around the world, and in some cases in the usa too, there is such a thing:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/new-model-for-nyc-affordable-housing.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attractive, affordable housing? Here's some real estate listings of affordable homes for sale right here....

 

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5815-Madison-Ave-Cleveland-OH-44102/33328825_zpid/

 

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2183-W-104th-St-Cleveland-OH-44102/33332342_zpid/

 

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3455-W-65th-St-Cleveland-OH-44102/33354772_zpid/

 

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/(undisclosed-Address)-Cleveland-OH-44109/2108515586_zpid/

^^Pruit-Igoe and Cabrini Green were lauded in the architecture rags when they came out, too.  I don't see that any of those are going to be any better at providing humane habitation for the poor.  "Hey look, we stacked these boxes at angles, aren't we just too clever?".

 

#5 barely even has windows.  Monstrosity.

The poor are often the subject of architectural folly.  I personally would not choose to live in any of those places.  Would prefer a brownstone with a stoop.

^^Pruit-Igoe and Cabrini Green were lauded in the architecture rags when they came out, too.  I don't see that any of those are going to be any better at providing humane habitation for the poor.  "Hey look, we stacked these boxes at angles, aren't we just too clever?".

 

#5 barely even has windows.  Monstrosity.

 

its true, you dont see.

 

 

The poor are often the subject of architectural folly.  I personally would not choose to live in any of those places.  Would prefer a brownstone with a stoop.

 

ghetto brownstone shells go for millions. at least in ny. then you have to redevelop them yourself. there were nyc programs to do this for you 20yrs ago, but i was a dope and didnt get in on it. ahh well.

 

anyway, i think what we all agree on here is it really doesnt matter what pj's look like, in the end they are still pj's. at least they can be pleasing to the eye.

What is it with the current trendy modern architecture all doing the exact same thing with shifting tall skinny windows left and right in some random pseudo-textile pattern?  The buildings in shots 2, 5, 6, and 7 above all do that.  The new Dunnhumby Center, Mercer Commons, and 15th and Race buildings do it too.  It's so derivative, especially for architecture that's supposed to be free-expressing, breaking tradition, reinventing the wheel, blah blah blah.  I haven't found a definitive term for it, but it's getting to be a "so 2012" fad that I bet these buildings will soon be viewed as outdated just like their brutalist brethren of 40 years ago. 

 

On a more general note, all this "experimenting" on the poor just draws attention to them that they really don't want or need.  If anything they're the ones who need the traditional buildings, the regular stuff, the houses that "just blend in."  It's difficult enough living in a world that extolls wealth and keeping up with the Jones' when you're poor, the last thing they need is to live in some art sculpture pretending to be a building that screams "look at me, I'm different!" 

^I agree.

 

#1 is a pretty cool building (in a, that would be cool in downtown Chicago, cool) but it wouldn't fit in a historic neighborhood at all.

 

#7 is a decent building,  but it kind of looks like every other building that tries to break the mold. In which it doesn't do anything different.

 

All of the other ones are horrible, horrible buildings. Ugly. Especially #6. That one is just terrible and sticks out like a sore thumb in relation to the buildings around it. Why can't we agree to just make buildings blend in with the environment in most neighborhoods? I understand in central business districts, or isolated locations making some unique architecture, or on a university campus.

 

And I agree completely with the window critique. Those windows on the proposed 15th and Race design are terrible. Just make normal windows with normal spacing!

Though there are some of your critiques I do somewhat agree with, I'll play devil's advocate and say why make them blend in at all? You will then end up with a City West-esque development in a lot of places which does very little for pushing forward an understanding of what public housing should be. I'm not saying any of these examples are the answer but they definitely all start some conversation. And by providing those who would usually live in poor conditions a unique place to live could have the potential to elevate their understanding of their lives within a society so fixated on wealth. As it is now, the majority of unique buildings are built by and for the wealthy and by changing this status quo some interesting things could begin to happen. I think the level of experimentation though in many of these examples is more the problem rather than experimentation in and of itself.

 

The window critique though is completely valid. I'm wondering how long it'll take before that trend dates itself. I think in about a year it'll be seen as early 2010s and nobody will be doing it anymore.

^It's just that we've been experimenting on the poor since at least the 1930s when public housing projects first started appearing, and they generally don't get a say in the matter.  While I'll be the first to levy plenty of criticisms on the design of City West, one thing it does succeed at is not looking like public housing, especially compared to what it replaced.  Of course the rich get plenty of experimentation, but that's because they actively seek it out, and they can pay for it.  It doesn't do us much good here to theorize one way or another on what the poor want, because it's just those of us who are generally not poor projecting our feelings and desires onto others.  Ask them what they think, and let them decide, rather than forcing it on them.  I think it's safe to say though that they'd almost universally prefer to live somewhere that doesn't look like public housing.  Whether the design of the above buildings would ever become associated with that is a valid question, and only time will tell, but you can't say they look normal either. 

makes me wonder how modernized the interiors are. hotel indigo or aloft style? apple store twisty glass stairwells? might as well scream the tweens era all the way.

 

but i wouldnt take a handful of modern housing scattered all over the world as anything more than one offs. i guess some of the reasoning is why shouldnt the poor have this too? so thats what they keep trying to figure out. we cant go back to drab 1940s-80s pj towers that is for sure.

^Well, if you're going to title your article/thread "Affordable HOUSING" then you should expect to discuss more than just apartment towers or large complexes.  It doesn't even mean it has to be public public housing, so single family detached is a completely legitimate typology. 

^ oh i agree its completely legitimate, if you didn't read the lead article. affordable single family housing could be its own thread.

This is an interesting thread for sure but it seems odd to insinuate that public housing should be comprised of some sort of high quality architecture.  It's supposed to be temporary housing, not permanent.

 

Having said that, I've built & renovated thousands of units of public housing.  The stuff here in Cleveland that dates back to the 1930's like Lakeview Terrace & Woodhill is built like a bomb shelter with thick masonry exterior walls, concrete floors & plaster interior walls.  These units have lasted for 80+ years but have outlived their useful lives.  Families of 5 or 6 used to move in with a suitcase of belongings for all of them.  Now they move in with 2 u-haul trucks for a single mom & 2 children.  New units are cheap drywall, 2x4 construction that won't last 15 years until they need complete gut & renovation

public housing and subsidized housing is many things, in fact its mostly older stuff like that and hud homes or section 8 and the like. but really the article focused on the latest modern apt bldg side of it. the thread title is a miss, but the pics and article are pretty straightforward about that. are there any newer apt bldgs in ne ohio for the poor? maybe that would fit better here.

Folks, let's be civil here.