Low income housing in your cities urban neighborhoods.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

In Sweden there is no housing specifically designed for low income families or low income individuals.

There are of course units for those with social problems, where rent is paid by the government. Such as "stödboende" for those who need support in some way.

Also housing designed for older individuals (usually 65+ or similar) as well as but those are not necessary under rent control.

What is most similar to public housing is "allmännyttan" which which consists mostly of flats owned by the local council. Unlike its counterparts in Great Britain, for instance, the Swedish Public Housing has never had any upper income restrictions, so anyone can apply for them.

The areas that tend to have the most lower income residents are the "million programme" suburbs. These suburbs were built during the 60s and 70s and 1 million homes were built during 10 years.

Some of these areas were attractive at the time, but many of them are considered unattractive today due to their "commieblock"-looks, and theres even proposals from some Political Parties to demolish some of them.

Below is Rosengård in Malmö, where Zlatan Ibrahimovic grew up.

That's horrible. I hear most of Swedish urban/suburban areas look like this.

In such cold country, urban living would be much more comfy than those endless towers in the park. Depressing.

[ilcapo]

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's horrible. I hear most of Swedish urban/suburban areas look like this.

In such cold country, urban living would be much more comfy than those endless towers in the park. Depressing.

I would not say a majority of the suburban areas looks like this. Theres usually an even mix of these types of houses, detached and semi detached single family homes, rowhouses etc.

The photo of Rosengård above is not 100% representative of every suburb. Its definitely one of the "worst".

However, im not a fan of the tower-in-park style neither, but i prefer it over the american sprawl if i had to choose between two bads

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

I would not say a majority of the suburban areas looks like this. Theres usually an even mix of these types of houses, detached and semi detached single family homes, rowhouses etc.

The photo of Rosengård above is not 100% representative of every suburb. Its definitely one of the "worst".

However, im not a fan of the tower-in-park style neither, but i prefer it over the american sprawl if i had to choose between two bads

Yeah, it's definitely smarter than US-style sprawl. I'm not a fan of commie blocks, but if they were to be built, I'd rather have the Berlin or Moscow morphology, where they're close together, keeping densities higher.

Maybe the Sweden could try to do some infill there, with a different type of architecture, making things a bit brighter and giving room for the fast growing population of Swedish cities.

[muppet]

That reminds me alot of postwar UK inner cities, there's usually a rash of estates or three - but ours have horrible, bare parkland. The ones in Sweden at least look well used, maintained and interesting -tennis courts, paths, playgrounds, flower beds - sign of community use.

These grounds in Glasgow look like yeti country for doggers. Great place to get buried -thankfully being knocked down.

[Yuri]

Glasgow is such a beautiful city, with plenty of good 19th century architecture and ends up building something like this. Why not follow the vernacular style or even something like those lowrises on the back? Or even detached houses, like the English suburbs. It's not like Scotland is that dense.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's horrible. I hear most of Swedish urban/suburban areas look like this.

It is horrible, and there is something wrong with peoples/cultures/time periods that build such things.

Sweden, like Canada, had the misfortune to see a building boom during the 1950s and '60s, when architecture and planning were suffering from what future generations will likely see as a kind of PTSD.

But the majority of Stockholm does not look like this. Stockholm has a substantial 19th century core with a large sprawl of single-family villa areas (which are admittedly dotted with developments like these, although this one is particularly bleak and nationally notorious).

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Glasgow is such a beautiful city, with plenty of good 19th century architecture and ends up building something like this. Why not follow the vernacular style or even something like those lowrises on the back? Or even detached houses, like the English suburbs. It's not like Scotland is that dense.

Yep, the city is one of the most beautiful in terms of building stock, but progressively shite as you head out:


www.webbaviation.co.uk/aerial

http://blog.historicenvironment.scot



It has that absolute marvel in the UK - a grid plan and STRAIGHT streets:







It often doubles as Generic-East-Coast-US-land for Hollywood:






but then it could also double as Pripyat:




The suburbs in the West End though are gorgeous (a leafy Georgian city, rather than a dense Victorian one in the centre). Few people know about this version of the city -positively Edinburger.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by muppet

but then it could also double as Pripyat:

It could double as Pripyat, because there are some big generic-looking apartment buildings?

Just like Pripyat, except for the part where the city gets irradiated, and then abandoned, forever. Also it's not built like Pripyat at all lol. Totally different styles of cities.

[muppet]

erm, humour bypass?

[hipster duck]

Glasgow is great. It's probably my second favourite city in the UK. The Scottish historical approach to homes and housing is much more continental European, where even the bourgeoisie - basically everyone except the very rich - lived in well-appointed tenements. A friend of mine lived in one of those late 19th century red sandstone tenements in the west end, and while I usually think of homes in the UK as being kind of cramped, his flat was incredibly spacious and solid. In many ways, it reminded me more of a place like Vienna or Budapest than something in the British isles.

Glasgow's main disadvantage is that its climate is irredeemably bad. Imagine taking a city with all of the historical urbanism of Philadelphia and access to the mountainous wilderness of Seattle...and putting it in a location with the climate of Sitka, Alaska. That last one is just a total deal breaker for me.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's the quintessential Brazilian public housing: built en masse since the 1970's at the outskirts of the cities of every size.

I wish the US was so bold now.

We called them "cohab"(Co-HAH-Bee) back in the early 1990s when I was a missionary. They were always just outside the built up city. I thought it was a good idea, much better than favelas imo, in the Rio Grande do Sul, back then they didnt use the term 'favela', they'll say the 'morro' of the 'beco'.

So many wonderful memories.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

We called them "cohab"(Co-HAH-Bee) back in the early 1990s when I was a missionary. They were always just outside the built up city. I thought it was a good idea, much better than favelas imo, in the Rio Grande do Sul, back then they didnt use the term 'favela', they'll say the 'morro' of the 'beco'.

So many wonderful memories.

Yes, it's COHAB!

I was a young child back in the early 1990's but I remember Brazil was much poorer back then. In the poorest areas, child mortality was still very high and poor people dealt with hunger.

There are still massive issues, specially as after the recession followed by a stagnated economy (2022 GDP is at 2013 levels), but the country definitely move forward, specially on the second half of the 1990's up to 2014.

You should come back!

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I wish the US was so bold now.

I agree. They are very easy and cheap to build and they give a real sense of being a owner for people living there and that's why they keep improving year after year.

And as the US is fond of detached housing, that would be a perfect model for you guys up there, specially now with those crazy high prices and rampant homelessness.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Glasgow is great. It's probably my second favourite city in the UK. The Scottish historical approach to homes and housing is much more continental European, where even the bourgeoisie - basically everyone except the very rich - lived in well-appointed tenements. A friend of mine lived in one of those late 19th century red sandstone tenements in the west end, and while I usually think of homes in the UK as being kind of cramped, his flat was incredibly spacious and solid. In many ways, it reminded me more of a place like Vienna or Budapest than something in the British isles.

Glasgow's main disadvantage is that its climate is irredeemably bad. Imagine taking a city with all of the historical urbanism of Philadelphia and access to the mountainous wilderness of Seattle...and putting it in a location with the climate of Sitka, Alaska. That last one is just a total deal breaker for me.

Thanks for the overview and memories. Yep the tenements were great back in the day to house the poor and middle classes, but fell into the usual horrors of mismanagement and overpopulation/ underpopulation by the 20th Century




http://gallery.myff.org


Today of course they make up a big chunk of beauty for the city




http://tommanleyphotography.com