|
|
|
|
|
by nmrm
4185 days ago
|
|
This was the concept between some subsidized housing in the mid 20th century, and was for the most part a failed experiment in architecture. The two significant differences here are 1) government officials and law enforcement are part of the housing complex and not external; 2) since they aren't housing projects, the buildings don't have automatic class stigma. |
|
More like a failed experiment in social organization. The same model works fine in Singapore because the government aggressively routes around social problems: for example, they assign ethnic and income quotas in each building in order to maintain a mostly even distribution of population groups, impeding the rise of ghettos and basically forcing different people to get along[1].
The failure of '70s/'80s "projects" in most countries was due to an excess of faith in the ability of mankind to live together given communal spaces, and incomplete information in terms of social dynamics likely to develop in such settings (and around them, e.g. "white flight" was in full swing but it was not completely understood at political level [2]).
[1] Singaporean housing policies are not entirely benign: they are also used to break out political organizations and silence critics of the government. Central planning, as usual, is a double-edged sword.
[2] ... to be kind. A more unkind reading is that upper echelons knew perfectly well what was happening, saw the future coming, and just let it be.