Who gets houses where?

[jake williams]

At present, homes in highly desired locations (I've heard Central Park and Bloor Street, but I'm sure these aren't the only examples) receive exorbitant sums - high demand, the story goes, mean only people who do work that's Good and Important enough, like scamming financial markets out of millions of dollars, can afford the resultant high prices for them.

But in a society where such ideas have disappeared, how is it decided who gets to live where? Lottery? I'm really having trouble with this. It's easy enough with a lot of things to understand how to divide them up among people, but we can't do that as well with places I don't think. Thoughts?

[Tatarin]

The buildings could always be demolished to make way for new ones. Or, they would be set up for those who have large families, or as "work-related" locations (let's say Wall Street becomes a council or a museum, then those who work there could always live in the area).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Workers acting as city planners could designate these places as public spaces for commerce.

Places like Central Park will probably become less relevant in the future when cities are organized to be less cluttered and more attractive.

Lotteries? Maybe. In the beginning maybe some social recognition -- perhaps for people who perform necessary (yet menial) jobs that can't be automated?

I know in the Soviet Union what many would do is trade living spaces.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

[quote=GeneCosta;1069982]Workers acting as city planners could designate these places as public spaces for commerce.


Could that not be liable to corruption...or would there be a sort of rotaion system so that no one is a city planner for too long?

[Floyce White]

"Who gets to ... ?"

Wrong question. The people with no possessions, the people who seek no advantages over others, these people are not in competition with all others to acquire and use things.

The correct way to phrase the question is:

How can I help others to find housing where they need it?

Having lived in New York City before, I am certain that the super-rich will run away, and that poor people will take the initiative to move themselves where they please. And why would anyone want to change that?

[jake williams]

No. If a million people want to live along a stretch of beach, say, that can house maybe a few thousand, how is that dealt with?

[rouchambeau]

No. If a million people want to live along a stretch of beach, say, that can house maybe a few thousand, how is that dealt with?

Why would people ever put themselves in that situation?

[jake williams]

Why would people ever put themselves in that situation?
Well I don't think that we assume that the sort of society we're all envisioning is devoid of landmarks? Of busy areas? Of small parts of the world of high desirability to live in? I'm saying that this is a type of "resource" that's pretty finite and isn't easily distributable among the whole population.

[( R )evolution]

I really do believe this is a very very interesting question. But in my opinion I believe you are viewing it from a capitalist kind of point of view where as location is very important to people because they view as either A having that house in that location shows they are richer then others. Or B they just simply love the luxury and beauty of that location. It is rather unknown because it is hard to predict the future but I am sure when society is changed in a economic equality society aka a communist society, perspectives will change and the demand for such homes may be different. But it is still a very interesting opinion

[RNK]

There will always be some commodities (ie real estate) which can never be made in complete and utter abundance and these are problems which must be tackled.

The main problem in a capitalist society with this sort of situation is that there will always be a capitalist who will gain insurmountable amounts of profit through the sale of such property; this is how people like Donald Trump became millionaires, by buying real estate, waiting for the value of that property to raise, and then re-selling it for profit.

Remove private ownership of said property, first of all, and that changes things.

Secondly, property and housing reform plays a big part in socialism, for a reason; it stands to reason that once social housing projects are initialized, to destroy old low-quality housing and replace it with high-quality, inexpensive housing, the whole housing market will be turned onto its head. The availability of high-quality housing will skyrocket (presumably), similar to costs, which will drop like a rock, as a housing surplus is established. We will never be able to ensure everyone has a beautiful beach-front property, but like ( R ) somewhat hinted at, with more affordable high-quality housing available the demand for specialist property will go down.

Then we can give all the beach-front homes to the anarchists, to make themselves feel better.

[MarxSchmarx]

If a million people want to live along a stretch of beach, say, that can house maybe a few thousand, how is that dealt with?Well, a good first start is to demolish mansions built on cliffs overlooking the ocean.

I think as with today, the key to controlling infinite demand is trade-offs. Right now the trade-off is money, and you get pretty much whatever you can pay for. Which might be nothing.

In the Red Utopia, I can easily imagine the trade-off being, say, convenience and space. We simply give people the option of living in rather small apartments on massive high-rises next to the beach. Or they can live in a spacious, detached single-family home with a garden a bit more inland.

Then there is proximity to work-places. By encouraging multi-use planning, you make it possible for people to live near where they work. With the increasing automation of most jobs that require massive space (e.g. warehouses or heavy industry), you could control say a farm from a storefront located in the same buiding you live in. Even in the Red Utopia with private monorail car or something, there will be a disincentive to live a two-hours commute from your job. Moreover, we can plan most workplaces to be in precisely areas that have lots of space around them (e.g., plains instead of coasts). Thus we can reward those willing to put up with the commute with larger homes or places by the sea, for instance.