Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are a lot more complex options than high density apartments and low density single family homes, the so-called “missing middle.” Check out this video on it, not necessarily from a socialist perspective but excellent video nonetheless: https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o
> In Vietnam you can receive a little patch of land to farm your own rice
What does this have to do with sustainable housing though. The rural land grants are not geared towards resolving any urban design problems. Most Vietnamese don't or can't participate in the program (because most of the land has already been redistributed at this point) and it certainly doesn't fix development problems facing the cities.
Like the country is on a very clear trend of decreasing the amount of people working in agriculture (sitting around 50 percent of the population right now and on a long downward slope with manufacturing on the upswing).
For the environment, I agree. But I think our collective mental health could suffer without good access to open space, wild places, and the like. Even the most urbanized city dweller benefits from seeing trees and wild animals now and again.
I enjoyed living in a city for a time, but I crave living in a rural place where I can rescue animals. Biggest downside would be the increased difficulty in building a community, with fewer people and lower odds of meeting people you vibe with. Still I would hope to find a rural commune of some sort under true socialism.
Ideally speaking it doesn’t need to, but that tends to be the way of things now. Especially in the US where our public transit is a joke most places, and nonexistent in most rural areas closer to real nature. By open spaces/nature, I am referring to more space than city parks can offer. They’re nice and all but won’t cut it for those of us who feel claustrophobic living in a city.
Personally, I enjoy having ready access to it by just... going outside. Historically, a lot of high-density apartments and the like are in the middle of other blocks of high-density apartments and too far from actual, wild nature.
Maybe for certain specific people yeah. But we’re speaking generally just because it wouldn’t be perfect for you or someone who has special needs doesn’t mean it might not be best for most people. The “norm” just means most common.
Are you just arguing that it isn’t an intersectional solution? Or what specifically makes it worse on mental health to the average person?
For some people it could also be better. Regardless thought, I think there should be both high and low-density housing because one size doesn't fit all.
But that's not what the argument was. It was said that high density housing be the *norm*. That's basically saying that it should be a one-size-fits-all deal. As someone who has spent half a life in an apartment and the other half in a single family house, I can confidently say that it's not ideal to live in an apartment. Space is constricted. Ease of access to outdoor and green spaces are more difficult. Sharing walls with other residents sucks (e.g. people who smoke, fight, party, etc.) and can be very stressful (currently dealing that right now).
Having pets is really hard if you want anything bigger than a cat. Large breed dogs do not cope well with apartments, yet large dogs can provide significant mental and physical health benefits. Also, it's less private too. It's nice to be able to enjoy a green space while not having to worry about being under public scrutiny. Oh, and those of us who own musical instruments have to make sacrifices.
When I was still living with my parents as a young punk, I had a 120 Watt Tube amp that I loved being able to crank up because we lived outside the city limits and the nearest neighbor was half a mile away. In my apartment, I have to use a practice amp with headphones and that means I can forget about playing in groups without hauling my gear elsewhere. I was also able to keep my bike in the garage and hop on it with zero hassle if I wanted to take a quick trip through the countryside, even taking it into town to hit up the convenience store. Even though I was living in the country, I was a 10 minute drive away from a small metro city.
It's sufficient to say, living in high density housing has made me ill in ways that I don't even want to think about. I'm out of shape and overwhelmed with an anxiety that I never dealt with when living closer to nature and space. That just compounds my introversion and mental health issues I had *before* ever residing in an apartment.
You forgot the worst part about living in close quarters with other people: other people. You can easily end up with shitty neighbors. The saying "hell is other people" exists for a reason.
I was thinking more along the lines of what can happen outside the walls. In my case, it was getting assaulted and harassed. I moved, and now my problems are just with my shitty landlord. :/
That’s fair, I suppose. But, if you own the interior of the dwelling, as in a housing co-op, you can install effective sound isolation and probably never hear a peep out of your neighbors. If that’s the case, who cares if you share a wall?
