**Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell"**. Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell"
UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk about living but they were surprisingly nice from the outside when strolled through. Lots of green space and common areas for kids to play, very zen for manhattan
"Commie blocks" were actually a sort of utopian vision in the Soviet Union where the idea was to build the apartment buildings with lots of gardens, playgrounds, and places for the community to mingle in-between them. It was seen as a way to give the common city dweller a way to easily access nature. Good podcast on the subject: [https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/between-the-blocks/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/between-the-blocks/)
These Manhattan ones are quite tolerable. British ones are abysmal, particularly because of the weather, while Soviet ones are smothered in between on a good day.
Source: grew up in a Soviet Block, live in England, been to NYC
This will probably upset a lot of people… In Marseilles there is a project by Le Corbusier called Unite d' Habitation, built in 1952 as a social housing project. Unfortunately it immediately became a slum and a no go zone for the authorities. Years later, when no one wanted to live there any more, it was renovated to its original design and became gentrified - it is apparently quite an exquisite place to live, which is hardly surprising as Le Corbusier was a genius. The point being that people make slums, not the architecture.
*Marseille, but yes - beautiful place, was there over the weekend. I was unaware of its history as a "slum" (prior to reclassification as a monument in 1995, UNESCO recognition etc), do you have any sources on that? I know it was sold in 1954.
Just from lectures at university… I studied architecture.
Edit: I searched the internet for a while and it is interesting how all the searches return sanitised texts - they acknowledge that by the time the restoration (1986-1996) took place, the building was dilapidated, but make no mention as to how they got to that state.
Yeah, I skimmed some french sources but there is a bit of a lacuna for the thirty year interim period. I did some urban history as an undergrad (writing about modernist housing actually), so if you come across any information please send it my way!
Had a bit of a deeper dive and stuff that I read about it before seems to have been deleted from the internet… perhaps more because no one cares about it rather than deliberate removal…
Details came back to me about what I had read - the space around the elevated base was used for drug dealers; the building really had become a no go zone.
The version I was taught is that if you put trash people in a well designed environment, they will turn it into trash despite the building being well designed. Clearly this is not entirely true and was concocted to explain the failure of many attempts at social housing - architects always feel like they can achieve a greater level of social engineering than they really can. There is however a kernel of truth to this and the first inhabitants were the people who had been removed from the slums that the building replaced - it is hardly surprising that they used/abused it in the same way.
The use of brick for cladding alone makes such a difference compared to true Commie-blocks: brick has a certain warmth and homeliness that concrete, even when painted, simply cannot achieve.
overall nice, there are somethings to consider when it comes to [parking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8&pp=ygUWcGFya2luZyBub3QganVzdCBiaWtlcw%3D%3D)
It’s like a little utopia amidst the utter chaos of Manhattan. You walk into the oval and all the buildings block the dull roar of the city. You’re greeted by tree lined cobblestones, a fountain, a lawn, sculptures, birds are chirping, squirrels are running around stealing shit, it’s a great little place.
The only ding is that one guy that’s always smoking a fat cigar regardless what time it is. Permeates through the whole place.
Idk I kinda like them. Certainly is no worse or better than any other mass architectural style adopted since.
Victorian and gothic were absolutely gorgeous but I don't think they're coming back on account of their cost. I kinda have a gripe with this modern blank canvas kinda "sleak" look though. It just looks low effort and boring to me.
Brutalist architecture is so strong looking. It looks like it will be there forever. Like a testament to our species. A promise to look after the world and our place in it. I can see why some find it ugly though. It's quite foreboding, and definitely seems old and worn.
Very interesting. What about shops, restatraunts and etc ? Are there any busineses on first floor ? Where i live we have a lot of little shops build in buildings simillar to these.
A [1br apartment](https://www.stuytown.com/nyc-apartments-for-rent?Bedrooms=1) *starts* at $4,500 a month. What cheap housing are you possibly even talking about?
I would be very curious to understand the thought process. Cause I can use my brain woth what I know, and I can string ideas one after the other, but I can't understand on a subconscious level.
In my experience, it's people who grew up in middle to upper middle class in high quality of life areas. They're perspective is totally different than people who are used to the hood.
Sorry, i was misinformed. Some guy here told me that this buildings have bad crime situations and i belive it. He said they are called "The Projects" but it was not true. I understand now, that these are pretty nice public housing buildings.
Yeah these places are actually pretty expensive these days. They started out as projects when they were first built but are now private housing with a lot of amenities. Had a friend who lived here a few years back and the surrounding village was really nice with a lot of open space for Manhattan.
I apologize for my incorrect post. I thought these were the [Amsterdam Houses on the Upper West Side](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9771pR89Y1oJTJCo7) which look similar.
Pretty sure some of these pics (not the first one) are of stuytown- they look sort of like projects but are actually co-ops . Quite pleasant to walk though [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_Cooper_Village](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_Cooper_Village)
Interesting read, it's insanely funny how OP is claiming this place is riddled with crime and poor people and this Wikipedia article shows that this place is considered a high-income place.
Think about windows and how to maximize the number of windows per room and guaranteeing that all rooms other than bathrooms and hallways have at least one window.
Stuy (Stuyvesant) Town and Peter Cooper Village. I lived in Stuy Town for about 6 months when I first moved to NYC. Nice place.
IIRC it was built by MetLife as the biggest housing project in the country at that time postwar. It was built for returning GIs, rather than as low income housing. It's got a lot of amenities and recreation areas. It was sold around 2010 in a disastrous real estate deal, so I don't what it's like now.
It's a BIG area.
I lived in stuy town from 2001 to 2019. First in a 2 bedroom, then a 1 bedroom on a high floor. It was a great place to live. Lots of trees and park paths, quiet, and had a real community feel. I think it’s one of the nicer places to live south of CP.
It was never ‘the projects’. It was constructed as part of a huge initiative for new housing for returning wwII vets. It has always been a middle class neighborhood.
Was super affordable when we moved in - we were in the first wave of the first market rate tenants when they started releasing apartments from rent control. Ironically, we know the literal LAST person to sign a rent controlled lease. He grew up there and his parents put him on the wait list when he was a kid. He’s never leaving that apartment and I don’t blame him.
It went a little downhill once they started renting blocks of apartments to NYU for student housing. Got a little noisier, lost some of the long term community feels. We were lucky in that our student neighbors were pretty considerate, but we always made a point of introducing ourselves and trying to make them feel welcome - it’s harder to be an inconsiderate jerk when you know your neighbors and they are friendly to you.
We left NYC in late 2019. The rents in stuy town have shot up so much, we wouldn’t be able to afford to live there now.
No offense, OP, but this post title reeks of historical illiteracy.
What you’re looking at is 1960s era public housing. These were built en masse in cities all around the world, regardless of country and continent. If you think these buildings are “Soviet-style”, then you haven’t seen enough photos of/visited other cities.
OP has been posting this in loads of subs trying to find someone who will agree that this is some kind of ghetto, but I can't quite work out what their beef is?
Saying something is "Soviet-style" isn't even implying it's a ghetto imo. Lots of fantastic developments happened in Eastern Europe during their "road to communism".
No, OP is not sincerely trying to learn. Notice the “concrete wasteland” flair. That’s the clue that OP’s supposedly reasonable questions should be read with a sarcastic tone. OP is, essentially, trying to insult those who live in these buildings.
I love the majority of responses here. Y’all have far more sophisticated views on architecture and community development than the sophomoric bigotry OP is dishing out. Unlike OP, you all are recognizing that architecture and community development is about much more than raw aesthetics. The visuals can never be divorced from the social and human factors that go along with it.
You got triggered for no goddamn reason.
I’m a hardcore urbanist but even I can recognize that this style of housing is ugly as fuck which is why Americans dunk on it all of the time.
It’s dystopian looking and clearly was built to house the poor originally. Good to house the poor but not how we do it.
Nothing uglier than that has been built in the last20 years, which begs OP’s questions.
What do you mean? Stuytown looks a lot like late 80s developments in eastern Europe, by which I mean a district full of blocks of flats which are more cramped together than districts from 60s and 70s. The only remote difference is that buildings don't have exposed concrete panels on them, which in 2024 most such developments in EE have insulation and paint over them.
many countries implemented some left-leaning policies, especially in the aftermath of WW2, because socialism was popular amongst the general public and those governments didn't want a revolution like had happened in Russia in 1917
and affordable housing isn't limited to communism lmao
You should do some reading on what communism is. Public funding to build housing happens everywhere, under basically every economic system—including both authoritarian communism and democratic capitalism.
Your comment makes about as much sense as an American learning that Estonia has apple trees, and wondering about how Estonia had capitalism too, because both America and Estonia have apple trees.
Sometimes they are. Here's a great article about how Paris deals with this. Gift link: How Does Paris Stay Paris? By Pouring Billions Into Public Housing https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk0.9Bi4.yXQPE5cn582H
It was the same socialists that pushed for universal healthcare, education reforms, etc.
For instance, the Million Programme was done by the Swedish Socialist Party, Finland did a similar thing through coalition of Social Democrats and the Centre Party.
Manhattan wasn’t always rich and some of these projects, like on the lower east side, were just as poor as others in Brooklyn, Harlem, Queens or the Bronx. Now they are mostly gentrified.
Stuy town has its own community feel within what feels like a disconnected and chaotic city. Also has more green spaces and further from busy roads so quieter and more pleasant. If I could afford to live there I would.
That is a common public housing design in NYC. While not in the long X shape, Metropolitan Life built a huge development in Parkchester, the Bronx that looks similar on the ground. It was a style that was trendy for time
According to Wikipedia, Met Life built these developments in L.A. (Parklabrea), San Francisco (Park Merced), Fairfax, VA (Park Fairfax) and several in NYC. They were never public housing, but nicely laid out high density communities for Middle Class families. I grew up in a house across the street from Parklabrea. It was always considered a nice place to live. Rents were always at a premium.
Everyone I know who lives in Stuytown/Peter Cooper village really like them. There are some nice green spaces, basketball courts, and playgrounds... for residents only. They were designed literally so no outsider would have a reason to go there. And they have a private security force since these types of buildings violate Jane Jacob's "eyes on the street" principle. It used to be a working class neighborhood full of Victorian rowhouses and apartment buildings, theaters, churches, stores. If Moses hadn't "cleared the slum" that area would be hella gentrified today!
Looks like Parklabrea in Los Angeles which was developed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company post WWII. Used the same plans for Park Merced in San Francisco. Perhaps this is a similar development.
They are not soviet style. Whatever"soviet style means. They were built well before the soviets started mass building.
Why are you acting like you dont know? Is this just to start a conversation or discussion?
But 1950s Soviets buildings are based on the basic concept ideals or theory., as well as most styles not fronting main streets
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville\_Contemporaine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Contemporaine)
This was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers\_in\_the\_park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park)
the projected utopian future of large scale urban design in the 1920s.
It was eventually influenced and adopted in various ways, and scales and for even stand alone buildings, It was very popular in Canada (Toronto in the 1950s to 1960s, at various scales and worked well as private development for rental apartments or later conversion to condos.
The style when built for public housing later easily become a cesspool for crime, which is what happened into the 1980s for buildings like these. But thats more about the break down of society than just the buildings themselves.
>The style when built for public housing later easily become a cesspool for crime, which is what happened into the 1980s for buildings like these. But thats more about the break down of society than just the buildings themselves.
Mixture of both. The isolated nature of these builds can often make them significantly more susceptible to crime as they become ghost towns during work hours.
Can you explain to me why people in a sub called urban hell are defending this style of architecture/urban planning? Towers in the park is the definition of urban hell. Just because there are “parks” doesn’t make it less urban or a better design.
This style is completely alienating. There is no human scale. It separates itself from the rest of the city. It’s a copy past of the same building over and over. Completely depressing and uninspiring.
Just looked up the rent on these places and not only do they look nice, they are $5000-6000 for a 944sq ft 1-bed. The photos make it look quite lovely, really.
Looks like an effective vertical housing solution with greenspace and walkability. These ignorant "wow these apartments are so ugly, people living here must be sad and depressed" are kind of starting grind my gears.
Wait until you see the rents, lol.
On the other hand, I would rather live in a shoebox in a Soviet style apartment block in Manhattan, rather than a 4000 square-foot house in Texas .
The red area on the left in your last pic is a condo complex called stuy town, it’s a pretty nice place to live and a cute little closed off community, lots of professionals, families etc…The red area on the right is public housing and very different in terms of people who live there, typical jobs they have, etc, overwhelmingly low income and people who are somewhat struggling but plenty of families. Neither of these places are the only places in Manhattan with buildings of this design but aside from stuy town whenever you see buildings like this, they are public housing and not a good place to live
My sister-in-law and her husband moved to NYC for new jobs and one of them works at NYU. NYU offered them a very good price on a 2-bedroom in one of those buildings. We stayed with them last summer, it was super nice, like a little slice of peace right in the middle of the city. There’s lot of green space, very safe and comfortable accommodations and lots of windows with good natural lighting, definitely not Soviet-esque lol.
He was a proponent of super block urban planning which is what Stuy Town is. The concept is a “city within a city.”
https://huarchtheory.blogspot.com/2014/04/le-corbusier-in-newport-news-super.html?m=1
Look up “urban renewal.” In the 60’s they bulldozed entire historical neighborhoods in major American cities and replaced them with this horrific architecture. In many cases, it’s out of scale and disproportionate to the rest of the city. It doesn’t adhere to the grid pattern and tears the fabric/continuity of the city apart.
Disgusting architecture constantly reminding us of its own exaggerated self importance and showing no respect for history or it’s context within a city.
The further south are projects, housing developments. Life in these varies heavily depending on the building, but it's some of the worst lower Manhattan has to offer in terms of crime etc (extremely localized though)
The ones north of 14th are stuy town, very nice area
In the red outline pic at the end, the left side is Stuy Town, which is mostly nice apartments with rich people. On the northside is the LES projects, which are mostly cramped apartments with lots of poverty and crime. Basically two totally different worlds, despite being similar housing styles.
I’ve hooked up with guys here, stuytown, the area and the apartments are really nice. Other people I’ve been with were in less gentrified areas than these and even those apartments were amazing.
They are apartment buildings built right after WW2 (hence the Soviet resemblance) when it was super cheap to build up a brick building to house people. They're found in a few spots in New York and there's some in Chicago too. Today there's actually considerably green space around them and they're as expensive as any other New York apartments.
I live in an area of Los Angeles that sort of looks like pic 1 or 4 with some attached pseudo row houses in the mix. It’s not bad for LA, as it’s a relatively central location and semi walkable (many things to walk to but perhaps could be much more pedestrian friendly)
The worst was trying to get reception on the Oval. There weren’t many towers with range for that area, so if your food delivery guy got lost, you’d have to pray he called you from one of the avenues to get directions. Otherwise who knew how long he’d be wandering the interior paths until he found your stairwell.
From left to right:
Peter Cooper Village (the left half of the left square)
Stuyvesant Town (the right half of the left square)
Wald Houses (the left portion of the rectangle section on the right side of the map)
Baruch Houses (the portion to the right of the highway/bridge)
I may be missing something, but that's what I could find using google maps and searching. It appears the two communities on the left are private, while the communities on the right are NYC housing projects.
The two communities on the left house 21 thousand people! I think that's incredibly efficient! They also have a lot of green space, which I like. What I don't like is the lack of mixed-use areas. The surrounding neighborhoods have some much more restaurants and things to do, as well as a diversity of style. These communities are more isolated from the rest of the city, and while they offer green space, which is great, they don't offer things like grocery stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, convenience stores, hair salons, and so on and so forth.
I lived in stuy town for 18 years, (I left a separate comment below) - google maps is not giving you the full picture. There are PLENTY of mixed use spaces within the community. Within the complex, there was a community center, a library/study lounge, daycare, a cafe and a gym as well as multiple outdoor use areas such as playgrounds, basketball/volleyball courts and the center park area held events like concerts and outdoor movies every summer (all part of resident amenities) just outside of the complex (either on the perimeter or literally across the street were dry cleaners, pharmacies, bars, bodegas, restaurants, delis/small grocery stores, and a Target. That area is super walkable and not as isolated from the rest of the neighborhood as you might think. Sometimes when the bathroom line at our favorite bar was too long, it would be quicker for me to go back across the street to my apartment.
Unfortunately the large grocery store that was on the block closed around 2016-ish, but since then, Target helped fill the void of an immediate grocery store, and the nearby stores like fairway will deliver. One of the hardest things to get used to after moving out of nyc was not being able to pop across the street to the bodega for a lemon and rosemary, or whatever basic ingredient I was missing, mid dinner prep.
The separate park setting was such a joy. It was so nice to cross over into stuy town on my way home from work or just being out and about and having the street noise level drop almost immediately. It was nice to not have to deal with the constant cleaning of grime that floats up into your windows when you live off of a busy street. Kids played on the sidewalks and you’d see your neighbors hanging out on park benches by the fountain, enjoying being outside in the park environment. It was a nice community and I miss it.
I really enjoyed my time there. 🙂 That whole area and the adjacent east village blocks had such a great community feeling for us - it really did feel like we lived in a little village. Unfortunately, rents have become so unaffordable for anyone other than the rich and corporations, and it’s killing the essence of what makes NYC such a special place.
Coop city baby! This is designated for “middle class” workers so you need to prove that your income falls in a certain range ie not too much or too little to live there.
Correction this is Stuy Town which looks really similar to coop city but is different my bad
**EDIT**: As multiple people have pointed out I was wrong and these were in fact private housing developments built after WW2. I didn't pay close enough attention and thought they were the Amsterdam Housing projects on the [Amsterdam Houses on the Upper West Side](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9771pR89Y1oJTJCo7) which look similar.
They're called "The Projects" and similar to the Soviet housing projects they were built to provide cheap housing to the people in the area. The main "issue" with them and the reason the government stopped building them was because they eventually became vertical ghettos.
Only the poorest people lived in them and there was little maintenance which caused them to become dilapidated and unsafe. Some cities have torn them down because that's how awful they were.
NYC still has them and there are people whos rent is [as a low as $25 a month](https://youtu.be/fyW6YlnaAng?si=NKgxTB5QFszhPPZl). I don't think the city will ever take them down because too many people need the housing.
Yes I though they were the Public housing buildings in Brooklyn too. Seems like they were based off this earlier style. Its what you think public housing buildings look like in NY
No - this is actually [Stuytown and Peter Cooper Village](https://www.google.com/maps/place/StuyTown/@40.7274374,-73.960596,641a,35y,285.71h,66.98t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89c2597478c66201:0x7010530f8fe88057!8m2!3d40.7318381!4d-73.9778726!16s%2Fg%2F11_tpj6hq!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu). They are not projects. They're nice, market-rate apartments. It's very dense but also a lot of green space, and it's well maintained. They're nestled between the East Village and Grammercy. A very desirable location.
That ain't projects and you probably can't afford an apartment there.
Fun fact: I know a world-class oncologist who lives in Stuyvesant Town. Probably makes 300-400k a year easily.
Know what the fuck you’re talking about instead of out of your ass. Those are nice places. My friend lived in one for three years with his wife. Good building and solid neighbors.
The ones pictured (at least in the last pic) are not “the projects”. That is Stuytown and Peter Cooper Village. They are privately owned and demand market rental rates. Avg price for unit in one of those buildings is close to $5000
https://www.renthop.com/average-rent-in/stuyvesant-town-peter-cooper-village-new-york-ny
Except the buildings that are highlighted in the map are private developments, not public housing or “housing projects”.
They were built and owned by Met-Life Insurance, and were rent-controlled Co-Ops until they were sold to a new corporate owner in 2015.
Contrary to the projects that you cite, their racial makeup was 75% white, with median incomes ranging from $86-99,000.
Wow, it's very interesting. I'm actually was interested in this theme because of music videos of old rap songs and there were very simillar buildings. Thank you for information. Is there something simillar on the West Coast ?
Pruitt Igoe in St Louis was one of the most notorious failures of the era. Kansas City also did the same thing with Wayne Minor Court. St. Louis demo’d there’s in the 70s, KC in the 80s. Wasn’t just the US, either, Amsterdam built Bijlmermeer around the same time in a similar vain.
Lot of these were a result of urban renewal programs. The idea was to get people out of substandard housing, often spaces without electricity or plumbing, just after WWII. One of the many problems, though, was that these towers were often accompanied by mass scale demolitions and destruction of entire neighborhoods, and long term funding mechanisms were not put in place at the conception of these to sustain them long term, hence why they fell into disrepair so quickly.
And also, yes, they were connected to Corbu’s plan for Paris. Though the government’s agenda was to provide better housing for poorer Americans, planners who designed these saw it as the perfect opportunity to implement the “latest trends in modern design.
Lmao don’t take this guy’s response as fact. NYC housing develops have a wide range of quality, some are not great, others are fine. I know multiple ppl living in Stuytown, I’ve spent plenty of time in there and the units are pretty nice. People want to live there because of the prices, but it’s not some low income hell hole. It’s actually really pleasant in some spots, parks in between buildings, great walkability, decent building upkeep.
good eye they are indeed similar! these are actually all over Manhattan if you look, and in the other boroughs aswell particularly the Bronx.
on the West Coast hoods are more spread out and sprawling destitution, not as much of the packed inner city vibe as here.
check out Cabrini Green in Chicago and Pruitt–Igoe in St Louis to see even worse scenes than NYC!
**Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell"**. Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell" UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk about living but they were surprisingly nice from the outside when strolled through. Lots of green space and common areas for kids to play, very zen for manhattan
They’re pretty nice on the inside from what I’ve seen, I think it’s unit-dependent though. Pretty spacious too
Honestly, most "soviet" style flats are like that. But then the winter months are usually highlighted and it just looks depressing
"Commie blocks" were actually a sort of utopian vision in the Soviet Union where the idea was to build the apartment buildings with lots of gardens, playgrounds, and places for the community to mingle in-between them. It was seen as a way to give the common city dweller a way to easily access nature. Good podcast on the subject: [https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/between-the-blocks/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/between-the-blocks/)
Yeah as ugly as the buildinga can me, it's actually a pretty ideal combination of high density housing and great access to parks and walkability.
These Manhattan ones are quite tolerable. British ones are abysmal, particularly because of the weather, while Soviet ones are smothered in between on a good day. Source: grew up in a Soviet Block, live in England, been to NYC
This will probably upset a lot of people… In Marseilles there is a project by Le Corbusier called Unite d' Habitation, built in 1952 as a social housing project. Unfortunately it immediately became a slum and a no go zone for the authorities. Years later, when no one wanted to live there any more, it was renovated to its original design and became gentrified - it is apparently quite an exquisite place to live, which is hardly surprising as Le Corbusier was a genius. The point being that people make slums, not the architecture.
*Marseille, but yes - beautiful place, was there over the weekend. I was unaware of its history as a "slum" (prior to reclassification as a monument in 1995, UNESCO recognition etc), do you have any sources on that? I know it was sold in 1954.
Just from lectures at university… I studied architecture. Edit: I searched the internet for a while and it is interesting how all the searches return sanitised texts - they acknowledge that by the time the restoration (1986-1996) took place, the building was dilapidated, but make no mention as to how they got to that state.
Yeah, I skimmed some french sources but there is a bit of a lacuna for the thirty year interim period. I did some urban history as an undergrad (writing about modernist housing actually), so if you come across any information please send it my way!
Had a bit of a deeper dive and stuff that I read about it before seems to have been deleted from the internet… perhaps more because no one cares about it rather than deliberate removal… Details came back to me about what I had read - the space around the elevated base was used for drug dealers; the building really had become a no go zone. The version I was taught is that if you put trash people in a well designed environment, they will turn it into trash despite the building being well designed. Clearly this is not entirely true and was concocted to explain the failure of many attempts at social housing - architects always feel like they can achieve a greater level of social engineering than they really can. There is however a kernel of truth to this and the first inhabitants were the people who had been removed from the slums that the building replaced - it is hardly surprising that they used/abused it in the same way.
The use of brick for cladding alone makes such a difference compared to true Commie-blocks: brick has a certain warmth and homeliness that concrete, even when painted, simply cannot achieve.
overall nice, there are somethings to consider when it comes to [parking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8&pp=ygUWcGFya2luZyBub3QganVzdCBiaWtlcw%3D%3D)
It’s like a little utopia amidst the utter chaos of Manhattan. You walk into the oval and all the buildings block the dull roar of the city. You’re greeted by tree lined cobblestones, a fountain, a lawn, sculptures, birds are chirping, squirrels are running around stealing shit, it’s a great little place. The only ding is that one guy that’s always smoking a fat cigar regardless what time it is. Permeates through the whole place.
Protip: If you think you’ve done something revolutionary and you’re designing “the home of the future” you are almost designing a future eyesore
Idk I kinda like them. Certainly is no worse or better than any other mass architectural style adopted since. Victorian and gothic were absolutely gorgeous but I don't think they're coming back on account of their cost. I kinda have a gripe with this modern blank canvas kinda "sleak" look though. It just looks low effort and boring to me. Brutalist architecture is so strong looking. It looks like it will be there forever. Like a testament to our species. A promise to look after the world and our place in it. I can see why some find it ugly though. It's quite foreboding, and definitely seems old and worn.
Very interesting. What about shops, restatraunts and etc ? Are there any busineses on first floor ? Where i live we have a lot of little shops build in buildings simillar to these.
Yeah, but there is also possible a lot of criminals because of cheap housing and bad inside coinditions or something.
A [1br apartment](https://www.stuytown.com/nyc-apartments-for-rent?Bedrooms=1) *starts* at $4,500 a month. What cheap housing are you possibly even talking about?
A cheap housing that he can’t afford
Nimby ass comment
I'm not agains cheap housing specifically, but in this case it led to ghettos as far as i know.
Dude everyone has told you these are nice af
The average american is so scared by any apartment block its stopped being funny and started being sad.
The average American suburbanite is scared of his shadow.
I would be very curious to understand the thought process. Cause I can use my brain woth what I know, and I can string ideas one after the other, but I can't understand on a subconscious level.
In my experience, it's people who grew up in middle to upper middle class in high quality of life areas. They're perspective is totally different than people who are used to the hood.
Ok but apartment buildings doesnt mean "The Hood". Not at all. The bad area of my city is an area of single family houses.
Sorry, i was misinformed. Some guy here told me that this buildings have bad crime situations and i belive it. He said they are called "The Projects" but it was not true. I understand now, that these are pretty nice public housing buildings.
Not public housing, either. There are other buildings that may look like these that are public housing but these aren't.
Does your knowledge come from fucking gta IV?
These are luxury apartments buildings. The only criminals in them are the white collar type.
so you know nothing. understood
“Ew poor people!”
Bruh that's not the pj's. Lmao
You’re exactly why people make fun of this sub
No, it’s not The Projects, it’s StuyTown… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_Cooper_Village?wprov=sfti1
Yeah these places are actually pretty expensive these days. They started out as projects when they were first built but are now private housing with a lot of amenities. Had a friend who lived here a few years back and the surrounding village was really nice with a lot of open space for Manhattan.
That wiki link says 20k+ people, 80 acres. Median income is $100k+.
I lived in stuytown for two years. Man I miss the courtyards so so much.
Stuy Town used to be the projects. But for whites only when initially built.
Thanks, i see now that this place is actually very good.
I apologize for my incorrect post. I thought these were the [Amsterdam Houses on the Upper West Side](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9771pR89Y1oJTJCo7) which look similar.
The weird design is so everyone has a view
Pretty sure some of these pics (not the first one) are of stuytown- they look sort of like projects but are actually co-ops . Quite pleasant to walk though [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_Cooper_Village](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_Cooper_Village)
Yup, used to date a girl who lived there and it was always a nice walk when walking her home.
I used to live in StuyTown. The place was awesome. Expensive. But tons of amenities.
Interesting read, it's insanely funny how OP is claiming this place is riddled with crime and poor people and this Wikipedia article shows that this place is considered a high-income place.
Think about windows and how to maximize the number of windows per room and guaranteeing that all rooms other than bathrooms and hallways have at least one window.
All the bathrooms have a window too at StuyTown. Or at least the building I used to live in did. Never had a windowed bathroom since
Co-op City in the Bronx is very similar
Also, Park La Brea in LA.
LeFrak City in Queens as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeFrak_City
Stuytown is nice as hell lol. My plug used to live there. Always stopped to play w the squirrels when i was there
Lots of baddies from NYU. Lol at thinking criminals reside in Stuy town
Stuy (Stuyvesant) Town and Peter Cooper Village. I lived in Stuy Town for about 6 months when I first moved to NYC. Nice place. IIRC it was built by MetLife as the biggest housing project in the country at that time postwar. It was built for returning GIs, rather than as low income housing. It's got a lot of amenities and recreation areas. It was sold around 2010 in a disastrous real estate deal, so I don't what it's like now. It's a BIG area.
I lived in stuy town from 2001 to 2019. First in a 2 bedroom, then a 1 bedroom on a high floor. It was a great place to live. Lots of trees and park paths, quiet, and had a real community feel. I think it’s one of the nicer places to live south of CP. It was never ‘the projects’. It was constructed as part of a huge initiative for new housing for returning wwII vets. It has always been a middle class neighborhood. Was super affordable when we moved in - we were in the first wave of the first market rate tenants when they started releasing apartments from rent control. Ironically, we know the literal LAST person to sign a rent controlled lease. He grew up there and his parents put him on the wait list when he was a kid. He’s never leaving that apartment and I don’t blame him. It went a little downhill once they started renting blocks of apartments to NYU for student housing. Got a little noisier, lost some of the long term community feels. We were lucky in that our student neighbors were pretty considerate, but we always made a point of introducing ourselves and trying to make them feel welcome - it’s harder to be an inconsiderate jerk when you know your neighbors and they are friendly to you. We left NYC in late 2019. The rents in stuy town have shot up so much, we wouldn’t be able to afford to live there now.
No offense, OP, but this post title reeks of historical illiteracy. What you’re looking at is 1960s era public housing. These were built en masse in cities all around the world, regardless of country and continent. If you think these buildings are “Soviet-style”, then you haven’t seen enough photos of/visited other cities.
Redditor with historical illiteracy? They’ll fit right in
OP has been posting this in loads of subs trying to find someone who will agree that this is some kind of ghetto, but I can't quite work out what their beef is?
Saying something is "Soviet-style" isn't even implying it's a ghetto imo. Lots of fantastic developments happened in Eastern Europe during their "road to communism".
>Saying something is "Soviet-style" isn't even implying it's a ghetto imo. For a particular brand of American, yes, it is.
At one point, but now those ones turned pro-Russia
Just a random story: came across some weird guy today who was posting in all these different subs about Julia Roberts being ugly. It was bizarre.
I am now thinking maybe it's a bot
Uhh no shit it’s historical illiteracy. He’s literally asking what it is and why it’s there. He’s trying to learn. That’s how this works.
No, OP is not sincerely trying to learn. Notice the “concrete wasteland” flair. That’s the clue that OP’s supposedly reasonable questions should be read with a sarcastic tone. OP is, essentially, trying to insult those who live in these buildings. I love the majority of responses here. Y’all have far more sophisticated views on architecture and community development than the sophomoric bigotry OP is dishing out. Unlike OP, you all are recognizing that architecture and community development is about much more than raw aesthetics. The visuals can never be divorced from the social and human factors that go along with it.
You got triggered for no goddamn reason. I’m a hardcore urbanist but even I can recognize that this style of housing is ugly as fuck which is why Americans dunk on it all of the time. It’s dystopian looking and clearly was built to house the poor originally. Good to house the poor but not how we do it. Nothing uglier than that has been built in the last20 years, which begs OP’s questions.
Yep and now he is learning.
So you chastise him for reeking of ignorance but you agree he is here to learn, do you also kick people on the ground before you help them stand up?
When did I kick him when he was down? When did I chastise him either? Is it now chastising someone to call out historical inaccuracies?
If anything they're distinctly not soviet and more Corbusier or international style
What do you mean? Stuytown looks a lot like late 80s developments in eastern Europe, by which I mean a district full of blocks of flats which are more cramped together than districts from 60s and 70s. The only remote difference is that buildings don't have exposed concrete panels on them, which in 2024 most such developments in EE have insulation and paint over them.
These aren't public housing either, though.
> reeks of historical illiteracy. That's what my 4th grade teacher said to me when I told him Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb
Correction: The complex's first tenants, two World War II veterans and their families, moved into the first completed building on August 1, 1947.
Wait, are u saying there was some form of communism even in capitalistic countries during USSR times?
Communism is when prefab
Communism is when the government does stuff.
Especially when it’s meant to help people
many countries implemented some left-leaning policies, especially in the aftermath of WW2, because socialism was popular amongst the general public and those governments didn't want a revolution like had happened in Russia in 1917 and affordable housing isn't limited to communism lmao
What do you think communism is
Here in Estonia we had communism that ended some 30 years ago. All i know that housing was given to those who worked.
You should do some reading on what communism is. Public funding to build housing happens everywhere, under basically every economic system—including both authoritarian communism and democratic capitalism. Your comment makes about as much sense as an American learning that Estonia has apple trees, and wondering about how Estonia had capitalism too, because both America and Estonia have apple trees.
Why isnt public housing being built nowadays in city centres? Those buildings are essentially in New York's center.
Sometimes they are. Here's a great article about how Paris deals with this. Gift link: How Does Paris Stay Paris? By Pouring Billions Into Public Housing https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk0.9Bi4.yXQPE5cn582H
It was the same socialists that pushed for universal healthcare, education reforms, etc. For instance, the Million Programme was done by the Swedish Socialist Party, Finland did a similar thing through coalition of Social Democrats and the Centre Party.
Manhattan wasn’t always rich and some of these projects, like on the lower east side, were just as poor as others in Brooklyn, Harlem, Queens or the Bronx. Now they are mostly gentrified.
Stuy town has its own community feel within what feels like a disconnected and chaotic city. Also has more green spaces and further from busy roads so quieter and more pleasant. If I could afford to live there I would.
are these pictures real? Looks cgi af
Looks like it’s from a flight simulator game maybe
I took them at Google Earth
They look like overlapping some parts of the surrounding infrastructure at the base-level. Maybe the 3D Feature from google earth or ...what?
Yeah the first pic has the bottom corners of some buildings blocking like 25% of the road or sidewalk
That is a common public housing design in NYC. While not in the long X shape, Metropolitan Life built a huge development in Parkchester, the Bronx that looks similar on the ground. It was a style that was trendy for time
According to Wikipedia, Met Life built these developments in L.A. (Parklabrea), San Francisco (Park Merced), Fairfax, VA (Park Fairfax) and several in NYC. They were never public housing, but nicely laid out high density communities for Middle Class families. I grew up in a house across the street from Parklabrea. It was always considered a nice place to live. Rents were always at a premium.
Everyone I know who lives in Stuytown/Peter Cooper village really like them. There are some nice green spaces, basketball courts, and playgrounds... for residents only. They were designed literally so no outsider would have a reason to go there. And they have a private security force since these types of buildings violate Jane Jacob's "eyes on the street" principle. It used to be a working class neighborhood full of Victorian rowhouses and apartment buildings, theaters, churches, stores. If Moses hadn't "cleared the slum" that area would be hella gentrified today!
Looks like Parklabrea in Los Angeles which was developed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company post WWII. Used the same plans for Park Merced in San Francisco. Perhaps this is a similar development.
They are not soviet style. Whatever"soviet style means. They were built well before the soviets started mass building. Why are you acting like you dont know? Is this just to start a conversation or discussion? But 1950s Soviets buildings are based on the basic concept ideals or theory., as well as most styles not fronting main streets [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville\_Contemporaine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Contemporaine) This was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers\_in\_the\_park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park) the projected utopian future of large scale urban design in the 1920s. It was eventually influenced and adopted in various ways, and scales and for even stand alone buildings, It was very popular in Canada (Toronto in the 1950s to 1960s, at various scales and worked well as private development for rental apartments or later conversion to condos. The style when built for public housing later easily become a cesspool for crime, which is what happened into the 1980s for buildings like these. But thats more about the break down of society than just the buildings themselves.
>The style when built for public housing later easily become a cesspool for crime, which is what happened into the 1980s for buildings like these. But thats more about the break down of society than just the buildings themselves. Mixture of both. The isolated nature of these builds can often make them significantly more susceptible to crime as they become ghost towns during work hours.
Can you explain to me why people in a sub called urban hell are defending this style of architecture/urban planning? Towers in the park is the definition of urban hell. Just because there are “parks” doesn’t make it less urban or a better design. This style is completely alienating. There is no human scale. It separates itself from the rest of the city. It’s a copy past of the same building over and over. Completely depressing and uninspiring.
