this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
126 points (88.0% liked)

Memes

46159 readers
1829 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I live in Poland. We have both of them.

  1. Soviet-era apartment buildings

PROs:

  • everything within a walking distance (shops, schools, a clinic, etc)
  • a lot of parks nearby
  • fucking wind corridors
  • you can't piss from your window to your neighbors coffe cup
  • you will see some greenery from your window

CONs:

  • tiny
  • very low ceilings - you most likely won't be stretch your arm upwards.
  • very bad acoustic - you can hear downstairs cutting green onions
  • a lot of apartments on a floor (and very tiny lifts)
  1. Modern buildings:

PROs:

  • high ceilings
  • you can piss from your window on your neighbor's bed if you're into it.

CONs:

  • ... we have a whole wikipedia page about it: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patodeweloperka
  • I honestly don't want to talk about it, it's so sad. Generally speaking, bad quality (but deceptively good looking) places that cost too much, in a shitty neighborhood.
  • no wind corridors so say hello to air pollution

Now, I know this sub tends to romanticize USSR, but during occupation (so until 1990) it wasn't that you had an apartment for yourself for every single person. If we just want to consider recent history (like 1980) then:

  • your apartment wasn't yours - it was tied to your job. Like US healthcare. If you lost the job, you would lose the apartment. They were also limited to at most 1 per family.
  • If you wanted to move to a different city to get a job there, then it could be impossible if the company didn't have free apartments there. Often it didn't. There was an semi-official apartment swapping market that often involved a chain of swaps in multiple cities.
  • In practice you wouldn't get a bigger apartment if you had children. You could try to swap for it. Most apartments were overcrowded and multigenerational AND small. It was common for a 3 generational family to live in a 3 room apartment (not "bedroom", room).
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You realize that millions of people living in US and Canada would kill for that right now? It's actually very common at this point for multiple people to share apartments komunalka style because their jobs don't pay a living wage.

Also, you create a false dichotomy here suggesting that if free housing was built the way USSR did it today then it would have to be built to the 1950s standard. Obviously there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't be building modern style apartments.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

komunalka

also, I'm not talking about them. They were a thing in the 50's (after the war) when people were sharing bathrooms or kitchens, they were no longer really a thing in the 80's. In the 80's apartments had their own bathrooms and kitchens.

edit: isn't that basically "Friends" for USA people? :D

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Soviet apartments in the 80s are incomparably better than this, it's incredible that you cannot understand this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_United_States

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I am surprised that you read my post as against building state owned apartment complex, but then why would I expect anything from somone on the internet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Also, you create a false dichotomy here suggesting that if free housing was built the way USSR did it today then it would have to be built to the 1950s standard.

I was describing buildings from the `80.

Obviously there’s absolutely no reason why you couldn’t be building modern style apartments.

... so the ones I described as "so many cons that I'm too sad to talk about them and we have a separate wiki page to describe how awful they can get"?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I was describing buildings from the `80.

Everything I said in my comment still applies if you replace 50 with 80 in it.

… so the ones I described as “so many cons that I’m too sad to talk about them and we have a separate wiki page to describe how awful they can get”?

Once again, you don't seem to understand the simple fact that millions of people in the west have it worse right now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Other than the ceilings part your cons describe most American apartments.

And people would kill here to have nearby parks and stuff within walking distance

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ceiling part is also incorrect, i have no idea where that dude lives but i've been in a lot of different buildings from post war rebuilt ones, though khrushchevka to big plate and i never have a problem with stretching and i'm not short.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I 2nd this, either the person is taller than the average tall Pole, or resided in a gmina for a long time that has low ceilings and thought it's the same everywhere..

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They didn’t get to choose the apartment they lived in, they couldn’t own them, they were often basic with communal kitchens and bathrooms. It’s a good thing they were free because the wages were low, and people were assigned jobs so there was little they could do to improve their careers, not that skilled people got paid much more.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Could I trouble you for some citations?

they were often basic with communal kitchens and bathrooms

The horror, the horror. A building made a decade after a sixth of their population and most of their infrastructure was destroyed by a capitalist invasion and there was communal amenities. Also do you prefer to cook alone?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean... What's worse, what you've described, or paying 50% of your income for a basic apartment or else run from bulldozers as a homeless person? At least people had shelter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also all his statements are mostly lies. First was only true for a period where the country was rebuilding after nazi invasion which turned the most developed and inhabited cities into rubble; low wages are relative, they were low in dollars, but liveable due to low costs of living; assigning jobs was only true for people which didn't found jobs themselves (which was incredibly easy compared to capitalism). There was also possibility to refuse any job whasoever, it resulted in classification as "social parasite" and more or less frequent harrassment by militia, but even then they still get some help from social services and had free healthcare and weren't evicted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Only $200/mo for utilities?!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

i just paid $325 and we turn the heat off every night

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Comparing a modern day American apartment to a Soviet one from 1950 lol okay.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

youre right, a soviet one wouldnt be reduced to ashes during a fire, not a fair comparison.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago