# Commie blocks vs. Abandoned ruins- which are worse?



## Mr. Osaka (Apr 25, 2006)

Which one is worse? 

Socialist Blocks consist of two or more cheap structures that lower-working class people live in. They are popular in some parts of Europe and Canada and China. 


















Abandoned ruins consist of of vacant buildings that might be deteriorating. They care common in the U.S. and some parts of Western Europe.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

Abandoned buildings are worse. Commieblocks can be quite nice.

The erred distinction comes from political arrogance.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Commieblocks. They'll be a blight forever. At least abandoned ruins can gentrify and turn into obscenely expensive lofts and condos if the area they're in becomes trendy for some reason.


----------



## ZimasterX (Aug 19, 2005)

Commieblocks! They kick ass, and I'm not saying this cause I used to live in one.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Abandoned and decaying buildings r worse, because they're just sitting there not benefiting anyone, while commie blocks r fulfilling a useful purpose, even if they aren't doing it in an aesthetically pleasing way.


----------



## muchbetter (Dec 28, 2003)

Abandoned ones must have reason to be abandoned. Commie blocks are quite useful to some extent.


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

I used to live in a Commieblock but I am rather partial to the Acropolis, Chichen Itza, Tenochtitlan, and the Pyramids at Giza to completely write off abandoned ruins. Natch.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Of course abandoned buildings gives a city a bad look. But some public housing blocks especially those in American and European cities have their own social problems such as crime.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Commie blocks. At least they're in use, and not in disrepair.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> Commie blocks. At least they're in use, and not in disrepair.


So they are better, not worse.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

Commie blocks.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Hear that Dresden, Germany is selling its commie blocks, all 30-40k units, to a private developer.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

It's according to which commie blocks. If you're talking about Singapore, their blocks are like condos


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Whoops, I read the question backwards.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Commieblocks.


----------



## Bertez (Jul 9, 2005)

Abandoned are worse......well the worst would be an abandoned commieblock........


----------



## Marcanadian (May 7, 2005)

At least commieblocks have character to them. These abandoned things belong in crappy horror movies.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Commie Blocks, not everyone can live in a mansion.


----------



## Encinal (Oct 9, 2002)

Areas of abandoned buildings can be rehabed and become healthy, attractive neighborhoods; commieblocks will always be commieblocks.


----------



## Toronto_boise (Apr 6, 2006)

Trust me, commie blocks are nowhere near the scale of those ruins. Commie blocks are just damn frightening, and the fact that actual PEOPLE live in them scares me even more.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

when I was in prague I saw some commie blocks which were in quite good shape.


----------



## NiekNL (Sep 28, 2005)

I think commieblocks as well most abandoned ruines have there beauty.
Both are not worse at all.


----------



## DecoJim (Dec 6, 2005)

Encinal said:


> Areas of abandoned buildings can be rehabed and become healthy, attractive neighborhoods; commieblocks will always be commieblocks.


I agree.
For example, take a worst case scenario: Detroit's Brush Park. Some victorian houses in Brush Park are being restored and condos are filling in the lots where restoration was not possible. Some pictures I took:
http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=99925

On the other hand, no one wanted to live in the Pruitt Igo apartment blocks of St. Louis (which remind me of "commieblocks"), so an entire complex of several 11 story buildings containing 3000 apartments was imploded.

Another very important consideration is the quality of construction. I seem to recall a number years ago that some Soviet style apartment towers collapsed (with heavy death toll) in only a moderate strength earthquake that affected some of the southern former Soviet Republics (of course that problem includes but is not limited to "commieblocks").


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

WANCH said:


> It's according to which commie blocks. If you're talking about Singapore, their blocks are like condos


I was thinking that too. In here in Halifax (and I assume the rest of Canada) most of the commie block-style highrises near the centre of town r actually very nice (and often luxury) apartment and condo buildings. The exterior architecture may not be impressive, but the buildings r very nice and I'd love to live in one if I had the money. It's generally the suburban highrise apartment buildings that r home to poor and working class.


