architecure

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

The bourguoise have built some fantastic (private and public) buildings. because of classes there is diversity, which makes it interesting.
In a communist society there would no classes and the state would build houses (like council houses)...so would the world be like councilf flats?

Or would they be built on a basis of NEEDS not money i.e how many people live there, dissabilities etc.
If so, would anyone live in the inner cities? Or would they be completley renovated so they are nice, and convinient

[Noah]

In an idealist communist society - the needs of the people would be put first so basic housing with disabled access and all that...But arthitects would have the freedom to do their work and not be bound by money or have to come from a reputable (is that a word?) family. Also, housing would be better than it is now because companies will not be limited by cost, like the council homes in England. So they will be built to a higher standard of quality.

If this happens just after a revolution though, I think that - yes - architecture will have to be ignored somewhat so the working class can be homed and be healthy at least temporarily. In due time though estates will be improved fairly quickly because there will be more money (socialism - transitional stage) to invest in local communities and nice renovated flats will be built.

[Tower of Bebel]

In the USSR between 1917 and 1924 architects, like al artists, were free to design everthing they like to. It was some sort of heaven because in other countries governemtns were quite conservative (for instance: everyone hated the Eiffel tower) and also people didn't like modern designs. Only after 1924 art (and architecture too) was subjected to the will of the party (like socialist realism, which isn't very original).
I guess that architects indeed would be free to design what they want to. Just like all arts there should be freedom of expression without the need to look for which arts people would buy or not.

[RebelDog]

I would imagine various architects designing different plans and the workers and community deciding on which is the most suitable for community needs.

[Fodman]

well I went to East Berlin in February and there were a lot of very cuboid apartment buildings built during the time of the GDR - perfect symmetry, with very long roads (one very big one is called Karl Marx Avenue, there was a Luxembourg one too)

here's a good quote from Jeremy Clarkson about it:

"You can always rely on a good socialist to make a huge tower" - i suppose it's true; Alexandr Platz Television Tower, + all them in Moscow and China too - some of the tallest in the world!

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

i hate clarckson

but thanks for the comments people

[syndicat]

to answer this question, you need to consider the ways that architecture, building and land use are restrained under advanced capitalism. for example:

1. capitalist cities are segregated, always by class, but also by race. this
happens due to private ownership of buildings and land and market
allocation of resources. inequality in power breeds inequality in income,
and income sorts out what people can afford to pay for housing, and thus
where they live, how crowded or rundown the buildings are, etc.

2. having a well-housed population with commodious and inexpensive
digs is a public good. with common ownership of land, and the existence
of community assemblies and city-wide federations of the assemblies to
make proposals for housing investment, we can expect a change in
building.

3. architecture as a separate occupation is part of the differentiation
of the coordinator class from the working class in capitalism since
the late 19th century, an expression of the logic of capitalist development.
empowering the working class means they take over the design and
decision making tasks, and thus architecture will disappear as a separate
occupation, as construction workers acquire design and engineering
training.

4. instead of design of buildings determined by profit-seeking builders,
housing would be customized to meet the different needs of different
families. individual families could thus negotiate directly with the
construction workers council that is building the place where they
will live.

5. suburbanization, with isolated houses surrounded by gardens, and
no nearby stores, assumes the subordination of women, as the free
labor that cleans houses, keeps the household going. to eliminate
this discriminatory pattern, housing needs to be closely integrated
with services (such as child care, food preparation etc).

6. dispersed suburban pattern of building, characteristic especially
of Anglo-Saxon countries, creates auto dependency and contributes
to global warming. what is needed is a more compact and mixed
use pattern of building, to encourage walking and public transit use.
free public transit can also contribute to this.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

could someone explain to me the difference between private and personal property in reggard to housing

would be given housing bythe council on application and apply if you need work done on it?

Or would it all be arranged privatley (personally) if planing is approved by the locals?

[syndicat]

in a society where class division has been done away with, the land and means of production are owned in common by everyone. but class oppression can't be done away with unless the society is based on self-management -- this means people directly making or controlling the decisions that affect them.

since your housing directly affects you more than anyone else, you should be able to decide its design and manage it. if it's part of a housing complex such as a bunch of apartments, then there'd be collective aspects that you'd have to self-manage jointly with neighbors, like the roof, walkways, gardens, etc.

but construction work directly affects construction workers more than anyone else. this is why that work needs to be self-managed by the construction workers. this is why i say that it seems there'd need to be some sort of negotiation between you and the construction workers about what your housing will be like.

having a well-housed society, with plenty of commodious and inexpensive digs, is a public good, and one of the things a socialized economy is for is to enhance the level of public goods we provide for ourselves collectively.

the community assemblies and city-wide federation would presumably have responsibility for ensuring adequate resources for housing. this might mean you get a certain budget for building a dwelling, tho you might be able to augment that from your own labor if you want a larger than average house. by "budget" i mean the resources allocated to build it, like a certain number of workers' time, so much lumber, this plot of land, etc.

but in a society without class division, it makes no difference whether you own the dwelling like a personal possession or lease it from the community council or whatever. that's because in such a society there'd be no mortgages. mortgages are used to finance housing construction now because finance capital gets its pound of flesh in the form of profits from interest. but in a society without classes there's no point to interest. hence no mortgages.

whether you lease the dwelling or own it as a personal possession, in either case we'd want to ensure you have a secure right of tenure, so that nobody can just oust you, and if the community wants to take that land for some purpose, they have to provide you with a comparable dwelling elsewhere.