[jackcarter]

The blueprint was Corbusier's "Radiant City" proposal [0]. It took hold in the US in the form of lower-income housing projects. It turns out that it combines the worst of city life (anonymous neighbors, no personal outdoor space) with the worst of suburban life (unused common areas, lots of wasted space).

[0]: http://www.archdaily.com/604056/north-america-s-radiant-city...

[maxsilver]

I don't understand these criticisms. As an American, I think our cities would be vastly improved if we copied this form of housing for lots of people, instead of just low-income housing. (In my city, the low-income-only housing is usually the highest quality housing across the city, and is far nicer than anything a mid-income person is allowed to purchase).

The current alternative that US prefers is far worse, in my opinion -- these micro-unit apod-ment things, with no personal space, no outdoor space, grossly overburdened personal-areas-forced-into-common-areas, and general dorm-room-for-life lifestyle.

[dionidium]

The research on this tells a pretty dismal story. They seem like they should be better, but people almost universally report preferring the slums that were torn down to build them.

Communities that grow organically look messy and gross. And there's a certain personality type that wants to come in and fix the mess.

But it just doesn't turn out to work that way.

[psyc]

I wonder if the apartment-dwellers around central park are similarly despondent about their worst-of-all-worlds habitat.

[jackcarter]

Different for three reasons:

-Central Park is a desirable place to spend time, unlike the artificial, pseudopublic spaces that separate highrise complexes.

-Population density is _much_ higher in those neighborhoods than you get with multi-building highrise complexes.

-There are shops nearby that, along with the park, provide a reason for people to spend time there throughout the day. People don't like spending time in deserted plazas.

[skewart]

> Central Park is a desirable place to spend time, unlike the artificial, pseudopublic spaces that separate highrise complexes.

Have you ever lived in a high-rise surrounded by open space? A lot of people, myself included, really like it.

You're stating your own personal preference as if it were some universal fact.

You also seem to have a limited understanding of housing design. For example, lots of Corbusier-inspired high-rise developments have shops and restaurants mixed in among the parks and buildings.

I suspect the bulk of the complaints people have with high-rise housing projects for low-income residents in the US are driven more by the policies and operations of low-income housing - lack of maintenance, poor security, etc. The design model has worked out quite well for higher income residents in plenty of places - even in the US, for example, near south Florida beaches.

[jackcarter]

You're right; I'm commenting the negative examples that constitute developments I've seen. I'm sure that it's possible to enjoy them. After all, people love cruise ships.

[dionidium]

What Corbusier-inspired developments around Central Park are you referring to? Surely you don't just mean that they are apartments near a big park?

[dilemma]

In China, common spaces are actually utilized.

[seanmcdirmid]

To an incredible degree. We moved apartment complexes in Beijing because one had a better central area than the other (both were used, but the latter one was used much more).