----------



## James Saito (Nov 6, 2002)

Abandoned buildings will be developed eventually as soon as there is demand.
But the commie blocks will stay there forever.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Nouvellecosse said:


> It's generally the suburban highrise apartment buildings that r home to poor and working class.


It's not always the case. NY for example has high rise public housing blocks in it's city centre like the ones in The Lower East Side.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The vast majority of the population cannot afford to live in specially-designed tenements. They will have to settle for either highrise commieblocks or a sea of identical single family homes (the lowrise commie block).


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

A lot of commie blocks aren't as bad as people think.


----------



## Handsome (May 2, 2005)

*Beautiful commie blocks*


----------



## Handsome (May 2, 2005)

XCRunner said:


> A lot of commie blocks aren't as bad as people think.


yes,their inside can be very good


----------



## NY1 (Dec 31, 2004)

It depends on the situation. There are those situatiions in which abandoned buildings can be restored, but there are also those that are beyond rehabilitation, or the value of undertaking such a project. On the other hand, when it comes to commieblocks there are those that are in decent place and are'nt horrible places to live, but there are those that a crime ridden/drug infested in which no one wants to inhabit.


----------



## LSyd (Aug 31, 2003)

crap, i voted for the wrong one...more proof this is probably a loaded/biased poll in favor of Asian cities.

i'm more inclined to say commie blocks are worse because they lack the air of mystery and odd beauty that abandoned ruins have. mods, please change my vote?

i really could go either way; it depends on the surroundings/environment/potential of the commie blocks and abandoned buildings. both can house crime and decay and fester a city. both can also have lots of potential, both can be beautiful.

i saw this abandoned gem this weekend in Jackson, Mississippi...the Hotel King Edward.










it's been abandoned 39 years, and is still structurally sound. it is so well built that demolition would be very expensive, and it is also next to the city's rennovated train station which apparently used to be an eyesore. in fact, the whole area around this building looks like it's in the process of rennovation; there's a lot of buildings in various stages of abandonment and rennovation.

more information on the Hotel King Edward 

great news for its restoration; the state is giving $2 million for the environmental clean up 

-


----------



## Clashman (Sep 6, 2004)

Encinal said:


> Areas of abandoned buildings can be rehabed and become healthy, attractive neighborhoods; commieblocks will always be commieblocks.


My thoughts exactly. Anyone who'd like to see evidence of this should check out Mill Ruins Park in Minneapolis.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

The best examples of beautiful commieblocks are Singapore's HDB flats


----------



## fttd (Apr 16, 2005)

both can be very good.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Toronto_boise said:


> Trust me, commie blocks are nowhere near the scale of those ruins. Commie blocks are just damn frightening, and the fact that actual PEOPLE live in them scares me even more.


I would live in ruins--- I had lived in some sort of ruin (Not abandoned, but it's an old broken wooden house, without paved road) in Thompson MB last winter, and I really love those faulty houses--- except some parts of the house could be very cold because of the faulty heating system--- for instance, the kitchen is always left "without" enough heating, roughly 0C, which is still much warmer than the arctic temperature (-30C to -20C) out of the house.

The situation aren't better for commieblocks--- I've always heard that some commieblocks doesn't have heating just like ruins, and commieblocks just makes a city looks poor, while ruins--- that's a rustic kind of "North American" architecture. Preserve them, until they are destroyed by hurricanes, avalanches or tornadoes.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

i voted for commie blocks. Abandoned ruins can be redeveloped, whereas commie blocks are just ugly as ****, like the brown ones in NYC and the white ones in HK. 

although commie blocks are very symbolic of both, those 2 cities wouldnt be such cities without them.

there is no architectural pleasantry from either.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Abandoned ruins are dead deserts, yet commieblocks are real homes for ordinary people - a living urban community.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Abandoned ruins are dead deserts, yet commieblocks are real homes for ordinary people - a living urban community.


They may provide homes especially to the lower class but alot of social problems arise within these areas. It is also the same thing with abandoned buildings unless the places is guarded.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Commieblocks in Melbourne have some of the best views of any apartment building in the city. But they didn't think about that in the 60s, when there wasn't much of a skyline view, and the waterfront was a port and had plenty of industrial buildings nearby.

We've also got this abandoned power station in the middle of the CBD which no one wants to demolish and redevelop because the structure is full of asbestos.


----------



## snife2005 (May 16, 2005)

Communist blocks, especially those in the old soviet union are a reminder of recent history, and so they can be interesting to see how communist society operated. Admitedley many are ugly but i think they still have a place, alongside ruins to remind people of history and give a feel for how thigs were. Therefore i feel none are worse than the other. They both in certain instances can be atrocious eyesores, or stark reminders of times gone by.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

I am a big fan of ruins.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

invincible said:


> Commieblocks in Melbourne have some of the best views of any apartment building in the city. But they didn't think about that in the 60s, when there wasn't much of a skyline view, and the waterfront was a port and had plenty of industrial buildings nearby.
> 
> We've also got this abandoned power station in the middle of the CBD which no one wants to demolish and redevelop because the structure is full of asbestos.


Got any pics of Melbourne commies or public housing?


----------



## skylinearth (Oct 5, 2005)

I prefer commieblocks.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

It's odd that we call bad looking high-rise flats commieblock even if some of them are not in communist cities.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> They may provide homes especially to the lower class but alot of social problems arise within these areas. It is also the same thing with abandoned buildings unless the places is guarded.


The key difference is the visual factor. An area with a lot of eyes watching, such as in a social housing complex, is less prone to crime than an empty lot such as an abandoned building where nobody will observe what is happening. That's why despite the low income profile of these communities, crime is not necessarily a trade-off because a millioin eyes are looking into the court yards below.


----------



## Sideshow_Bob (Jan 14, 2005)

It depends on the condition of the building and it's potential.. I don't believe It's that black or white as some see it..


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Here's some Toronto "commie-block" (this is a stupid pointless name btw)


----------



## Canadian Chocho (May 18, 2006)

sure commie blocks are ugly but not as bad as gross decaying old abandoned buildings


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

But i like commie blocks :/


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Commies of course.Ruins are quite romantic


----------



## ScHoKoApFeL (Apr 9, 2005)

Berlin-Marzahn:


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

The commieblock style is also very common all around the world, from Hong Kong to New York to Moscow. 

Some Toronto commieblocks:


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Nothing at all wrong with high-rise housing developments. 

So long as they are: 

well planned, 
well maintained 
& well administered. 

They were good sound solutions for severe housing shortages that existed in the places where they were built.


----------



## virarch (Jul 2, 2006)

commie blocks


----------



## _UberGerard_ (Dec 23, 2004)

what if ruins coexist with commieblocks?
if i'd have to choose between these, i'd go for ruins


----------



## cjav (Jun 24, 2006)

dont really have many ruins in the netherlands usually they are relativly quick in either demolition or refurbishing but then again usually its the actually ground that is worth most.


----------



## delfin_pl (Mar 11, 2004)

the longest commieblock in the world is in Gdansk -Poland, its almost 1km long :eek2:


----------



## cjfjapan (Oct 10, 2004)

I think Commie Blox are better, but they to qualify they have to have been built under a communist government. Singapore and Toronto don't have commie blox.

The best Commie Blox are in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, IMHO.


----------



## elgoyo (Jun 29, 2006)

the worst thing would be an abandones commie block :lol:


----------



## Mindcrasher (Jan 4, 2007)

I live in a commieblock and I don't complain.


