How would housing be distributed in socialism?

[kuros]

So there are some areas which will always be more desirable than other areas to live in, like areas close to the ocean, or the center or a city, so how would we in socialism determine who gets to live in the desirable areas of a city and who gets to live on the outskirt? Note i'm not talking about the artificially undesirable areas in capitalism where it is just because the housing is poorly maintained and there is a concentration of poor people, i'm talking about areas that will always remain more desirable than other areas, like areas with a nice climate, areas near the ocean, areas near a national park, areas near the center of a city etc.

[Sir Comradical]

Housing close to the sea can be reserved as holiday homes that can be rented only for a fixed term. That way everyone gets the chance to enjoy it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So there are some areas which will always be more desirable than other areas to live in, like areas close to the ocean, or the center or a city, so how would we in socialism determine who gets to live in the desirable areas of a city and who gets to live on the outskirt? Note i'm not talking about the artificially undesirable areas in capitalism where it is just because the housing is poorly maintained and there is a concentration of poor people, i'm talking about areas that will always remain more desirable than other areas, like areas with a nice climate, areas near the ocean, areas near a national park, areas near the center of a city etc.

In the short-term people would probably just have to figure out ad-hoc ways of making sure everyone had a home. So unused commercial or warehouse space might be converted, offices or large mansions might be converted etc.

As just a guess, I'd imagine that highest priority would go to people without homes or who lived in sub-standard or dangerous homes. After that people who had livable but undesirable living places would have work out some kind of waiting-list or lottery. Cities might have elected coordinating bodies to help find out demand for homes and existing resources, these bodies might also be in charge of figuring out new housing once some of the more immediate issues are lessened.

But ultimately, it's not about the few really nice areas with good views or good surrounding environments, it's more about having future city planning and development done on a democratic and need/desire-basis. Why do some people in capitalism have beautiful homes in gorgeous areas is only one part of the question, the other part is why do most people and workers in particular have to live near sewage treatment plants that stink all summer (West Oakland), why do some people live within explosion and pollution range of oil refineries (Richmond Ca), why do some people live where the smog and factory suit naturally settle (South Central L.A.) why do some people live below sea-level in natural flood zones (near the Mississippi or New Orleans)? With this understanding, maybe, as the comrade above suggested places with really beautiful natural vistas would not be open to individual housing but only for public buildings or temporary housing for visitors or people enjoying the lake, ocean, or whatever. But for hosuing, the concern would be how do we make communities that actually meet our needs and make life easier as opposed to capitalist communities that are designed to be easily and cheaply produced (suburbs far from employment centers because land is cheep) or can deliver workers to their employers (industrial urban neighborhoods).

[Psy]

The larger problem would be fixing suburbia with their illogical maze or roads, communist engineers would have to fix the suburban mess engineers created by following the idiotic orders of their capitalist masters.

[kuros]

The larger problem would be fixing suburbia with their illogical maze or roads, communist engineers would have to fix the suburban mess engineers created by following the idiotic orders of their capitalist masters.
So what would you build instead?

[danyboy27]

Projecting how housing will be like in the future is kinda like trying to build a house without a hammer.

Its fun and comforting, but at the end of the day we are still in the same shit has we where when we woke up this morning.

No one can accurately predict what will be the conditions in wich the new system will rise, all we can do is to lay its fondations.

[Psy]

So what would you build instead?
Instead of putting up a wall of text, here is a link to a old lecture by Andres Duany

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F372CFBA3A87C1F&feature=plcp

[robbo203]

Here are some interesting facts that would undoubtedly have a bearing on the question of the housing situation in a non market socialist society. Obviously examples such as these can be mutltiplied many times - you might find a lot of interesting information at http://andycox1953.webs.com/. in that respect - but I offer these examples only as a taster:)

In Spain the crash in property prices after mid 2007, following a period of feverish speculative building, helped to highlight the fact that there are some 3-4 million empty houses. According to government estimates of all houses built over the 2001-2007 period, "no less than 28%" were vacant as of late 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%93200_Spanish_financial_crisis#cite_ref-8).


Appalling though this figure is, it pales in comparison with the situation in China where according to one Hong Kong-based real estate analyst, Gillem Tulloch, there are an astonishing 64 million empty apartments . According to Tulloch housing units are priced well above what an average Chinese person can afford and while it might promote GDP it "doesn't add to the betterment of people's lives" (http://www.grist.org/cities/2011-03-31-chinas-ghost-cities-and-the-biggest-property-bubble-of-all).

It is not just houses that are empty - there are also empty offices, warehouses and shops. According to data gathered by the British Property Federation between July and December 2009, 12.4% of shops stand empty across Great Britain (http://www.propertyweek.com/empty-shop-numbers-continue-to-rise-in-uk/3157816.article).

In Dubai, 40 per cent of office space remains vacant, according to a report in The Daily Telegraph ("Dubai: 4 in 10 offices empty" 30 Nov 2009) due to the financial difficulties faced by the emirate.

