Talk:Public housing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
I heard someone on the radio talking about living in an Estate. I assumed that an Estate is a term for a public housing project in England. Any UK folks care to comment? Gbleem 05:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It's called a council estate. "Estate" might be an abbrevation, but "estate" also has the same meaning as it does in the US. Moncrief 06:45, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Should I add that to the article? Gbleem 17:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't think you need to. There is already a link to "council housing" in the UK section of this article ("council estate" is just a variation of this term) and there's already a redirect to this article from the term "coucil estate." Moncrief 20:06, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Canada
I changed the "US & Canada" section to reflect simply the US. The article actually didn't mention Canada at all, and while there are some US-style housing projects in Canada (in some large cities), the public housing situation here is generally very different. I hope to add a Canada-specific section soon.
_____
you act like candian housing projects are worse than the Americna public housing situation we are lucky here in canada that the violence hasnt spred up north to us.
Violence hasn't spread up morth? You must be from Saskatchewn or something because here in Toronto I can show you some violence. I am so sure you wouldn't mind walking past the corner of jane and finch at late hours.
Interesting thing is, Saskatchewan actually has a higher per capita homicide rate than Ontario -- 4.33 to 1.74 per 100,000, respectively. ( http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal12b.htm ). And, Toronto's murder rate is only slightly higher than Ontario's a whole, at 1.8 per 100,000. ( http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm ). 216.232.211.244 11:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Erin
^That wasn't his point though. Last year, Toronto had 84 homicide's with 47 of those being gun-related. If you don't consider that to be 'violent' then what is? And you forget...Toronto is a city made up of 2.2 million people. Of course the good neighbourhood's will out-weigh the Bad neighbourhoods or else people wouldn't call it the Liveable City now would they?- Quiet
If you consider the homicide rate in Toronto's low income neighbourhoods such as Jane and Finch, it would be much higher. —
Toronto does not represent all of Canada. Public housing differs substantially across the country, some projects owned by the Feds (CMHC), some owned by provinces, some owned by cities. Some new some old... High-rise public housing for families was a decision CMHC made in Toronto, and they quickly realized it was a mistake. That mistake was rarely repeated in the rest of the country.
It is important to note that the city of Toronto has more public housing projects than the rest of Canada. Other cities in Canada can't compare to Toronto when it comes to violence in low-income areas.
The city of Vancouver has close to 20,000 government funded housing units, and it has the *poorest* neighbourhood in the entire country (do a Wikipedia search for Vancouver's Downtown Eastside)
Yes, but that is only one notably "unsafe" neighbourhood in Vancouver whereas Toronto has quite a number of them.
Fair enough, but you can't say that "social housing" causes "unsafe" neighbourhoods, because Social Housing didn't cause Vancouver's Downtown Eastside to be unsafe (the social housing showed up after it was unsafe). Furthermore the old Social Housing developments that are in Vancouver are typically in normal working class neighbourhoods. Take "Little Mountain" for example. It's a family social housing project that's over 50 years old, and has over 200 family units. The neighbourhood around it seems to be doing just fine. As a matter of fact, it would be hard to buy a house for less than 1/2 a million in that neighbourhood.
It's funny that you say social housing does not cause "unsafe" neighbourhoods, because such is, and always has been the case in Toronto. Neighbourhoods like Jane and Finch, Jamestown, Flemingdon Park, etc. were made as "model suburbs" and eventually when more immigrants came, the crime rate in the aforementioned places started to rise. What I find sad is that the city is redeveloping alot of the projects to make "mixed income" housing. They are also in the process of demolishing one of the largest projects in Toronto (Regent Park), and it looks like they are going to level Lawrence Heights, which is another big one. Anyways, it was cool to learn a little about Vancouver, I am going there this summer! Nice talkin to ya.
[edit] New York Problem
US and Canada may need splitting, as high rises projects do still exist in New York, though they've been torn down everywhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 00:28:24, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
[edit] HOPE VI
Any comment on the HUD HOPE VI program? I don't know the history nationwide, but it's been a glaring failure in San Francisco. I have a great deal of information about local conditions, but I can't generalize for the program as a whole.
