If we are to take the housing crisis in the United States seriously,
after reviewing international models, we see only one conclusion—local governments, supported by the federal government, must build a
very large amount of affordable, mixed income, publicly-owned housing, initially by developing existing publicly-owned land.
— 3P
The People's Policy Project (3P) has put out a report making the case for Social Housing in the United States. The authors, Ryan Cooper and Peter Gowan, also published an adapted essay in Jacobin Magazine wherein they contrast their approach with previous programs like HOPE VI: "We support a massive expansion of the publicly owned housing stock for all income groups, not evicting poor people to make way for middle-class people."
Their colleague, Matt Bruenig, penned a related editorial in the Guardian summarizing why "expanding the housing supply through this social housing approach has many benefits over private, market-led development."
See also #PHIMBY
Anyone interested in this topic should be following @bruteforceblog on twitter https://twitter.com/bruteforce...
And we touch on it in our podcast discussion with him a couple weeks ago. https://archinect.com/news/art...
I can't remember now where I read it, it might have been on Mike's twitter in fact, but it was basically an argument that said "When a homeowner's group in neighborhood A decides to not allow denser development in their neighborhood they are in reality just giving their own property value a huge boost."
I understand our society is incredibly dependent on homeowner investment in their own property value, but that attitude toward homeownership seems to be what needs to change. Which means we need to realize that denser housing *can* be of extremely high value...but that that shouldn't matter, I guess?
It's very complex!
The current state of affairs stands as evidence of how wrong you are. Inequality in this country has nothing to do with hard work or intelligence or lack of it. You would have to ignore the many ways that those in power, which in this country has always been white bourgeoisie, have designed the system to support/promote people like themselves.
Leftists/Socialists are the most vocally outspoken against the widespread corruption in both major parties. In many ways, the Democratic party has betrayed it's commitment to working people and the public sector. We don't scrap economic systems over night. Democracy doesn't work that way. So, stop using such scare tactics. If you have a problem with corruption, it is people like me who are working to vote out corrupt politicians and change campaign finance laws to get money out of politics.
All 11 Comments
I fully support a push for more public housing, and for more design innovation/research around the subject of public housing. And I'm a big fan of Matt Bruenig, Ryan Cooper, and Peter Gowan's work.
My question for the Archinect community (and hopefully for those people who don't typically comment) is, when are we going to start talking about these urban/architectural goals in explicitly political terms? I regularly hear architects, particularly academics and writers, discuss everything around the topic of socialism without actually saying the word socialism.
Ask the 100 million dead people.
As jla-x has illustrated, the problem is that as outlined in this report is that it doesn't require socialism (at least not as referred to above or used as the conservative boogeyman aka Communism or Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism). All the examples they look too, are really about social democracy or Democratic Socialism as practiced in many Western European countries.
jla-x is apparently forgetting that capitalism gave us slavery, sweatshops, child labor, perpetual war, colonialism, American imperialism, and the climate crisis.
Democratic Socialism is socialism in a Democracy. It isn't an alternative to Socialism, or Socialism lite. It is socialism. And we need to stop being so damn afraid of cranks like jla-x. We need to train architects to think about the future in explicitly economic and political terms.
jla-x is apparently forgetting that capitalism gave us slavery, sweatshops, child labor, perpetual war, colonialism, American imperialism, and the climate crisis.
i think we're forgetting how simplistic laxative is.
case in point. https://archinect.com/news/article/150059183/the-alabama-memorial-dedicated-to-african-american-lynchings
“Democratic Socialism is socialism in a Democracy. It isn't an alternative to Socialism, or Socialism lite. It is socialism.” LOL. Where exactly does this exist? You are just redefining socialism to make it seem like it’s all good and dandy. “Democratic socialism” absent from capitalism exists no where desirable. Capitalism gave us just about everything and raised the overall quality of life by light years. Is it perfect, no, but you are not understanding the consequences of socialism...but neither did the useful idiots...the road to hell....
The hole in the arguments of you “socialists” is that you seem to think that govt authority can be homeostatic, and socialism requires govt violence. It cannot exist without it by its nature. The US is no different...we are a “democratic socialist/crony capitalist country that just spends all the money on war racketeering, bloated govt programs, and corporate handouts. At least the Scandinavians get something out of it. Still, this does not justify the aggressive police state required to redistribute wealth be it in the name of war, social housing, etc. socialism and corporatism are dead dead dead. The revolution will be decentralized!