And in China, once again, we find another example of profligate waste in the form of the world's largest shopping mall in terms of gross leasable area - the New South China Mall in Dongguan North of Hong Kong. Amounting to 9.6 million square feet with space enough for more than 1,500 stores, as well as fun fairs, hotels and luxury apartments, it has been 99% vacant since its 2005 opening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_China_Mall#cite_note-thenational2008_06_12-2)

[daft punk]

Well, all housing would have to be the same in a communist society. Except big families would have big houses and single people would have apartments or small houses. The houses would be very green, needing little electricity, and hopefully no gas. They would be built to last, with things being made to be easy to maintain.

In terms of location, as has been said, the seaside could be mainly for holidays, ditto the national parks, although of course some people would live and work there depending on where they were born and what sort of job they wanted to do. The inner cities would be rebuilt to some extent to make them nice to live in, the shit bits that is.

The huge luxury houses that exist would either be torn down or split into apartments or whatever.

[ckaihatsu]

I generally agree with this:





Well, all housing would have to be the same in a communist society. Except big families would have big houses and single people would have apartments or small houses. The houses would be very green, needing little electricity, and hopefully no gas. They would be built to last, with things being made to be easy to maintain.

In terms of location, as has been said, the seaside could be mainly for holidays, ditto the national parks, although of course some people would live and work there depending on where they were born and what sort of job they wanted to do. The inner cities would be rebuilt to some extent to make them nice to live in, the shit bits that is.

The huge luxury houses that exist would either be torn down or split into apartments or whatever.


And, to address this...





So there are some areas which will always be more desirable than other areas to live in, like areas close to the ocean, or the center or a city, so how would we in socialism determine who gets to live in the desirable areas of a city and who gets to live on the outskirt?




i'm talking about areas that will always remain more desirable than other areas, like areas with a nice climate, areas near the ocean, areas near a national park, areas near the center of a city etc.


...We could imagine a large degree of *optimization* of mass individuals' wants, to existing supply, through sheer (collectivist) social organization, with the more-difficult sorting and prioritization done either with a timeshare technique -- as has been suggested -- and/or based on a needs-type ranking according to proximity to work, work needs, etc.

More long-term, a fully communist society might decide to artificially expand and/or create more lakes, rivers, streams, etc., to match outstanding demands for waterfront locations.


Also:


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/

[ckaihatsu]

Projecting how housing will be like in the future is kinda like trying to build a house without a hammer.

Its fun and comforting, but at the end of the day we are still in the same shit has we where when we woke up this morning.

No one can accurately predict what will be the conditions in wich the new system will rise, all we can do is to lay its fondations.


(On a side note here, I think the existing paradigm of science *practice* conditions / encourages us to think of forward-minded scientific activity as needing *only* prediction. This is problematic because -- while knowing the larger real environment is necessary -- it's not the *only* forward-minded scientific faculty we should be using. As revolutionaries we're not *limited* to predictions -- we're also *partisan* and should be able to at least *describe* what it is that we consider to be worth fighting for.)

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I think that mass housing would be how things would work in a socialist society. As individual homes get old and are torn down, I think they should be replaced with more apartment complexes. I also think that certain utilities should be centralized. Kitchens would be small and simple, and most people would get their food from public kitchens in walking distance.

[ckaihatsu]

I think that mass housing would be how things would work in a socialist society. As individual homes get old and are torn down, I think they should be replaced with more apartment complexes. I also think that certain utilities should be centralized. Kitchens would be small and simple, and most people would get their food from public kitchens in walking distance.


Since the proletariat's strength is in its ability to control and utilize the machinery of mass industrial production, a true revolutionary situation would necessarily center the worldwide class struggle around these implements. By extension the revolutionary workers' housing would have to be geographically near, or around, these implements.

So, a successful revolution would leave workers' housing situated in the close vicinity of the means of mass production that they control. All living and domestic concerns would be built out of, and around, this common capacity for production.

[kuros]

I think that mass housing would be how things would work in a socialist society. As individual homes get old and are torn down, I think they should be replaced with more apartment complexes. I also think that certain utilities should be centralized. Kitchens would be small and simple, and most people would get their food from public kitchens in walking distance.
I dont think most people want to live in apartments.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I dont think most people want to live in apartments.

Well I think community-type living might be a way people go. You'd have the benefits of privacy and your own sleeping and entertaining areas, but in a community set-up there also might be a lot more services, communal kitchen and laundry, community recreations like sports and entertainment. I think this is how I'd choose to live.

People don't want to live in apartments... unless you call them condos. So maybe it the rent and inability to actually modify and design your own space that people don't like about apartment situations. That or they are run down or cramped or poorly designed. Most people would probably rather have a nice suburban home of some kind, but they didn't really choose to live in these kinds of set-up either. From tennement rowhouses to suburban McMansions, housing is only developed to maximize profits, so it doesn't ultimately matter how or where people would like to live.