[edit] Question? Does this make sense?
The article says:
-
- Federal law required that no person could pay more than a quarter of his or her income for rent in public housing. Since middle class people would pay as much, or more, for rent in public housing as they would in superior private housing, middle class people had no incentive to live in public housing at all.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but doesn't this need to be rephrased? The second sentence doesn't seem to follow from the first.
--It makes perfect sense. Public housing rent is income-based, so those who are earning more pay more rent in real terms. Hence when the private rental market was less inflated than it currently is in most built-up parts of the globe, those on middle class salaries could have ended up paying a greater proportion of their income in public housing than in private rental. Then again, those on middle class salaries wouldn't qualify for public housing in the first place.210.84.13.91 06:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, in another section, it mentions the Penn South Houses in NYC as an example of pre-WW2 high rise public housing. According to various sources, Penn South was built in 1961/62, NOT before WW2.
[edit] References?
I was noticing that this article doesn't contain any references. There are some statements, such as: "In France, a quarter of the population lives in government-subsidised housing complexes, known as HLM (habitation à loyer modéré)" that need a reference. I don't know where that figure came from--it seems a little high--and there should be a reference and maybe some clarification. I don't think that living in government-subsidized housing implies living in a housing project, as this article suggests.--140.141.28.30 04:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UK Section
"Council Estates are located in working class neighbourhoods and are magnets for high crime (evidenced by easily available crime statistics) and urban decay due to their negative effect on surrounding property values. They are looked upon as very undesirible by middle class and upper middle class Britons to have located in their neighbourhoods. Many elderly and/or disabled tenants suffer greatly due to the inability of responsible government agencies to clamp down on rampant crime. So-called activists will often fight any legislation that would throw out undesirable tenants claiming civil rights violations."
Nothing is cited for this paragraph. Someone clearly has an axe to grind. Will edit shortly. ClaudiaVEGraham 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
"Yet this social housing is still so expensive that 77 per cent of all tenants need to claim housing benefit in order to live in it". This is misleading and redundant. Entitlement to Housing Benefit is primarily based on income, not cost of housing. Only once income exceeds a certain level does the cost of housing affect entitlement. So even if social housing cost a few pence, most tenants would still be entitled to claim housing benefit to live in it. (see main article on Housing Benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_benefit)
[edit] racism
Racism is an issue in the United States? There are no issues with racism in Canada? This is an opinion, unreferenced and silly. Native Canadians feel totally at home?
It could, however, be valid, were it rephrased: "Racial issues tend to persist more in the public housing projects of the United States, due to the history of racially-driven income disparity."
Oh yeah, and you'd have to cite that too. The other one was ridiculous. I've removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.101.1.131 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
---oh, now someone has removed the entire US/Canada section. Hopefully, it'll be rewritten from a more objective perspective.
[edit] Austria?
I know that much of housing in Austria, or at least in Wien (Vienna) is owned by city or state. Public housing buildings are generally interspersed with other types of buildings, not all tenants are subsidised and some flats are sold on the open market, thus avoiding "ghettoisation" and high rate of crime and vandalism that goes with it.
Would some, err, native care to write a section on this, I would say, rather notable success story? --bonzi 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Projects?
Why has someone gotten all the references to "public housing" in this article and changed them to "projects"? "Projects" is very Americo-centric. I don't know of anywhere else in the world where public housing is referred to as "projects". Certainly public housing estates in Australia are never referred to as "projects", yet the Australian section of this article was thus changed. --TripleThree 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It all boil's down to the same meaning my friend whether you may call it a Project, a Ghetto or an Estate. - Quiet
Excuse me, Quiet, that is not the right attitude to bring to the editing of an encyclopedia. Of course it is important to get the terminology correct, and that may well mean that terms will vary between countries. As in all other areas of life, let's strive for an absence of USA hegemony. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.13.46 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