Davvid says “we need to think about the future” No, you need to understand the past and understand why “cranks” like me are worried. I don’t understand the stupidity of people who say things like “Trump is Hitler” one day and then the next support surrendering more liberty and autonomy to the state. It’s completely illogical.
That memorial is beautiful. It was privately funded too. Wow. And how stupid that people don’t realize that western doctrines eradicated slavery....well, in the West at least. Slavery is still going strong in other places like Libya...I wish people would care as much about modern day slavery in non western nations...the reason we hear so little is because it simply doesn’t fit into the political narrative of the regressive left.
If you haven't noticed, your warped view of human freedom via economic capitalism has led to an incredible amount of corruption among our politicians, perpetual warfare that provides private companies with extremely lucrative military contracts, extreme income inequality, mass surveillance by a right-wing government, police brutality, private prisons, an affordable housing crisis, high college tuition costs, low quality public education, environmental degradation, etc etc... Own up to the fact that capitalism had nothing to do with human freedom.
“Human freedom” is intrinsically tied to the freedom to engage in trade and commerce, because upward mobility, innovation, lifestyle choices, and creative pursuits all require the freedom to acquire resources and reorganize them. The prohibition of trade/commerce requires authoritarian force otherwise how do you stop or limit it?
All the things you listed above are a result of capitalism under a bloated authoritarian ‘big’ state that all proponents of libertarianism left and right oppose. All human organizations become tyrannical because humans are hierarchal animals. All economic systems tend towards authoritarianism whether left or right. See the “Libertarianism” thread for a discussion on the difference between left right up and down...Libertarianism none the less should be the goal we the people always fight for, because the would be tyrants are always pushing in the other direction.
Economically, I don’t necessarily oppose left economics so long as they are not authoritarian, and unless they allow for capitalism to exist freely along side they will be for reasons pointed out above. So both can exist simultaneously, so long as social programs can be funded fairly, ideally without breaking the “non-aggression principal.” Do you not find it barbaric that the government can take your money and redistribute it under the threat of being locked in prison by guys with guns? That’s called robbery when we do it.
So, again it’s a matter of degree. How much socialism do you want? What do you get? How is it funded? And how much authority are you willing to accept to get it? And most importantly, what happens when 80-90% of jobs can be done by automation and the government controls the fruits of labor? Socialism in 2080 will look a lot different then you think. Flirting with socialism in the face of this unpredictable tech revolution is not smart. It will end bad. Capitalism is chaotic, but that’s why it’s also resilient.
jla-x,
Are you trying to tell me that slavery was merely "imperfect capitalism"?
No. Slavery was slavery. It was an abomination. Slavery is the OPPOSITE of libertarianism, and was imbedded in a capitalist society in this particular American manifestation, but has existed under many other economic systems throughout history. See Cambodia under communist Pol Pot. The people were essentially slaves living with forced labor.
American slavery was free labor for capitalists. It wasn't just senseless torture, it was economic exploitation to make slave owners wealthy. Slaves were victims of capitalism.
Slavery has existed under other economic systems many times in past and present. It’s not tied to capitalism. As I said, American slavery was, but that doesn’t make capitalism bad, it makes slavery bad. Slavery isn’t reliant on capitalism, but in a capitalist society slavery was capitalized.
And yeah, chattel slavery was exceptionally brutal and cruel...so capitalism along with other things probably fueled the specific characteristics/manifestation of American slavery.
colonialism has wrought more harm on the planet than socialism ever has, or ever will. colonialism coupled with capitalism is the most corrupt possibility in the history of man. you can blather on about communism, but communism is a corrupt reading of marx, and any with a measure of intelligence greater than mine, can point out the infinite ways that maoism and stalinism is not marxism.
You’re comparing the best intentions of Marxism with the worst manifestations of capitalism. Socialism as defined by the revolutionary Marxist’s was a transition phase towards communism. Is that what you want? You are also forgetting that communism was highly imperialistic as was just about every other human empire since the beginnings from The Persians, to the Romans, to the Mongols, to the Byzantine, to the Japanese...etc. Colonialism (Brits, Dutch) was fueled by mercantilism not laissez-faire capitalism by the way. The list of shitty human endeavors is so long it would break the internet. People suck. Marxism is Logically flawed because it requires ever increasing authority to suppress natural human tendencies...and that authority always attracts tyrants because of the same natural human tendencies. That is why it has always devolved into death and oppression. Capitalism on the other hand, especially under the big state, has manifested in some awful ways too, but has overall been able to prevent/escape complete totalitarianism because the economic power is decentralized. To trade that for a regressive system that is proven to fail is crazy. To do so in a time as incredible as ours is asinine. Our greatest hope is in the massive decentralization of power/economy that tech allows for. This issue is the MOST important issue in architecture theory right now, and it’s been largely hijacked by post-modernists and neo-marxists.
