• 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    where nobody wants to live because it’s ugly and depressing and guaranteed, the poor end up having to live there, and with that comes crime and what not and you end up with ghetto style areas where even police is uneasy

    you should not give lectures about something you know from bad tv show at best.

    what a suprise, these communities look according to how you maintain them and people who live there are happy to have a place to live. and when it undergoes revitalization, it looks quite nice.

    the photo in the post is typical manipulation, everything looks grayish if you capture it in the middle of the winter with bad sky and trees without leaves.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      But they aren’t wrong either. Some places with these type of buildings have been build wrong. Like in the Netherlands in the 60’s they build an entire new neighborhood that had only these mega modernists apartment buildings that followed Le Corbusier futuristic vision. And nobody wanted to live there, because other neighborhoods with history were much more pleasant to live in. So eventually only the poor and desperate moved into the neighborhood. And the neighborhood turned into a rundown ghetto. Today almost every one of those 1960’s apartment buildings in that neighborhood has been torn down. Was much cheaper to rebuild from the ground up than to renovate. Same is true in many suburbs of Paris.

      • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        thay may very well be true, but that is not problem of the houses. architecture is not responsible for solving issues in the society. if you devastate your neighborhood, it is your fault, not the architect’s.

        same country, same houses, different residents: