Housing in a communist society

But how should it be decided if a house or a apartment building or even a skyscraper should be built? If it's a house how do you decide how big the house is? Most people want big mansions, but there is a limited amount of land on this planet. Even if you could cover up the entire surface of the Earth with land, there is still a limited amount of land, you will need to build skyscrapers at one point or another, plus some of that land must be reserved to forests, farms and so on.
If your answer is that people just democratically elect what to be built, what do you do when everybody wants huge mansion all for themselves and with a good view to the lake/river/sea? Do they destroy other houses just to clear up land and construct an artificial lake?

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant in a densely populated city, as pictured in the OP. Can you clarify those last two sentences? I'm not sure if the latter one contains an error or not.

That thread wasn't mine. I felt the few responses I got, and the ensuing discussion, strayed too far from my questions and that the responses would be better in a dedicated thread. Also please don't cuss at me.

That still doesn't answer how scarce property would be distributed.

If everyone wants a house, then we build a house for everyone.

There's a limited amount of people too.

Why not? I think we're gonna start with New-York.

So you just assume densely populated cities will continue to exist. Why? You are saying yourself that people prefer a beautiful view on water, why would they keep cities?

While there is a limited amount of people, that number will grow, unless you have something like China, which bans more than two kids per family. I will assume that you are an anarchist though. What isn't limited, is the desire for wealth. One measurement is the size of the house and it's courtyard, garden, walls, helipad, landing strip, and so on. Not everybody can have huge mansions, because there isn't enough space, plus you need some space reserved for wildlife, farms, schools, electrical plants and so on.
Someone in this thread also said how people want to live near their jobs. One good way of making sure that a lot of people live near their job is by building a skyscraper.

Are there any communists out there? I want an answer.

This is pure speculation. Actually, the evidence suggests the exact opposite: the wealthier a society is, the less children it has.

You assume wrong, I'm a communist.

You mean mansions with helipad and landing strip? I don't see a single reason why anybody should have that. As fora little garden, yes, everybody could have that.

A better one is to scatter the jobs.

Fair enough, maybe the population won't rise, however their desires will always be infinite as people always desire more, but land will remain scarce.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that communism is a classless, moneyless and stateless society. Was Stalin's Russia communist, then?

Are you denying my right to use helicopters and planes? Are you saying that I can have a huge mansion, but I shouldn't have planes and helicopters? Now you will say that I can't have submarines, yachts and giant mechas as well.

Normally, factories that create an item are placed as close as possible in order to maximize efficiency, that is the cost of transportation, the cost of maintaining the product at certain conditions if necessary(such as temperature and pressure) during travel, the time it takes for the product to be sent from one factory to another and the efficiency of management. While it's true that some jobs, like web programming can be scattered, not all of them should be, if you care about efficiency.

The state decides. You apply a form and the state issues you a house according to the number of people you are.

The view is given to those who need it. The more stressfull the work you do, the better view you get.

Until everyone has virtual views and everything is fine.

Consumerism is created by capitalism. Don't think socialism with a capitalist mindset.

Yes it is. Have I said otherwise?

Hell no.

My, my. It's even worse: you can't own anything. Anything.

… is a capitalist concept.

It's hard to draw a line because it's subjective. But IMO, all the "best" housing spots should be transformed into hotels that you can queue for and vacation at. For who would get the best spot at an apartment, it should be first come first serve, some people would want to move frequently because they're no longer bound by capitalism.

Wanting a huge mansion is reinforced by capitalism.

Humans have always been adaptive.

It's not a right, your desire to to use helicopters and planes is fabricated. Think about how much resources and labor it takes to produce these things, do you think people would want to work so you can joy ride in a helicopter? No one is going to work so a few individuals can live in luxury.

...

Housing is based on family size. You can choose how its built, though in urban areas you might have to choose an apartment instead

Let's give new-yorkers the choice about where and in which conditions they want to live, and if they all flee from New-York because they crave for a nice view on a lake, let replace the deserted buildings with something else.

You don't think cities are eternal, do you?

And what if everyone in the world wants a mansion by the lake? Theres only so many lakes and if you start building apartments, you'll just end up with NYC again

The state has to always be under check and the representative of the people, not a cast of beurocrats.

Plus, the idea of everyone wanting the exact same scarce thing is absurd.

Then we will decide who goes by the lake and who doesn't, based on God knows what criterion we find appropriate. What is the fucking problem?

See
Isn't anarchism the same thing with stateless?

There is only so much land you can transform into lakes. Even if you covered all the seas with dirt, it's still limited. Plus who decides how big the houses can be?

At least capitalists have a simple answer. If all people want houses near lake, then the prices for land near lake will increase, so that only those that really want and have the money can have the house near the lake. I am not saying, that we should agree with this answer, but at least they can provide a simple answer to the what if everybody wanted X.

...

If we're under communism, then by definition there is no scarcity, as the technological advancement remove any natural scarcity. So in this particular case, you could be able to create to create as much paradisiac places as needed, so no communism until space faring and terraforming technologies i guess….

Not having a nature is human nature.

But seriously, the question of nature deserve better than meme tier muh greed muh tribe vs tabula rasa. Where can i find good works about this?

Fromm, "Marx's concept of Man" is a good start

Well, I'm pretty sure you just answered your question yourself.
Scatter all factories. Localize production. Minimize transport.
Or make transportation non scarce through automatic cars/drones running on renewable energy.

Why would you own any of these things? You can't possible exert their full use value, meaning that these things would be owned communally so as to maximize use value.

Okay, you seem pretty un-informed about leftism, here's a very quick very surface-level rundown.
A stateless, classless, moneyless society. All leftists are communists in the sense that they all strive for the communist society. When people say they are communist though, they usually mean some form of marxism or marxism-leninism.
The phase of society that will strive for communism, usually defined as a society in which the workers own the means of production. This society can be arranged in any number of ways, as long as the workers own the means of production it's considered socialist.
A method of leftist revolution, wherein the goal is establishing stateless socialism.
A method of leftist revolution, wherein the goal is establishing socialism through a dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is a quick and easy run-down, so you can at least pretend that you get what people is talking about when participating in discussions here.

They don't, they just pin everything down to another question: "who can have the most money?". To that of course they have no answer. The only reason you find it simple is because you were born and raised in a capitalist society: this just seems natural to you.

Communism does provide a simple answer though: people will decide who gets the best house.

Sorry but no, socialism isn't "workers owning the means of production". Socialism is the first stage of the communist society. In other words, socialism is already a moneyless, classless, stateless society.

Workers will own the means of production during the dictatorship of proletariat, in capitalism, before socialism. Their task is precisely to use these means of production in order to complete the Revolution and get to socialism. Once the Revolution is complete, there is no "working class" or ownership anymore.