I thin there is also a very psychological division on the subject between people with and without kids. When you have kids your inclination is to provide them with the best chances at life, and capitalism is the way to advance their chances. To sacrifice that for “the greater good” or “equality” whatever that is, goes against human/animal nature. With the exception of a few Eusocial organism like ants, bees, etc...nature is capitalist for the most part. You are literally asking an ape to organize like an ant. Not possible without lots and lots of superimposed tyranny.
Capitalism are the tools by which to keep the bourgeoisie in line. It does nothing to help working poor.
The division is the same division that there has always been: people with money and people without money. If you have money, you're less bothered by the costs of tuition, the cost of healthcare, stagnate wage growth, gentrification of cities, police oppression, etc. And if you're straight, white, male, and middle class, you are probably even more content with the status quo.
So yeah, I think capitalism is more in line with our nature...equality is not a good thing. Some people work harder than others. Some people are smarter and more industrious than others. Equality of outcome is It’s terribly oppressive, boring, and unproductive. Equality of opportunity is a fantastic thing, NOT equality of outcome which is the end goal of Marxism.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom.
Countries where democratic socialism is the economic and social norm have proven you wrong.
The current state of affairs stands as evidence of how wrong you are. Inequality in this country has nothing to do with hard work or intelligence or lack of it. You would have to ignore the many ways that those in power, which in this country has always been white bourgeoisie, have designed the system to support/promote people like themselves.
“And if you're straight, white, male, and middle class, you are probably even more content with the status quo.“ you are playing identity politics. By disagreeing with socialism I am by default content with all the bad things about western society? . That’s a logical leap. First, you are assuming that socialism will be organized to help the minority classes which is likely not true. It will breed nationalism as it always has because the scarcity of population that receives the distributed resources is directly linked to populations quality of life (see the recent rise European ethnic-nationalism, and the complaints from American anti-immigration platforms). Second, you assume that western capitalism has not improved life for minorities which is completely false. Minority’s in 2018 have it better (not perfect) in the West than ever in the history of the world. There are still places where gays are executed, women killed for looking the wrong way, etc. Third, you forget that most people including whites lived in total poverty not too long ago. If socialism where implemented in 1900 would they be better off today? Would we have internet? Great music and films? Quality of life has overall increased even for the poorest.
“Inequality in this country has nothing to do with hard work or intelligence or lack of it”. Really nothing? Why does my Ethiopian immigrant doctor make more money than Rick Balkins?
You don't seem to understand that we are currently not free. Our politicians are bought by lobbyists on behalf of big business. We are coerced into business arrangements with enormous companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple that now nearly control the public sphere. In exchange for access to this public sphere, we agree to share nearly every detail of our lives with them.
The US is not a true meritocracy, and is full of cronyism, corporatism, and big govt war racketeering, but to say hard work and intelligence has “nothing” to do with success is hyperbolic. It also undermines the success of the many successful minority individuals and immigrant groups in this country. My point isnt that the US’s manifestation of capitalism is perfect, it’s that the goal should be to perfect it, not scrap it for a system proven to fail.
Equality of outcome will require totalitarianism. Are you willing to accept that?
Leftists/Socialists are the most vocally outspoken against the widespread corruption in both major parties. In many ways, the Democratic party has betrayed it's commitment to working people and the public sector. We don't scrap economic systems over night. Democracy doesn't work that way. So, stop using such scare tactics. If you have a problem with corruption, it is people like me who are working to vote out corrupt politicians and change campaign finance laws to get money out of politics.
But you must have an end goal? You already said “equality”. What does that mean? How do you punish the ones who exceed that “equality?” You are walking in the wrong direction and saying don’t worry, the cliff of tyranny is 80 years away.
Answer those questions davvid and my points will become self evident.
My goal is for 100% (or nearly 100%) voter participation and civic engagement. A system where no person is left out of civic life, where all political campaigns are publicly financed, and where all elected positions have term limits. And I am confident that if power is truly in our hands, and if we are fully engaged in shaping our lives, then we would naturally develop policies, institutions, and systems that treat ourselves well. Why wouldn't we want to treat ourselves well?
