Public Housing / Tenements / Commie Blocks / Projects / Housing Estates

[GNU]

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Some more from London...

The Trellick Tower, Ladbroke Grove... the ugliest block on the planet?

Oh dont bash the Trellik Tower.
When I first saw it and heard that it was a listed building I thought WTF?
But nowadays its one of my favourite buildings in London no doubt.
I love it!
People are actually paying a lot of money to rent an appartment there.
But maybe Im biased since my most favourite passiterie (The Lisboa) is just situated next to it!
Go there on a Saturday, get a cup of that great coffee they are making there and enjoy the view and the scene there,and Im sure youll fall in love with that building very soon.

[Sinjin P.]

what's that?

[Tubeman]

Originally Posted by michaelsinjin

what's that?

People live in it, apparently!

I'm actually quite fond of the Trellick Tower myself... Its so preposterously ugly that you end up liking it.

[london-b]

Originally Posted by Tubeman

People live in it, apparently!

I'm actually quite fond of the Trellick Tower myself... Its so preposterously ugly that you end up liking it.

I know what you mean

[Rational Plan]

Is there a qualitative difference in public in the housing between the US and the UK for example. The impression we get over here is that every US housing project is gangland central. The Infamy of Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes has travelled far through the Media. UK council housing has a variable reputation. High rise projects got a bad reputation in the UK because of poor construction standards or low maintanence spending meant many schemes degenreated. Early schemes in the 50's and 60's were considered prestigous and the envy of others. In fact many of the early schemes are still fondly regarded bt their tenants. By the Eighties it was recognised that if High rise was going to survive better security and management had to be considered. Many sound structures were transformed by the introduction of manned concierges/security doors and buzzers. Others were changed by decanting families from high rises and making them only for the over 55's. For example Trellick tower was always admired for its duplex apartments, but before the security system was put in when the tower effectively open to the street many residents had problems with homeless people in the corriders, drug dealers and muggings. But now buying a flat is quite expensive, (many were consequently sold off to its residents once it was revamped).
Many estates have variable reputations in the UK. When I visit relatives in Gateshead (Northern England) I would worry about walking through Leam Lane estate or Felling, but I would reluctant to slow the car the Old Fold, Springwell or Beacon Lough.

[Manila-X]

A little off but the biggest difference is public housing in the US/Europe compared to Asia. Public housing were very successful in cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Especially in Singapore where 80% of the entire population live in public housing.

Hong Kong's housing estates were notorious but had security later on. Now, the city has alot of subsidized flats in which the living conditions inside has improved.

Other countries with successful public housing programs are Japan and South Korea.

[Manila-X]

Hong Kong housing estates

[i_am_hydrogen]

Some Chicago housing projects. They have either been torn down or are in the process of being torn down, which means many poor Blacks are being displaced.

[bustero]

I think there is also a cultural/sociological difference and also in the manner these things are implemented. Public HOusing for many western countries are actually more accurately described as low cost housing for lower income households. Public Housing in Asia in general actually includes a big chunk of the middle class. Hence you already have a big difference, where in many "projects " in the west are designed to house poor people who want to leave for better places if they can afford it. In asia, this is generally it. Add the fact that Westerners are more individualistic versus Asian collectivism and it makes it more difficult to build a sense of community and eventually an actual one so they could make the thing work.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by bustero

I think there is also a cultural/sociological difference and also in the manner these things are implemented. Public HOusing for many western countries are actually more accurately described as low cost housing for lower income households. Public Housing in Asia in general actually includes a big chunk of the middle class. Hence you already have a big difference, where in many "projects " in the west are designed to house poor people who want to leave for better places if they can afford it. In asia, this is generally it. Add the fact that Westerners are more individualistic versus Asian collectivism and it makes it more difficult to build a sense of community and eventually an actual one so they could make the thing work.

That case is more for countries like Singapore, South Korea or Japan but in regions like Hong Kong, public housing is more lower-middle class and below.

In the case of Cabrini-Green, I think the Chicago Housing Authority have built mixed residential units.

[redstone]

Last time in the 1950s to 1970s, public housing in Singapore were built quick. To solve problem of slums and villages.

But now, in the 1980s onwards, flats were built in more aesthetic sense. Public housing here, 'class' isn't defined.

[nomarandlee]

Man, these things are really pretty much ugly and uniform no matter where you go. I would actually say L.A. has some of the nicer ones. There at least much public housing they give you a lawn and driveway. Not that they are much less rid of crime or full of problems though.

[DnH]

Can you post pics of these neighborhoods from GOOGLE EARTH?

[bustero]

One other big diff. the US model actually has a rent subsidized system. Many other ones like HK or Sing , SELL their units. The Public portion actually has more to do with either access to affordable land like HK or managed public funds like HDB.

[Manila-X]

Actually alot of housing estates in HK are subsidized. I don't know much about Singapore's HDB and they plans.

[redstone]

A great majority of flats here were built by HDB (Housing & Development Board). Housing estates built in the 1930s to early 1960s were by SIT (Singapore Improvement Trust).

SIT flats were in Art Deco, Bauhaus and 50s Modern styles. Very unique.
SIT also built some highrise flats. They had very unique styles, but unfortunately most are gone now.

I think Singapore public housing are cheap as compared to those in other cities and are very well maintained. Repainted or cleaned every few years.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by TalB

Here's a couple of other Manhattan housing projects I didn't mention originally.
Bradhurst Ct

This is most certainly not public housing...

TalB, at least a thrid of the projects you've shown are actually not NYCHA (New York City Housing Authority) owned and operated. There is a clear difference.

[Manila-X]

I think alot of residential tower blocks in New York have this architecture that can be mistaken for public housing or any property owned by the New York Housing Authority.

I also was thinking that Brandhurst Ct. used to be public housing and is now renovated and privatized. Kinda similar to what happened to the Hilliard Homes in Chicago.



This used to be a CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) housing project but instead of toring it down, the complex was renovated and is now an apartment complex for families and senior citizens. The council decided to refurbish the complex because it was placed under the National Register of Historic Places because of the apartment's design.

Hilliard Apartments is now under the Holsten Real Estate Corporation.

http://www.hilliardapartments.com

[redstone]

This is Singapore's first public housing estate, buit in the 1930s. Now a conservation area:

See the patch of red roofed buildings to the left?

The 3 small squarish Bauhaus buildings belong to same estate, but they were built in the 1950s. Many of them had already been demolished.

[Manila-X]

Singapore's first housing estates has a modern look despite being built during the 1930s. They look like buildings from the 50s or 60s

Here's an image of one of the first housing estates in Hong Kong, built during the 1950s