#MassProduction #AffordableHousing #SovietApartments #WealthyCountries #HousingCrisis
🏙️ Have you ever wondered why modern wealthy countries can’t just mass produce apartments like the Soviets did? It seems like an efficient solution to the housing crisis, but the reality is much more complex. Let’s dive into the factors that prevent the mass production of apartments in today’s world.
## The Legacy of Soviet Mass Production 🏢
During the Soviet era, the government was able to mass produce standardized apartment blocks to address the housing shortage. This approach involved constructing prefabricated panels that could be quickly assembled on-site, leading to the rapid expansion of housing in urban areas. However, this system had its drawbacks, including lack of variety in design and poor construction quality.
## Challenges in Modern Wealthy Countries 💰
While the Soviet approach may have been effective in rapidly providing housing, modern wealthy countries face a different set of challenges that make mass production of apartments more difficult:
### Economic Factors
1. **Land Costs**: In wealthy countries, the cost of land in urban areas can be prohibitively expensive, making it difficult to acquire large plots for mass housing projects.
2. **Labor Costs**: Skilled labor is often costly, and construction wages in wealthier countries are higher than in the Soviet era.
### Regulatory Environment
1. **Building Codes and Standards**: Modern building codes and safety standards are more stringent, requiring additional time and resources for compliance.
2. **Zoning and Planning Regulations**: The intricate zoning laws in wealthy countries often restrict the density of residential developments, making it challenging to mass produce apartments.
### Market Demand
1. **Variety in Housing Preferences**: Unlike the standardized Soviet apartments, modern consumers demand a wide range of housing options and amenities, making mass production of one-size-fits-all apartments less appealing.
2. **Profitability and Investment**: Private developers in wealthy countries are driven by profit, and the financial viability of mass producing apartments is often uncertain.
## Alternatives to Mass Production 🏗️
Given the challenges of mass producing apartments in wealthy countries, alternative approaches to addressing the housing crisis have emerged:
### Innovative Construction Techniques
1. **Prefabrication and Modular Construction**: While not on the same scale as Soviet mass production, modern technologies allow for off-site prefabrication and modular construction, reducing construction time and costs.
2. **Smart Design and Sustainability**: Emphasizing energy-efficient and sustainable building practices, modern developments strive to create more livable and environmentally friendly housing options.
### Public-Private Partnerships
1. **Affordable Housing Initiatives**: Collaborations between government agencies and private developers aim to create affordable housing options through subsidies and incentives.
2. **Mixed-Use Developments**: Integrating residential spaces with commercial and community facilities can maximize the utility of urban land and address housing needs.
### Policy Reforms and Incentives
1. **Flexible Zoning Policies**: Some cities have adopted flexible zoning regulations to encourage denser development and affordable housing projects.
2. **Tax Credits and Grants**: Offering financial incentives for developers to invest in affordable housing can help overcome the challenges of profitability.
## Conclusion: Balancing Efficiency and Quality 🏠
While mass production of apartments like the Soviets did may not be feasible in modern wealthy countries, there are alternative approaches to address the housing crisis. By leveraging innovative construction techniques, fostering public-private partnerships, and implementing policy reforms, it is possible to provide affordable housing without compromising on quality and diversity of options. Balancing efficiency with the demands of a modern housing market, wealthy countries can work towards sustainable solutions to the ongoing housing challenges.
They can/could; that’s not where the big money is so well …
Because socialism is for the people and most wealthy countries social values are individualism and selfishness. Why would you create homes for people when you can rent and collect more money? It’s a business decision.
They easily could.
Considering you can’t get Republicans to support raising the federal minimum wage, what makes you think we could convince them to build everyone an apartment.
The wealthy people own houses as investments, if the price of homes decreases they’ll be unhappy. So every city and Torn absolutely refuses to do anything that would upset them.
We did between the 50’s and 70’s. Between *post war rebuilding,* and *decolonization* there was a huge need for housing.
Yes many of these building are ugly, have a bad acoustic insulation. However, it provided housing with modern facilities (Suddenly every apartment had a bathroom with shower and toilets, which was a massive improvement compared to pre WW2 building).
We could totally launch a similar plan. It’s expensive, may require the government to buy land to private owner, but it’s just a matter of putting the political priorities, and today, the government prioritize *rich people yacht* over normal people well being
Theoretically they could, but they set up building regulations so that they don’t get built:
– Lots of planning/zoning laws restrict how dense developments can get because increased density is strongly correlated with things like crime, antisocial behaviour, and generally a lower quality of life.
– Lots of people living close together places a huge demand on local services and infrastructure.
– Because of the above, there is always lots of political opposition to large apartment blocks going up.
– No-one wants to live crammed together like sardines in a tin, having neighbours on all sides, and not owning the building that you live in.
We have. Take a look at welfare housing projects.
Apartments in SU, were not bult and given for free. They were built on request of different factories, companies and other facilities, to accommodate their workers rent-free. After SU fell, people acquire rights to make them their own.
I don’t know how it is in other countries but in Ukraine still some factories and facilities have this practice. They either build apartment complex and rent it for free for their workers(especially when factory is who know where), Or just gather part of salary as low cost investment fund and build apartment complex and giveaway apartments. For example my parents bought apartment( from apartment complex which were built in 1999) from port worker who got it this way.
Modern countries aren’t communist dictatorships. It costs a lot of money to build and administer housing complexes. Philadelphia spends 500 million to house 80,000 people and that’s just maintenance. Actually building new housing would be magnitudes higher. To get that money, you need to have the political support to have a budget passed. Public housing is known for crime and is stigmatized so it’s hard to get political support for it.
The Soviet Union collapsing probably puts a damper on following Soviet policies.
Those Soviet apartment wouldn’t meet building codes anywhere in the US.
The US built “The Projects” and they were generally terrible places to grow up. Concentrations of poverty, terrible funding for upkeep, etc.
Some cities did. They were called “The Projects.”
Like Singapore and Taiwan and China do?
Those apartments were shitty death traps.
Also, just giving a person a home isn’t going to fix the problems that made them homeless in the first place. You need to focus on fixing those problems or they’ll just end up out on the street again.
UK did back in the… I wanna say 70’s?
The idea was these lovely high-rise places, where you and your neighbours would laugh together, and be able to keep an eye on your kids playing in the little playground that was in the communal area on the ground-level. Apartments are called ‘Flats’ over here.
It also helped save space because on the footprint of, say 10 houses, You get 40 or 50 flats.
Along with the fact that they weren’t huge, they were able to be sold a lot cheaper than houses.
To make it even cheaper to build, they were normally put on land in the slightly ‘rougher’ parts of the city, in order to try and ‘revitalise’ the area.
The government saw this and jumped on it as a solution for social housing.
The government then used these to house all the folk who are on ‘Benefits’ – UK term for ‘social’ payment I guess?
The issue happens where there a few ‘bad eggs’ who live on benefits with no ambition to get off them, and supplement their income with petty crime etc. This part of society can be pretty scumbaggy, and the result was vandalism and intimiadation around the flats. After all, There were areas that were outside, but out of the weather – Great place for teens and the like to sit and drink and be bored.
Over time, the non-scumbag residents kinda had enough of it and moved on, and the blocks get a reputation. So the only people that want to move there tend to already be in those circles.
You end up with a housing area where a large proportion of folk are scumbags, and the rest tend to be retirees or folk who are on disability (I.e people genuinely in need of the government support) and well, the whole area kinda becomes one of ‘those places’ in the city.
Adding into that that the buildings did not age well – They just look like giant concrete oblongs with windows, very grey and depressing-looking.
Building a lot of cheap housing would negatively impact the market by driving down prices; there is far more money to be gained from keeping homes scarce and prices high.
Governments often cannot really act decisively on the matter either: the political system in most countries is set up such that the government is not allowed to go into direct competition with corporations, so rather than build a bunch of low income housing they have to contract corporations to do large housing projects for them, and low income housing is the last thing they want to build. (because it’s the least profitable amd has the biggest negative effect on housing prices at large)
“Why don’t we solve housing problem / world hunger / deforestation / loss of wildlife habitats / world peace / etc?”
Because it’s hard and requires co-operation from many parties. The bigger the problem (think US housing problem vs loss of wildlife habitat in world) the more parties involved and the harder to make any meaningful action.
Solving US problems requires bipartisan co-operation. Solving world’s problems requires multiparty co-operation around the world.
We already tried this, and got The Projects. It was a failure.
A shortage of supply guarantees high income for providers.
If you gave away free housing, it would ruin a way for the rich to become richer easily.
Go check how soviet apartments look 10-20-30y after building and ask yourself if you want to live there yourself.
Because all of those modern day wealthy countries require private citizens to build and maintain the apartments and there is a lot more money in luxury dwellings than in cheap rent buildings.
well just so you know the soviets don’t exist now, that should be pretty telling
Just speaking for Germany:
1. No where to put big apartment buildings except for buying up old buildings and demolishing them – very costly
2. Very strict regulations regarding efficiency and reducing emissions, as well as fire safety etc – very costly and time consuming
3. Few professionals to build buildings – time consuming
4. Regarding points 1 and 2 – not profitable enough and right now no investors because of higher interest rates.
The buildings in the Soviet union are cheap and fast to build but not environmentally friendly and those buildings are not allowed to be built anymore because of all the regulations.
Thats basically just what i could think of at the top of my head