Just as you imply that Stalinism is not “real” Marxism, I will imply that American crony capitalism/corporatism is not real capitalism. It’s not the capitalism I want. I am for a libertarian/night watchman state with free market capitalism and a base UBI that is distributed to all by an automated bank algorithmically adjusted to inflation. In other words a casino where everyone starts with some chips. Lol, I’m by no means a conservative, but I can’t see a reality where Marxism doesn’t turn totalitarian. It’s impossible imo, because it relies on a false narrative of human nature.
.
I think socialism is the natural end result if you distribute power equally. If everyone has one vote, and uses it sincerely (meaning, they don't sell it), then why would we devise systems that result in the kind of shit we have now? Do you think women and their partners would choose unequal wages? Do you think that we would choose for marijuana to be illegal? Or to have so many people imprisoned? Or to have corporations and governments spying on us and trading the details of our lives?
Obviously I don’t think that will likely happen in my lifetime, but we have to have a philosophical end goal to work towards. Lol
Well, there is my end goal: power to the people. It sounds cliche, but that is it in a nutshell.
“My goal is for 100% (or nearly 100%) voter participation and civic engagement. A system where no person is left out of civic life, where all political campaigns are publicly financed, and where all elected positions have term limits.”
I agree. When you add “socialism” to that as an adversary to capitalism rather than a symbiotic friend things get wacky. You are probably a libertarian socialist which is not a bad thing per se, but you need to answer my other questions to see why the problem is in its pure application. Only a hybrid system with a libertarian fighting majority can avoid tyranny at the hands of state dictators or corporate oligarchs. Problem is, “socialism” is usually defaulted to big govt because the other way takes imagination and a good steady resistance to the inevitable tide of authoritarianism.
"My question for the Archinect community ... is, when are we going to start talking about these ... in explicitly political terms?"
Please see above.
Capitalists never seem understand that we already engage in socialism, even under an overwhelmingly capitalist system in the US. Union organizing is socialist. Food and Housing Co-ops are socialist. Public housing is socialist. Collective ownership, even at a small scale, is a way to practice socialism in our daily lives.
On the flip side, in China, you have Foxconn workers committing suicide because they're working for slave wages under miserable conditions producing products that they will never be able to afford. While China professes to follow a Marxist philosophy, they are failing to do so in many respects, particularly when it comes to worker's rights.
My main gripe with capitalism is that is requires inequality. It requires winners and losers. And every capitalist employer is making profit on the labor of a worker by selling labor for more than it pays the worker. For this to happen, it requires that the worker be undervalued. We see that in Architecture all the time. An hour that a designer spends on a project must be more valuable to the client than it is to the worker in order for their to be profit.
“Collective ownership, even at a small scale, is a way to practice socialism in our daily lives“. That’s capitalist because it exists by choice within the framework of a capitalist economy. Imo, it’s 100% fine to organize your company that way if you wish.
Haha. Then is the Walmart store in Shanghai a communist Walmart because it exists within a framework of a communist country?
"If you take all the good parts of the system your advocating for and instead call them part of the system I'm advocating for, you'll see I'm clearly correct here."
Davvid, good point. I’m not sure. I guess it depends on how much control is exerted on it. Globalization has certainly blurred the lines.
“Countries where democratic socialism is the economic and social norm have proven you wrong. “
No, they have proven me correct. Southern Europe is in a world of shit, Northern Europe has made it this far because of strong, small, capitalist economies, control of central banks, juxtaposed with well managed social programs. In no way are any of those countries practicing “socialism” in totality. As stated, the US is not too different, just that our govt spends all the tax money on shit.
Stop being such a binary purist. All I am saying is that capitalism is not sacred. It can and should be challenged. We should call out it's failures, and promote pro-people/socialist/anti-capitalist alternatives.
None of them are practicing capitalism in totality either.
So can we talk about public housing now?
Nobody is stopping you.
Good luck, tduds. This thread was never going to be about housing.
davvid, that’s a lot to unpack.
“And I am confident that if power is truly in our hands, and if we are fully engaged in shaping our lives, then we would naturally develop policies, institutions, and systems that treat ourselves well. Why wouldn't we want to treat ourselves well?”