----------



## xutka (Jan 20, 2011)

Abandoned ruins are worst...... they serve no purpose other than making a city look run down and impoverished!

at least commie blocks provide housing for thousands, create a community sense in the district they're in and in many cases can be gentrified to become very decent apartment buildings....


----------



## Guaporense (Jul 9, 2008)

That depends on the ruins, I prefer these to commie blocks:


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I voted abandoned ruins because most of them contribute to urban blight.

Here is an example of a "commieblock", this huge complex is long-deceased. It later became an abandoned ruin itself.








It was demolished at a time before hip-hop/rap music was invented, LOL.


----------



## lucky_luciano (Feb 27, 2010)

I'd have to say abandoned ruins are worse.
Commie blocks don't bother me that much.

Here's a few in Antwerp:


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Thats possible I can't judge as there are almost no examples I know of in Vienna of that style. All I stated before was that Historicism 100 years ago already relied heavily on industrial prefab elements. A lot of people are not aware of that.
> 
> I think its pretty uncontroversial nowadays that architecture which ignores aesthetics and focuses exclusively on function (and deny that aesthetics could also serve a function) has failed. By Aesthetics I am not talking about Disney landish fairy tale kitsch. Aesthetics can be also modern (cost efficient) and pleasing to those who have to use the building on a regular basis or even to live in it. Actually I think its one of the important things which is part of good architecture to create the best aesthetic result in the most efficient way (brutalism pretty much fails there other modern styles are sometimes very successful at it)
> 
> ...


Sorry, I have been busy with work. 

In regards to your assertion that prefabrication has existed for a century or so; yes, i'm well aware of that. 

A lot of new urbanist/neo-historicists dredge this point. Yet they fail to see that prefabrication circa 1911 for the various art nouveau/neo-historicists styles is NOT the same as the prefab being used now.

Back then, prefabrication was generally built for the various moldings and ornamentation. Everything else was still largely crafted in situ because of both a general lower cost of labor, and technological limitations. Today, prefab goes to a much wider scope. With many of these supposed commie-blocks, the foundation and utility core is in-situ, and just about everything else is made in an off-site factory. It leads to compromised aesthetics, but it's still by far the most efficient form of housing. 

Others may deride it for its aesthetic limitations, but there's no cogent argument against its function. 

Many of the projects you list in Vienna or some other wealthy, stable place are still too expensive for most of the world.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Well, actually when I look at a random construction site in Vienna it seems they don't use that much prefab material. The cladding is indeed prefabricated if its glass and steel. Also stone cladding isn't cut out of the rock at the construction site - logically. The building itself is concrete based. Formed of course on site. Then comes the insulation and the windows and the final facade layer is often plaster. 

But thats not the point anyway. I don't see the problem with intense prefabrication while building beyond mere ugly functionality. When I scroll through the offers of completely prefab single homes here in Austria, what I get to see is also the whole range of styles you find here (and most detached houses here are still brick buildings).



> Many of the projects you list in Vienna or some other wealthy, stable place are still too expensive for most of the world.


I know. I was having Europe in mind anyway. But also in poor places you can make a difference. You can build in a smart way, because sometimes two options cost the same while the one looks halfway decent and the other terrible. Sometimes even buildings are constructed in a more expensive way but look uglier than the cheaper option. Especially communist countries were found of that style of brutalism which really excelled in this. But of course, in the very poor areas, priority has to be given to function, if the very basics are missing like even remotely enough living space for the population etc.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

Queensbridge houses, on the ground, are actually not bad. It is public housing, yes, but the grounds are clean. I run by there a lot along the East River.


----------



## constipation (Aug 8, 2010)

Commieblocks if we put a little bit touch up colors, it not bad after all


----------



## pikopancho (May 27, 2009)

^Agreed...problem is that once their built they are generally left to rot. An example of state housing in Perth, Australia.

Brownlie Towers Before (2006)









(Apologies for image size)

Brownlie Towers (2008) during redevelopment
http://www.mingor.net/Images-htm/bent01.htm


----------

