[tweetle_beetle]

I'm not sure how to feel about most of those these days. They are iconic and I'm glad that experimental ideas actually made it to completion, but ultimately they have failed at reimagining life for ordinary people.

In the cases of the buildings, over time their value has increased faster than an average dwelling in the vicinity, making them more exclusive and restricting access to those higher and higher up the socio-economic ladder - effectively turning them into gated community without the residents needing to feel the guilt of living behind physical gates.

The buildings are still there, and they have inhabitants, but the investment potential has long outlived any philosophy. I guess you could argue there are some secondary effects from their influence, but I wonder how the architects would feel today.

See also Park Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hill%2C_Sheffield

[Arkhaine_kupo]

That hardly seems like a slight to the proyects but the lack of systemic larger changes no?

The barbican was created as a council proyect for middle class people. Nowadays council houses are considered only for destitute families. So of course the priorities, prices, and accesibility of thsoe houses is very limited compared to what you could do with a proyect like the barbican.

I think with inflation on mind the average salary would be like 70k, which is way above UK average, but certainly very accesible to a large number of working professionals in the UK. There simply is not something half as good for that money being built nowadays in the UK. So obvs Barbican increases in price when there is no analagous purchase possible.

[eru]

For a more positive example, you might look at what the 'Housing and Development Board' managed to put up in Singapore. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pinnacle@Duxton and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board in general.

However, I feel like HDB should declare victory and go home.

[lmz]

I don't think that Pinnacle project in particular is one to use against "over time their value has increased faster than an average dwelling in the vicinity, making them more exclusive and restricting access to those higher and higher up the socio-economic ladder".

It's not gated but it definitely is not affordable now. The first owners probably felt like they won the lottery.

[eru]

I don't think its value 'has increased faster than an average dwelling in the vicinity': the Pinnacle is very close to the city centre. I live in a shop house around the corner. These are even more expensive. And so are the condos nearby, too.

But in any case, I brought up the Pinnacle as a short-hand for a nice looking HDB, not to say that it's affordable. The city centre is very much not affordable.

You are right that further out, you can get much cheaper flats. Like in almost any city on the planet.

[zhivota]

Agreed, stuff like Punggol town is IMO much more accessible and interesting. It's truly an awesome place, affordable, well connected with transit as part of its design, etc.

[mavhc]

I assume they'd be confused that if their test project produced good results, why wasn't it widely replicated?

They're mostly too expensive because they're rare