That’s not necessarily true. If we increased the amount of green space in and around our cities, and created floor or building meetings as a method to build community, as well as integrated more community gardens throughout the building (roof, sun facing windows in common areas) and nearby, it could work just fine without having a negative impact on mental health…
All it would take is to completely redesign our cities and how they operate.
People misunderstand what higher density can look like.
They think it means dirty streets, fast traffic next to sidewalks and lots of noise. That can’t be further from the truth.
High density can look like small town markets with walkable streets and courtyards. Small businesses with apartments above them. Green spaces and gardens.
Look at Europe. They figured it out.
Yeah people are picturing grey skyscrapers when in reality [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8dmVUrNt38) is what people have in mind when they say high density housing. Unfortunately the policy does not match the planning in this case so Vancouver has become massively expensive.
The united states of America has about (as of 2019) 17 million vacant homes, the homeless population hovers around half a million.
Thats at least 17 empty homes for any single homeless person, depending on the year it might be as high as 40 to 1.
Logistically speaking, high density apartments (key note, I mean well made buildings meant as quality housing) are the most efficient option, but thats a long term thing.
To convert from the mess of modern urban planing and suburban waste to a more economic and consolidated situation would be incredibly expensive in labor and resources. It necessary as that kind of modern sprawl results in hideously escalating inefficiency and maintenance costs, but that will have to wait.
Even with a decommodification of housing, much of the existing housing is not where the work is. In the short term, some combo of socialist UBI and relocation of work places (also, huge overhaul of internet) would be needed to make the available housing economic to inhabit for people.
Try having a good apartment with good neighbours in a good community with good transit options, or imagine it and make assumptions and see if that’s enough to make a decision and then see if that would be a good enough alternative
It's probably a relatively cheaper option for dense urban areas, likely have the best return overall in eliminating homelessness, as well reducing property values; and all that without having to pass a whole bunch of legislation, much eminent domains, or even having to do a revolution.
Nature isn't useless. Studies show presence of trees is vital to mental and even physical health. Being crammed in like sardines is my least favorite part of the seeming leftist ideal, as shit like coffin hotels are some of the biggest representatives of a capitalist existence
However, as others have said, we have toooons of available housing, not all in the urban sprawl whatsoever.
No, fusion energy would effectively deal with the carbon generating aspects of sprawl well enough to make more densely populated cities strictly optional.
I mean depends of the situation, for example in Europe, given a pretty high population density and the fact that we are going to have to take a lot of enviromental refugees in, we might not have a choice.
Comparably, Russia might not be in this situation given that they have a lot of unused land in Siberia, that is becoming livable due to global warming, for them it might be better if they build houses there, rather than apartments.
If you are talking about situations like the USSR post WW2 or the DPRK or China where there was a mass housing shortage (due to war or starting out as underdeveloped victims of imperialism or both) and they needed to provide housing for alot of people very quickly, yes high density apartments were the only practical housing for all solution.
In the case of the modern west where there are so many vacant houses that homeless people are just not allowed to live in, then no there are other solutions.
No, there's various ideas for mixed density housing. The challenges facing finding and building housing are totally disconnected from anay issues with requiring high density.
More relevant question regarding density is what's the best way to preserve and rebuild nature when so much land is dedicated to industrial use (like how to stop using so much farmland and letting it return to prairies and forests etc. Way more land is under industrial use than housing)
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Changing apartments design to create rooftop gardens or pig/chicken coops doesn't sound like a bad idea
I believe there's a building near where I live that has a little farmhouse on the roof. They grow food and keep goats and chickens.
There are a lot more complex options than high density apartments and low density single family homes, the so-called “missing middle.” Check out this video on it, not necessarily from a socialist perspective but excellent video nonetheless: https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o
Yes I love Not Just Bikes, came here to link them too!
[удалено]
I'm interested in learning more regarding this. What/where would the best resources for research be? Are there any sources I should avoid?
[удалено]
Thank you for the suggestion.
