of 20 minutes to the train station at least, which isn't very comfortable. Check out my pic from above, China figured it out very well, having a train stop directly in the apartment building.

Like older times when people lived above their shops and doctors lived in mansions that were also their clinics. Instead of putting the place where you sleep and where you work 40km apart, and you HAVE to own a car to even function.

1. inefficient use of space
2. probably inefficient use of resources
3. when you start to look at them in aggregate you realize they're actually even more horrifyingly imposing than brutalist tower blocks, but without the sort of unease to them that makes those enjoyable. There's a sort of pretence of freedom and independence to it, a palpable Americanism to the suburbs. But it's just that: a pretence. An air-jordan to the face hurts just as much as the boot, but without the symbolism.

I mean the house itself isn't that bad but I read into what it represents.

Ironically I have a fondness for British council-housing estates in theory if not always in practice. You still get a sort of independence to it, but it's more communal and honest feeling. You're not quite so boxed into the city and houses are still single units (i.e. no strangers living upstairs/downstairs, only side-to-side.), and the imagery of the whole thing seems to flow much better. As a child you can run off into the fields surrounding your new-town and explore in a way that isn't really possible with automobilia-suburbia, though if you want purely artificial pleasure then the benevolent government bureaucrats have kindly provided you a play-area in a scientifically optimised position (they say..)

It's a silly example, but even the comfortable small-area of Suburbia in Edd Ed'n'Eddy (which captures that sort of suburban angst well.) is pure idealism compared to this sort of aberrant nightmare

How petty it almost seems to detach the houses from one another. A line in the floor as though to say "We're not a community, we have nothing to do with one another" even if the general layout of the space is pushing people together. (Or would be, if they couldn't just hop in their cars right inside their built-in garages.) In terms of proximity and in terms of isolation, they're worse off than any new-town. But that doesn't matter, because gas is cheap and my hummer is large.

You're right, I much rather that precious space go to serving absolutely no fucking point.

user pls, a bicycle sharing system could completely alleviate that problem.

Think tenements for working class… but for everyone.

Every single one of those dumb suckers HAS to own a car and emit carbon to function. I don't even see a single shop within twenty minutes of walking in any direction.

I mean if we're throwing out suggestions:
M O N O R A I L

You know this is impractical, right?

No Suburbs, Apartment buildings will be taller, Cities will be dancer, and suburbs will be turned into farmland. Remember many suburbs are built very fertile soil. Also to help land conservation trains and power lines will be built underground.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with living like pic related, I've lived in a city just like for the majority of my life, there's nothing nightmarish, or imposing about it. I'm convinced you assholes just want people to suffer stacked like cattle on top of one another.

I'd like to preserve nature

Are you fucking serious right now? A bicycle sharing system? Way to make communists sound like insane hippies. Pic fucking related, lmao

Most suburbs are built on very fertile soil. I’d have no problem with them if they were built in the middle of a desert, but there on very good soil for farming.

The only way you could be more wrong is for that garage to have a Hummer in it

You realizing massive fucking agriculture is more damaging, and unnatural than a suburb. Suburbs don't deplete the soil, or ruin entire ecosystems (if they are done right). Wake up already.

There is.
There is not enough land on earth to do this.
There is no practical point in doing this.

Tell me more about how you'll eat, without "massive agriculture".
Also, neither does agriculture, unless it's capitalist with monsanto seeds and chemicals.

Even though I've already stated that my preference is for British housing estates.

Although having lived in a high-up flat the only part of it that was suffering was climbing stairs under the influence of alcohol. In cities pressed for space and housing there is literally nothing wrong with building towers until the airplanes start shaking chunks of concrete down onto children at ground level playing scientifically approved and verified games that both educate and entertain. (or as the official research project conducting secret monitoring from an adjacent Marx Transit codenamed it - Edutain.)

Nothing is ever done right. The aim of the game is to fail beautifully, like that tower block that lost like a quarter of the side due to shoddy construction.

Pic related is a big communal housing area in my city (Munich) built in 1923 as a blueprint project for future arrangement. Living in there was for free for a long period of time until the 60s or something.

People back then were actual aware of the contradictions of capitalism and had some sense of foresight and vision for the future, unlike our post-ideological neoliberal micromanagement.

Your acting like organic farming and crop rotations aren’t things. Yes, it’s less efficient but that’ll be counterbalanced by the fact that it’ on more fertile soil.

And people call comieblocks dystopian, ugly, and inhumane. Those houses look better than 99% of American suburbs.

So much for the tolerant left, folks…

niggers in one area of town, fenced off. rest of society in other part of town.

The tolerant left is a meme.

commie blocks to be honest. marx literally said nobody is allowed to have a house larger than the other and you're forced to share a lot of things most people would never share but oh well. fortunately marx hated niggers and thought of them only good as farm equipment. slavery will exist by the way except for slavery of the proletariat. it's a good thing as said by marx. thank god we don't have to build our own commie blocks. the bourgeois and niggers will toil to death under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I have a friend who lives there. It's one of my favorite architectural arrangements when it comes to housing.

I never said killed. We know that both of the injured were alive at the scene and taken to Dartlipool hospital. Just because neither them nor the forever affable Dr. Acula Shere have been seen since the occurrence doesn't mean we should abandon hope. Police Sergeant Howie will be on the case as soon as he returns from the Hebrides.

You people are stranger than Peter Brock of the for Ryan Electrics recording department, you know that?

this seems pretty good

They were ahead of their time, we're gonna need to go back to free housing before long if we are going to have any standard of living in the future.

Were they really? Or is it more likely that we just regressed into some mental dystopia since the 80s, making the market, profitability and economic growth our only god?

I mean, ask a random politician, no matter if left or right, what his vision for the future is or in what society he imagines his people to live in 50 years. You'll get no answer, only random platitudes. Liberalism has deconstructed itself by becoming all-encompassing after 1991, becoming some post-ideological blob.

well we definitely regressed, but we are going to need free housing and cheap energy to reduce living costs so we can compete with asia this century.

Please go outside sometime and stop posting with a self-portrait.

Why would you want to live in any of these buildings? I'd feel like a rat, or maybe a cockroach. I'd prefer living in a tent tbh. But that would probably be illegal if you all had your way

We don't need more housing, we need less people.

wew

I hope you realize you can make housing for the human-scale instead of exterminating your people.

you have the taste of a rat or cockroach at least

In the first picture, is that an open-air stairwell? What in the absolute hell

I mean I might be wrong but honestly I think there is huge revolutionary potential in tenacy situations. For example, I have arround 500 households in my apartment complex (all owned by the same porky). What would happen if everybody would just stop paying rent and start collectively paying for the janitor, maintenance and property tax themselves? I mean, you can't just forcefully remove people from their living quarters. He'd have to cancel every single contract individually which is a pain in the arse since there are some renter-friendly regulations in private law, and then forcefully extradite every single inhabitant after months of sending them letters. Such an event would get media attention, and the general public would be on the side of the renters I assume.

Problem is you'd need to organize all parties in the house to stay as one block, and people have no balls.

Buildings in burgerland don't have fire escapes?

If commieblocks looked like pic related, I'd be cool with that shit.

Those type of apartments are built in almost every European city for the upper middle class folk.

They are entirely unaffordable and are almost always vacant. They're are building an entire quarter of these blocks not far from where I'm living, and the average 2-room apartment rent is 2000€ a month. It's not even in a nice area or has good connection to public transport.

sometimes

Actually, after looking it up, you might be right, lmao.

Imagine coming home drunk and living on the top level.

By the way, these buildings are in Belgrad and are still communally managed by the inhabitants, remnant of Yugo Market Socialism.

Flats are comfy.
Actually I'd like to bring back homesteading in the USA, subject to some tweaking to stop corporations ruining it. (Or, y'know, just having socialism.)

"wew" they are called condoms

You must've kissed your mom recently, to know that

There's not to many more native Americans to push out of the way for that. This said, id be totally in favor of homsteading county club golf courses. Steal porky's land.

george carlin had the same idea in an old stand up bit

this is beautiful, the practicality of denser housing without the ugliness of commieblocks and some trees and flowers and nature shit thrown in too

Bauhaus style communal buildings , managed by public officials and resident co-operatives.

Who ever smells the worst gets the biggest house, simple.

Smelly Smelly Plop Plops

Not everyone can be as idealistic as you m80.

In defense of commieblocks, they were thrown up very quickly to give some semblance of modern living to millions of people.

you've got my vote

Which is why as commieblocks they'd be fine.

If housing for working people looked like that, some of the more asinine complaints about socialism wouldn't come about.

Old timey agrarian village because humans aren't meant for big cities

yeah I'm with this guy. Decentralized libertarian municipalities of small agrarian home farms

Yes, let's go backwards in technical capacity so we can spend an entire day farming for food.

We should obviously condense the human population into sustainable cities and leave most of the earth's land surface untouched to reverse this mass extinction event.

Well we do know that this was a sustainable way of living. People got more days off and lunch breaks were long enough to take a nap.

Going back technologically isn't a bad thing.

But cities aren't healthy for humans to live in. We were meant to living in small rural communities not large cities.

independent.co.uk/news/science/human-brain-hard-wired-for-rural-tranquillity-8996368.html

We already solved this, just implement an LVT.

It is a bad thing you dumb prim poster. The entire point of technology is to make our lives easier. Why would I want to manually farm my food would I could use machines/robotics and get a much greater output for little time investment. Not to mention vertical farming in cities which would occupy much less land mass. Your rural shit hole would be just as bad as what we have now, environmentally speaking, unless you plan on killing 95% of the human population.

independent.co.uk/news/science/human-brain-hard-wired-for-rural-tranquillity-8996368.html

It's comparing modern day, capitalistic cities with traffic jams, noise, and confusing navigation. It's completely possible to plan a city which is more natural, forested, and whatever; it could accomplish the same neurological results as a rural area.

It was a sustainable way of living for 100 million people. Now there are more than 7 billion.

This guy gets it.

There's no reason why you couldn't have a computer to shitpost on, work a career, and spend half an hour a day in a garden to have a semi-self sufficent lifestyle. I think you should listen to this before assuming that every person before the 1900's had to spend 12 hours a day in a crop field.

youtube.com/watch?v=jI-zrOj-g-o

I want libertarian municipalist brutalist commieblock vertical farms covered in solar panels, maintained by patlabors and 3d-printed drones.

Without having everyone starve to death and actually sustaining the environment you have to use technological advances like vertical farming. Any kind of large scale farming, even if decentralized and co-oped, will still have massive negative effects on the ecosystem. Pic related happened in my state without any major tech and was replaced with small agriculture communities that damaged the remaining forests and continue to do so to this day. To fully cooperate with the environment we can't just live in a utopian agrarian community

romanticising the rural is fash

This, if you google the article

linked to, all you get are a bunch of alt right sites like red ice linking to it with people commenting that urbanization is a jooish conspiracy

Gross. If you do high rises at least make an effort so they look pleasing.

Detach yourself from the neoliberal worldview, where we exist solely to reproduce and consume. There is little efficiency in constructing entire city blocks only to tear them down in less than two decades.

They just think they're cool and edgy for praising brutalism which literally no mentally sound human being likes.

The neo-liberal world gives you shiny skyscrapers and weird atrocities, not grey-brown functionality.

I like it for three reasons.
1. It conveys the sort of vaguely fascist (but benevolent) feeling you get from the technocratic government projects of the social-democratic era.
2. They point in that sort of modernist direction, even if they do look impressive. By comparison more traditional buildings always seem to point backwards, to pretend they've been around longer than they have. The arrow of time pointing the wrong direction.
3. Despite this technocratic modernity, they still seem to signpost place, you can tell which ones are British, which are Russian, etc, to a greater degree than with the totally interchangeable architecture of the post-fordist era, which depsite often generating entire essays worth of justification for how they link into the area, could be picked up and dropped off anywhere Sim-City style to no effect.

No. You have no balls. You have figured it out, now make it work. (Everyone else might not even have thought of doing this)
If nothing happens it's because you (or I), are not doing anything.

Expand the idea: How would you do it? Do you contact everyone at the same time? How would you approach the issue? How do you win people over?
Do you save up so you can collectively pay the property taxes before they're due? What about maintenance contracts?
How would just establish a framework to help coordinate it all?

The public might, but the MSM will likely spin it as "lazy" vagabonds refusing to pay rent. And the "hard-working" property owner as the big victim. They'll throw everything they can at you. (See the Recovered Factory Movement in Argentina)

Make no mistake: setting something up is hard.
I really like the idea. It's got a revolutionary vibe to it that your rarely see these days, outside of places like Rojava and Argentina.
If you're even slightly serious about this, I'm willing to help out, even if I probably don't live anywhere near you.
Landlords are cancer archive.is/HsOJw

Why does this even matter? A lot of these modern (including brutalist) buildings are orders of magnitude more pretentious than the structures they replace. Like neoliberals pretending that we live in a post-ideological world. Their entire edifices ooze with ideology ("Efficiency", it represents "x", blah blah). More so than any high-baroque palace ever has.

Contrast that with the "backwards" aesthetic which - outside of a few specific traditions (who's origins and meanings are mostly lost to time) - is primarily meant to look appealing.

There's nothing wrong with buildings being full of ideology, so long as it's good ideology. Even the skylines should be revolutionary.

Georgists?

The skylines need neon commie dickbutts

Utopian enough for me.

I swear to god this picture is making me anxious as fuck.

I see no reason to hate "commieblocks". The main reason they look like shit is because of the architectural designs and the lack of upkeep. Two things that can easily be changed and you still have effective housing.

ZAPU didn't take power

Sadly, the tank is right…

I have nothing to contribute but I wish this thread would live more, so bumping.

...

star trek

What do people even consider to be commieblocks? This is from Finland where I live.

Street level of the same suburb.

Inside one of the apartments.

these look so soulless from above

It depends where you are building them

In a major city, commieblocs exclusively with lots of greenspace, Suburbs are simply unsustainable.

In towns and Urban settlements, Commieblocs and/or some suburbs/farmsteads (depending on several factors)

Also it's a good idea to invest in some vertical farms in major cities and turn some of the farmland back to it's original biome because there is no point in having large amounts of farmland in the countryside

this is how housing would look in jezza's sydicalist UK

What about this? From 70's Estonia. It looks very efficient.

my autism loves this

Why? I'm not an anprim but I love nature.

And this from Finland. A suburb built in the 60's to house the people moving from the country side to cities. What makes this suburb special is that the buildings and roads were built to fit the geography, even if it wasn't the most cost efficient way to do it. To break the monotony flats weren't built next to each other, but row houses were built in between them.

thats pretty good
but i have a personal problem with fetishizing cities and suburbs that dont have the typical street facing on the sidewalk residents and business pre car era city centers.
i just love the busling street level of the various types of buildings that have an open front to the sidewalk were humans can walk

i basically think every city should be Barcelona

Some new architecture heavily inspired by scandinavian modernism is the way forward imo

Functional and simple without taking it too far, without the ridiculous view of humans as machines with only physical needs that so much modernist architecture had.

The beauty of commieblocks makes me cry every time. As much as I hate the soviets, I can still appreciate the superior architecture and urban planning.

And you are calling someone a cockroach, while advocating for human extermination.

I think that implied in the "commieblock" insult is the extreme uniformity on all levels; from one section of a building to another, from one (tree-barren) lawn from another, from one entire building to another, to the arrangement of a series of buildings to another. As well as the lack of color, decoration, aesthetic maintenance or even simple stylistic flair and geometric variation – it's all shoeboxes. To say nothing of the lack of greenery.

Now this is a very interesting variation, but still had many of the problems I listed.

I mean, I know they were operating on tight budgets to house a shitload of rural migrants and whatnot, but still, if there's one thing commies should have splurged on, it's urbanism. I mean, look at pic related, for fuck's sake.

Take those Finnish tenements. Tho the buildings themselves look rather like those of commieblocks, there's some variation in their arrangement, so it's not just a grid, or any geometric pattern for that matter. This gives it a more "organic" feel. Also, at street level, it transmits a much more modern, "high-budget" feel than the aerial photo. And of course, the internal photo shows it to be far more luxurious than a Soviet apartment, but that's another matter.