Tyranny of the majority is why black oppression existed. Majority consensus is not always a good thing. To make this work, a very strong classical liberal doctrine (which we have under the constitution) that guarantees individual rights and liberties is 100% necessary. I’m not saying that you said it’s not, but you are contradicting the foundation of those liberties via socialism by limiting property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc. Here is an example- if I excel at painting, and want to trade my art for another’s goods, and eventually I become so popular that I have accumulated more goods than everyone else, who will stop me, and at what point? Naturally the masses would want my stuff out of self interest. What gives them the right to my earnings? What force is justified to cease them? What art is acceptable to the masses if all is publicly funded? You are not understanding the implications of pure socialism in the absence of capitalism.
You are also not understanding the creative force that capitalism is. Black water, privatized prisons, big oil, big agriculture....are all bad and we can have the discussion on how to reverse those trends, but we can’t throw the baby away with the bath water. The beauty of an Indian family opening a restaurant and sending their kid to college...across the street from an Italian restaurant that was opened in 1930 by immigrants...across from a Chinese restaurant...in a neighborhood where a poor black kid rose up and became a doctor. The story of capitalism is dramatic and rich. That story happens. Socialism is static and boring. Capitalism, in all its chaos and imperfections has bred an overall multicultural, highly diverse society that actually functions, innovates, produces art and ideas, and preserves personal liberties (although that is always under threat). That’s pretty amazing and unique and beautiful. You can’t simply undo that in the name of equality without severe consequences. The end game matters. Where does Steve Jobs, or Tupac, or Steven Spielberg fit into this socialist society? Real question?
It comes down to the fact that you just cannot wrap your head around Democratic Socialism without imagining some extreme scenario. I tried to explain to you how socialism can and is being practiced right now. But you keep rejecting that reality because it contradicts your alarmist vision of totalitarianism. Drop the scare tactics.
Frankly, the only reason we're talking about this is because of capitalism's inadequacies. If it really was as good as its promoters argue, there would be no need for alternative solutions to persistent problems. Automation , Climate Change, and Wealth Inequality are looming large over our current political situation.
No, its your inability to understand that democratic socialism works (in some cases) because it is hybridized with capitalism. You are calling for "anti-capitalist" "socialism" "Marxism" "equality" and asked why people avoid these terms. I tried to explain why. Sure, we can have some social/public programs, but socialism/marxism itself cannot be the philosophical backing to build a 21st century society on.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders
I rest my case...
As a whole, it will likely be a hybrid into the foreseeable future. But this doesn't actually change the critique. (Your VOX article, like most VOX articles, changes nothing.) Even if those of us who are inspired by Marxist philosophy only succeed at producing more public housing, free public college, and nationalized health care, that would be huge.
VOX sucks lol, but just noting what the pm said...
I disagree davvid, because turning away from embracing capitalism by promoting Marxism in arch academia specifically is problematic and will lead to a lot of missed opportunities that take advantage of capitalism and explore disruptive things that other industries are taking advantage of as we speak. You have every right to those views, but I think the narrative is very limiting. Some of the tools available like 3-D printing for instance can have revolutionary implications, but the arch-theory is out of sync with those possibilities. For instance, 3-D printing can decentralize manufacturing in the near future. Do you understand the implications of that? There can be neighborhood factories that sit comfortably in strip malls...people download a product, print locally, etc. that will totally dismantle the shipping industry and big manufacturers. Things like that can transform urbanism. The theoretical backbone though must be imbedded in free market ideals.
*because people won’t embrace it and explore it if the loud minority shouts it down as morally wrong.
Maybe an interesting read/site:
"Affordable Housing now, better communities tomorrow"
https://www.socialhousingfesti...
Anyone interested in this topic should be following @bruteforceblog on twitter https://twitter.com/bruteforce...
And we touch on it in our podcast discussion with him a couple weeks ago. https://archinect.com/news/art...
I can't remember now where I read it, it might have been on Mike's twitter in fact, but it was basically an argument that said "When a homeowner's group in neighborhood A decides to not allow denser development in their neighborhood they are in reality just giving their own property value a huge boost."
I understand our society is incredibly dependent on homeowner investment in their own property value, but that attitude toward homeownership seems to be what needs to change. Which means we need to realize that denser housing *can* be of extremely high value...but that that shouldn't matter, I guess?
It's very complex!
I actually agree with that. You have a right to your own property, not what gets built across the street. I'd be perfectly fine with a gay strip club next to a church...This idea of zoning being used to homogenize areas is so fucked. Its used plenty to dump undesirable things on poor areas too...
No right to what goes up across the street, true, but plenty of right to complain to one's city councilperson. And to sue for non-compliance with environmental laws. Lots of rights there. Lots.
True. Aside from industrial polluting things I mean. Housing typologies shouldn’t be zoned.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.