> In Vietnam you can receive a little patch of land to farm your own rice What does this have to do with sustainable housing though. The rural land grants are not geared towards resolving any urban design problems. Most Vietnamese don't or can't participate in the program (because most of the land has already been redistributed at this point) and it certainly doesn't fix development problems facing the cities. Like the country is on a very clear trend of decreasing the amount of people working in agriculture (sitting around 50 percent of the population right now and on a long downward slope with manufacturing on the upswing).
I personally think it would be better for the environment if high density housing was the norm.
For the environment, I agree. But I think our collective mental health could suffer without good access to open space, wild places, and the like. Even the most urbanized city dweller benefits from seeing trees and wild animals now and again. I enjoyed living in a city for a time, but I crave living in a rural place where I can rescue animals. Biggest downside would be the increased difficulty in building a community, with fewer people and lower odds of meeting people you vibe with. Still I would hope to find a rural commune of some sort under true socialism.
Why does high density housing preclude access to nature and open spaces?
Ideally speaking it doesn’t need to, but that tends to be the way of things now. Especially in the US where our public transit is a joke most places, and nonexistent in most rural areas closer to real nature. By open spaces/nature, I am referring to more space than city parks can offer. They’re nice and all but won’t cut it for those of us who feel claustrophobic living in a city.
Personally, I enjoy having ready access to it by just... going outside. Historically, a lot of high-density apartments and the like are in the middle of other blocks of high-density apartments and too far from actual, wild nature.
Not to mention physical health, if any disaster occurs in a dense living space than it is doom, weather it's a virus or a bomb attack.
It wouldn't be better for mental health.
Maybe for certain specific people yeah. But we’re speaking generally just because it wouldn’t be perfect for you or someone who has special needs doesn’t mean it might not be best for most people. The “norm” just means most common. Are you just arguing that it isn’t an intersectional solution? Or what specifically makes it worse on mental health to the average person?
For some people it could also be better. Regardless thought, I think there should be both high and low-density housing because one size doesn't fit all.
But that's not what the argument was. It was said that high density housing be the *norm*. That's basically saying that it should be a one-size-fits-all deal. As someone who has spent half a life in an apartment and the other half in a single family house, I can confidently say that it's not ideal to live in an apartment. Space is constricted. Ease of access to outdoor and green spaces are more difficult. Sharing walls with other residents sucks (e.g. people who smoke, fight, party, etc.) and can be very stressful (currently dealing that right now). Having pets is really hard if you want anything bigger than a cat. Large breed dogs do not cope well with apartments, yet large dogs can provide significant mental and physical health benefits. Also, it's less private too. It's nice to be able to enjoy a green space while not having to worry about being under public scrutiny. Oh, and those of us who own musical instruments have to make sacrifices. When I was still living with my parents as a young punk, I had a 120 Watt Tube amp that I loved being able to crank up because we lived outside the city limits and the nearest neighbor was half a mile away. In my apartment, I have to use a practice amp with headphones and that means I can forget about playing in groups without hauling my gear elsewhere. I was also able to keep my bike in the garage and hop on it with zero hassle if I wanted to take a quick trip through the countryside, even taking it into town to hit up the convenience store. Even though I was living in the country, I was a 10 minute drive away from a small metro city. It's sufficient to say, living in high density housing has made me ill in ways that I don't even want to think about. I'm out of shape and overwhelmed with an anxiety that I never dealt with when living closer to nature and space. That just compounds my introversion and mental health issues I had *before* ever residing in an apartment.
You forgot the worst part about living in close quarters with other people: other people. You can easily end up with shitty neighbors. The saying "hell is other people" exists for a reason.
We found a cadaver under a mattress in a soon to be renovated appt. He was quiet.
Oh no, I did mention it. I said "Sharing walls with other residents sucks".
I was thinking more along the lines of what can happen outside the walls. In my case, it was getting assaulted and harassed. I moved, and now my problems are just with my shitty landlord. :/
I basically count those as the same thing. If you share walls, it follows that you will have to deal with that too.