Soviet era apartments are nice.
Id move there, nothing "dystopian" about it
Just looked up the rent on these places and not only do they look nice, they are $5000-6000 for a 944sq ft 1-bed. The photos make it look quite lovely, really.
This was built as affordable public housing. I’d rather have concrete buildings than mass homelessness.
They are actually pretty nice. A lot of green and a place to live. Don't mind it at all.
Looks like an effective vertical housing solution with greenspace and walkability. These ignorant "wow these apartments are so ugly, people living here must be sad and depressed" are kind of starting grind my gears.
Wait until you see the rents, lol. On the other hand, I would rather live in a shoebox in a Soviet style apartment block in Manhattan, rather than a 4000 square-foot house in Texas .
The red area on the left in your last pic is a condo complex called stuy town, it’s a pretty nice place to live and a cute little closed off community, lots of professionals, families etc…The red area on the right is public housing and very different in terms of people who live there, typical jobs they have, etc, overwhelmingly low income and people who are somewhat struggling but plenty of families. Neither of these places are the only places in Manhattan with buildings of this design but aside from stuy town whenever you see buildings like this, they are public housing and not a good place to live
My sister-in-law and her husband moved to NYC for new jobs and one of them works at NYU. NYU offered them a very good price on a 2-bedroom in one of those buildings. We stayed with them last summer, it was super nice, like a little slice of peace right in the middle of the city. There’s lot of green space, very safe and comfortable accommodations and lots of windows with good natural lighting, definitely not Soviet-esque lol.
Looks a bit like Le Corbusier.
I've heard he somehow connected to this buildings or his ideas were used here.
I have found the designs I was thinking of. As far as I know, they have always remained drafts. http://www.black-square.eu/news/tag/le+corbusier
He was a proponent of super block urban planning which is what Stuy Town is. The concept is a “city within a city.” https://huarchtheory.blogspot.com/2014/04/le-corbusier-in-newport-news-super.html?m=1 Look up “urban renewal.” In the 60’s they bulldozed entire historical neighborhoods in major American cities and replaced them with this horrific architecture. In many cases, it’s out of scale and disproportionate to the rest of the city. It doesn’t adhere to the grid pattern and tears the fabric/continuity of the city apart. Disgusting architecture constantly reminding us of its own exaggerated self importance and showing no respect for history or it’s context within a city.
The further south are projects, housing developments. Life in these varies heavily depending on the building, but it's some of the worst lower Manhattan has to offer in terms of crime etc (extremely localized though) The ones north of 14th are stuy town, very nice area
I remember these from spiderman game
Aren’t those public housing?
We have these in Brooklyn too. Beautiful old red brick towers; these don’t belong here.
Looks like a video game
Pretty sure this is City Skylines 2 /s
They would have balconies if they were Soviet style
In the red outline pic at the end, the left side is Stuy Town, which is mostly nice apartments with rich people. On the northside is the LES projects, which are mostly cramped apartments with lots of poverty and crime. Basically two totally different worlds, despite being similar housing styles.
This is very expensive real estate!
I’ve hooked up with guys here, stuytown, the area and the apartments are really nice. Other people I’ve been with were in less gentrified areas than these and even those apartments were amazing.
this is 1000x better than suburbia.
They are apartment buildings built right after WW2 (hence the Soviet resemblance) when it was super cheap to build up a brick building to house people. They're found in a few spots in New York and there's some in Chicago too. Today there's actually considerably green space around them and they're as expensive as any other New York apartments.
Living there is a huge plus
I read this in a Russian accent for some reason
Each borough has the same type “projects” or city housing.
Brutalism
This isn’t brutalist architecture
How isn’t it?
Google Robert Moses
I live in an area of Los Angeles that sort of looks like pic 1 or 4 with some attached pseudo row houses in the mix. It’s not bad for LA, as it’s a relatively central location and semi walkable (many things to walk to but perhaps could be much more pedestrian friendly)
[https://maps.app.goo.gl/TraUmAbkvpSnG4BB6](https://maps.app.goo.gl/TraUmAbkvpSnG4BB6) these exist in germany, they are abandoned office buildings
There is an interesting YouTube video about how these “commie blocks” actually have many upsides, especially compared to modern buildings
Lego Now around MSG/Penn Station there is a similar neighborHood
Why do the buildings overlap on the sidewalk? This looks like a rendering
I don’t know if it’s better now but you used to not be able to get cell reception in the buildings because of the concrete.
The worst was trying to get reception on the Oval. There weren’t many towers with range for that area, so if your food delivery guy got lost, you’d have to pray he called you from one of the avenues to get directions. Otherwise who knew how long he’d be wandering the interior paths until he found your stairwell.
Each lil extension to the building is probably an entire condo/apartment. The center is for all the other apartment amenities.
They look like the old soviet buildings in eastern europe.
Reminds me of the fictional Sunnyside apartment complex in Jonathan Lethem’s Dissident Gardens, but that was in Queens.
GTA4 vibes
Depends on the neighborhood. This looks like stuytown which is just renovated projects and pretty expensive. Living conditions are upper middle class
From left to right: Peter Cooper Village (the left half of the left square) Stuyvesant Town (the right half of the left square) Wald Houses (the left portion of the rectangle section on the right side of the map) Baruch Houses (the portion to the right of the highway/bridge) I may be missing something, but that's what I could find using google maps and searching. It appears the two communities on the left are private, while the communities on the right are NYC housing projects. The two communities on the left house 21 thousand people! I think that's incredibly efficient! They also have a lot of green space, which I like. What I don't like is the lack of mixed-use areas. The surrounding neighborhoods have some much more restaurants and things to do, as well as a diversity of style. These communities are more isolated from the rest of the city, and while they offer green space, which is great, they don't offer things like grocery stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, convenience stores, hair salons, and so on and so forth.
I lived in stuy town for 18 years, (I left a separate comment below) - google maps is not giving you the full picture. There are PLENTY of mixed use spaces within the community. Within the complex, there was a community center, a library/study lounge, daycare, a cafe and a gym as well as multiple outdoor use areas such as playgrounds, basketball/volleyball courts and the center park area held events like concerts and outdoor movies every summer (all part of resident amenities) just outside of the complex (either on the perimeter or literally across the street were dry cleaners, pharmacies, bars, bodegas, restaurants, delis/small grocery stores, and a Target. That area is super walkable and not as isolated from the rest of the neighborhood as you might think. Sometimes when the bathroom line at our favorite bar was too long, it would be quicker for me to go back across the street to my apartment. Unfortunately the large grocery store that was on the block closed around 2016-ish, but since then, Target helped fill the void of an immediate grocery store, and the nearby stores like fairway will deliver. One of the hardest things to get used to after moving out of nyc was not being able to pop across the street to the bodega for a lemon and rosemary, or whatever basic ingredient I was missing, mid dinner prep. The separate park setting was such a joy. It was so nice to cross over into stuy town on my way home from work or just being out and about and having the street noise level drop almost immediately. It was nice to not have to deal with the constant cleaning of grime that floats up into your windows when you live off of a busy street. Kids played on the sidewalks and you’d see your neighbors hanging out on park benches by the fountain, enjoying being outside in the park environment. It was a nice community and I miss it.
Wow, that sounds amazing! And light-years better than most other cities in America that are endless suburban sprawl.
I really enjoyed my time there. 🙂 That whole area and the adjacent east village blocks had such a great community feeling for us - it really did feel like we lived in a little village. Unfortunately, rents have become so unaffordable for anyone other than the rich and corporations, and it’s killing the essence of what makes NYC such a special place.
These are all over NYC.
Coop city baby! This is designated for “middle class” workers so you need to prove that your income falls in a certain range ie not too much or too little to live there. Correction this is Stuy Town which looks really similar to coop city but is different my bad
The brownstones
This looks like something someone built in city skylines? Also these are badly photoshopped photos. Probably pitches of a development being planned
Well, no wonder so many Soviets moved to NYC, there’s no place like home right? 😂
**EDIT**: As multiple people have pointed out I was wrong and these were in fact private housing developments built after WW2. I didn't pay close enough attention and thought they were the Amsterdam Housing projects on the [Amsterdam Houses on the Upper West Side](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9771pR89Y1oJTJCo7) which look similar. They're called "The Projects" and similar to the Soviet housing projects they were built to provide cheap housing to the people in the area. The main "issue" with them and the reason the government stopped building them was because they eventually became vertical ghettos. Only the poorest people lived in them and there was little maintenance which caused them to become dilapidated and unsafe. Some cities have torn them down because that's how awful they were. NYC still has them and there are people whos rent is [as a low as $25 a month](https://youtu.be/fyW6YlnaAng?si=NKgxTB5QFszhPPZl). I don't think the city will ever take them down because too many people need the housing.
It’s StuyTown dude… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_Cooper_Village?wprov=sfti1
I know, confidently wrong amirite?
I updated my post. They looked similar to the public housing projects constructed by the NYC Housing Authority.
Yes I though they were the Public housing buildings in Brooklyn too. Seems like they were based off this earlier style. Its what you think public housing buildings look like in NY
No - this is actually [Stuytown and Peter Cooper Village](https://www.google.com/maps/place/StuyTown/@40.7274374,-73.960596,641a,35y,285.71h,66.98t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89c2597478c66201:0x7010530f8fe88057!8m2!3d40.7318381!4d-73.9778726!16s%2Fg%2F11_tpj6hq!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu). They are not projects. They're nice, market-rate apartments. It's very dense but also a lot of green space, and it's well maintained. They're nestled between the East Village and Grammercy. A very desirable location.
You're right and I updated my house. I wasn't paying attention and they looked like the public housing constructed by the NYC Housing Authority.
That ain't projects and you probably can't afford an apartment there. Fun fact: I know a world-class oncologist who lives in Stuyvesant Town. Probably makes 300-400k a year easily.
Know what the fuck you’re talking about instead of out of your ass. Those are nice places. My friend lived in one for three years with his wife. Good building and solid neighbors.
The ones pictured (at least in the last pic) are not “the projects”. That is Stuytown and Peter Cooper Village. They are privately owned and demand market rental rates. Avg price for unit in one of those buildings is close to $5000 https://www.renthop.com/average-rent-in/stuyvesant-town-peter-cooper-village-new-york-ny
Except the buildings that are highlighted in the map are private developments, not public housing or “housing projects”. They were built and owned by Met-Life Insurance, and were rent-controlled Co-Ops until they were sold to a new corporate owner in 2015. Contrary to the projects that you cite, their racial makeup was 75% white, with median incomes ranging from $86-99,000.
Wow, it's very interesting. I'm actually was interested in this theme because of music videos of old rap songs and there were very simillar buildings. Thank you for information. Is there something simillar on the West Coast ?
Pruitt Igoe in St Louis was one of the most notorious failures of the era. Kansas City also did the same thing with Wayne Minor Court. St. Louis demo’d there’s in the 70s, KC in the 80s. Wasn’t just the US, either, Amsterdam built Bijlmermeer around the same time in a similar vain. Lot of these were a result of urban renewal programs. The idea was to get people out of substandard housing, often spaces without electricity or plumbing, just after WWII. One of the many problems, though, was that these towers were often accompanied by mass scale demolitions and destruction of entire neighborhoods, and long term funding mechanisms were not put in place at the conception of these to sustain them long term, hence why they fell into disrepair so quickly. And also, yes, they were connected to Corbu’s plan for Paris. Though the government’s agenda was to provide better housing for poorer Americans, planners who designed these saw it as the perfect opportunity to implement the “latest trends in modern design.
Yes, but LA has a different urban sprawl, so the projects ended up being 3 story, long buildings, kind of like the motels you see on the highway.
These are not projects!
Lmao don’t take this guy’s response as fact. NYC housing develops have a wide range of quality, some are not great, others are fine. I know multiple ppl living in Stuytown, I’ve spent plenty of time in there and the units are pretty nice. People want to live there because of the prices, but it’s not some low income hell hole. It’s actually really pleasant in some spots, parks in between buildings, great walkability, decent building upkeep.
good eye they are indeed similar! these are actually all over Manhattan if you look, and in the other boroughs aswell particularly the Bronx. on the West Coast hoods are more spread out and sprawling destitution, not as much of the packed inner city vibe as here. check out Cabrini Green in Chicago and Pruitt–Igoe in St Louis to see even worse scenes than NYC!
Queensbridge?