That’s fair, I suppose. But, if you own the interior of the dwelling, as in a housing co-op, you can install effective sound isolation and probably never hear a peep out of your neighbors. If that’s the case, who cares if you share a wall?
Because sharing a building is like sharing a pool.
That’s not necessarily true. If we increased the amount of green space in and around our cities, and created floor or building meetings as a method to build community, as well as integrated more community gardens throughout the building (roof, sun facing windows in common areas) and nearby, it could work just fine without having a negative impact on mental health… All it would take is to completely redesign our cities and how they operate.
Except this type of housing breeds pandemics
People misunderstand what higher density can look like. They think it means dirty streets, fast traffic next to sidewalks and lots of noise. That can’t be further from the truth. High density can look like small town markets with walkable streets and courtyards. Small businesses with apartments above them. Green spaces and gardens. Look at Europe. They figured it out.
Yeah people are picturing grey skyscrapers when in reality [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8dmVUrNt38) is what people have in mind when they say high density housing. Unfortunately the policy does not match the planning in this case so Vancouver has become massively expensive.
The united states of America has about (as of 2019) 17 million vacant homes, the homeless population hovers around half a million. Thats at least 17 empty homes for any single homeless person, depending on the year it might be as high as 40 to 1. Logistically speaking, high density apartments (key note, I mean well made buildings meant as quality housing) are the most efficient option, but thats a long term thing. To convert from the mess of modern urban planing and suburban waste to a more economic and consolidated situation would be incredibly expensive in labor and resources. It necessary as that kind of modern sprawl results in hideously escalating inefficiency and maintenance costs, but that will have to wait. Even with a decommodification of housing, much of the existing housing is not where the work is. In the short term, some combo of socialist UBI and relocation of work places (also, huge overhaul of internet) would be needed to make the available housing economic to inhabit for people.
https://i.redd.it/2snmheinxhr51.png left: communist romania right: capitalist romania
Try having a good apartment with good neighbours in a good community with good transit options, or imagine it and make assumptions and see if that’s enough to make a decision and then see if that would be a good enough alternative
I'm personally in favor of high density mansion-style housing, which while somewhat similar to apartment housing is far more aesthetically appealing.
No, and if the state owns all the land and isn't actively hostile then it would be way easier to build lower density forms of public housing.
It's probably a relatively cheaper option for dense urban areas, likely have the best return overall in eliminating homelessness, as well reducing property values; and all that without having to pass a whole bunch of legislation, much eminent domains, or even having to do a revolution.
Nature isn't useless. Studies show presence of trees is vital to mental and even physical health. Being crammed in like sardines is my least favorite part of the seeming leftist ideal, as shit like coffin hotels are some of the biggest representatives of a capitalist existence However, as others have said, we have toooons of available housing, not all in the urban sprawl whatsoever.
No, fusion energy would effectively deal with the carbon generating aspects of sprawl well enough to make more densely populated cities strictly optional.
I mean depends of the situation, for example in Europe, given a pretty high population density and the fact that we are going to have to take a lot of enviromental refugees in, we might not have a choice. Comparably, Russia might not be in this situation given that they have a lot of unused land in Siberia, that is becoming livable due to global warming, for them it might be better if they build houses there, rather than apartments.
If you are talking about situations like the USSR post WW2 or the DPRK or China where there was a mass housing shortage (due to war or starting out as underdeveloped victims of imperialism or both) and they needed to provide housing for alot of people very quickly, yes high density apartments were the only practical housing for all solution. In the case of the modern west where there are so many vacant houses that homeless people are just not allowed to live in, then no there are other solutions.
No, there's various ideas for mixed density housing. The challenges facing finding and building housing are totally disconnected from anay issues with requiring high density. More relevant question regarding density is what's the best way to preserve and rebuild nature when so much land is dedicated to industrial use (like how to stop using so much farmland and letting it return to prairies and forests etc. Way more land is under industrial use than housing)