# Urban Decay in Europe?



## Marcanadian

Urban decay is usually associated with American cities, and I noticed many examples of it when I visited Gary, Indiana, which is supposed to be one of the most impoverished areas in the U.S. Yet I don't come across many examples of this in Europe. I'm sure there are, but I'd like to see some. Post away!


----------



## DarkLoki

In the Netherlands it is not really common to see large area's of decay. Land is pretty expensive so most times it is profitable to redevelop vacant area's. Still, a problem that is quite widespread in the Netherlands is the decay of "industrial" area's or business parks (don't know the exact English term). Cities added a lot of new of these districts because selling land was very profitable, and they all wanted attractive visible business parks near highways and such. The effect is that businesses migrate form old business parks to these new ones. Because supply of these area's is much higher then demand there is no-one who takes their place in their old location and these often inner-city area's start to decay.










I guess this is no way comparable to what happens in America but i'm sure every Dutch city has places like this.


----------



## aaabbbccc

Urban decay is everywhere , yep the rust belt has a lot of urban decay but also many other areas of the United States , Canada does have some urban decay but nothing like the United States 
for the most part urban decay is usually found ( not always of course ) in industrial areas that were once thriving , Buffalo , Detroit , Cleveland , Pit , Gary In , Hartford , Memphis , Erie Pa etc etc 

even my home town of Casablanca Morocco , the east side was once a thriving industrial area , today vast areas of the east side of Casablanca looks horrible like a war zone while the west side is booming , strange but this is gonna interesting to see


----------



## Spookvlieger

*Belgium:*
We have lots of decay mainly along cities around the river Meuse because the heavy industries left...people left... But also in other cities you'll find dilapidated buildings. Nothing you'll ever see in The Netherlands for instance...


----------



## Xusein

aaabbbccc said:


> Urban decay is everywhere , yep the rust belt has a lot of urban decay but also many other areas of the United States , Canada does have some urban decay but nothing like the United States
> for the most part urban decay is usually found ( not always of course ) in industrial areas that were once thriving , Buffalo , Detroit , Cleveland , Pit , Gary In , Hartford , Memphis , Erie Pa etc etc


Hartford's actually not that industrial. It's more known for insurance and finance.


----------



## aaabbbccc

Xusein said:


> Hartford's actually not that industrial. It's more known for insurance and finance.


OK thanks for the info I did not know this


----------



## julesstoop

I guess this looks somewhat like urban decay, in my hometown of Leiden. But, to be honest, this is planned demolition prior te redevelopment of an inner suburb.


----------



## poshbakerloo

In England there are some places with urban decay but not much. Maybe a building here or there, sometimes in the worst places a whole street, but never large areas. A lot get redeveloped quickly due to the UK not having much open land to build new things on...


----------



## De Magellaan

In Western Europe the worst areas are usually the public housing developments from the 60s and 70s. They are not necessarily decaying or being abandoned but they are the most impoverished areas. Such as Cliche Sous Bois near Paris, where the riots of 2005 took place:


----------



## Minato ku

^^ Note that this estate is not public housing, it is privately owned condominiums.
The demolition work began few months ago.

In Paris, outside the big housing estate, we also have some areas with very old buildings in bad state, most of these are waiting the demolition.



















I been here few week ago, none of these building were standing.



























People tend to often forget that Paris is a big industrial city.
In the 19th and 20th century, it was one of biggest industrial center in the world.
There are quite a lot of old industrial wastleland especially around the train track and in northern suburbs. 
Many of those areas need to be depolluted, so the redevelopement took a lot of time.



















Here we see the start of the redevelopment.









Here an old industrial area redeveloped.








Many have been since the 1960's but we still have a lot of industrial wasteland.


----------



## De Magellaan

Minato ku said:


> ^^ Note that this estate is not public housing, it is privately owned condominiums.
> The demolition work began few months ago.


Ah, thanks for pointing that out. There are many, many cities in Europe with those kind of developments and it's my impression that most of them are public, but yea not all of them. 

Usually you can find these on the fringes of cities while in the US it are often the inner cities which are very poor which is a major difference I think.


----------



## Minato ku

Some of worst housing estate in Paris area are indebted privately owned condominiums.
It is more difficult to renovate or destroying than public housing estate.

The Forestière estate (in the picture) was build to be a middle class community.


----------



## Karasek

This happens in Germany too. Many parts of Eastern Germany lost up to, and sometimes more than 30% of their population since reunification. My town dropped from 39.000 to 21.000 in just 20 years, which means we are almost back in preindustrial times, and the urban extensions after 1870 are more or less useless now. The German government started a program called "Stadtumbau Ost" (Urban Restructuring East) to dismantle the outer parts of the towns. It was planned to remove the Commie blocks, but since many people like to live there they actually remove not the Commie blocks now but much more valuable buildings from the 20s and 30s. Meanwhile parts of the old towns crumble since people prefer to live either in 19th century quarters (Gründerzeit) which surround the old towns or in the surrounding villages, and investments in the old towns don't pay off since rents are so low.
The difference to other countries however is that in Germany such buildings get removed much faster, and in place of a grim building you see a lawn.

From my town. These two houses, from the 18th century, are removed now:



















Vacancies amount to 30-40% in the old town:




















Many shops are unrented, even on the main square:




















These houses were removed in the late 90s:











Also removed in the late 90s, among them a house from 1650:


----------



## Adde

^You'de be very unlikely to get permission to tear down historic buildings like that in Sweden. We did that in the 60's (at a huge scale) and then we all realized that we had totally fucked up many of our city centers. 

Plus, these days old buildings are very popular and usually fetch high rents or sell for high prices, so there's not much incentive to tear them down. People with money love to live in nicely renovated historic buildings.


----------



## sky-eye

A few of my pictures of urban decay in Europe.

*Berlin (Germany) *












*
Antwerp (Belgium)*












*Charleroi (Belgium)*




















*Geleen (the Netherlands/ Holland)*












*Heerlen (the Netherlands/ Holland)*













*Rotterdam (the Netherlands/Holland)*












Sittard (the Netherlands/ Holland)














Barcelon and suburbs (Spain)




















Note : some pictures i took years ago, so not every picture is recent. Maybe some areas are now much better.


----------



## FREKI

Not aware of any in Denmark as the municipals is fast to demolish or fix left buildings..

But those interested a very velcome to post any Streetview findings..


----------



## Suburbanist

Adde said:


> ^You'de be very unlikely to get permission to tear down historic buildings like that in Sweden. We did that in the 60's (at a huge scale) and then we all realized that we had totally fucked up many of our city centers.
> 
> Plus, these days old buildings are very popular and usually fetch high rents or sell for high prices, so there's not much incentive to tear them down. People with money love to live in nicely renovated historic buildings.


The question is that German has a different historical population distribution less focused in major cities. So, for a variety of reasons (starting with the massive flee of people before WW2 up to the late 1950s when the evil commies had closed the border with West Germany), many cities just don't have people interested in renting renovated houses in central areas. So no private money would flow there and I guess the German state governments don't have money to support not a handful, but hundreds of thousands of empty residential buildings.

Also, those areas are quite old settlements, so a 19th Century building is not really "historical" for those places.

Finally, there is another issue: it is very hard (= costly) to provide those areas with amenities people want, like floor heating, or an internal space division fit for 2011, not 1911 tastes.


----------



## Jonesy55

Suburbanist said:


> Finally, there is another issue: it is very hard (= costly) to provide those areas with amenities people want, like floor heating, or an internal space division fit for 2011, not 1911 tastes.


I don't think its particularly hard, here in the UK 25% of the housing stock was built before 1914 but a good proportion of those, certainly in middle class areas have been altered through the years to open up spaces, retrofit new heating systems, convert coal cellars into basement offices etc. 

As for urban decay you will find it in certain inner city areas in the UK and also smaller towns in ex-mining areas where the sole employer has disappeared.


----------



## goschio

Suburbanist said:


> The question is that German has a different historical population distribution less focused in major cities. So, for a variety of reasons (starting with the massive flee of people before WW2 up to the late 1950s when the evil commies had closed the border with West Germany), *many cities just don't have people interested in renting renovated houses in central areas.* So no private money would flow there and I guess the German state governments don't have money to support not a handful, but hundreds of thousands of empty residential buildings.


Renovated historic buildings are actually quite popular in Germany. Not sure what you are talking about.

Its juts that there are a handfull of messed up cities in east germany that lost a large part of the popualtion. There are just not enough people left to fill all the space.


----------



## Adde

Well, Sweden doesn't have the same sheer number of old buildings as Germany (since our population is less than 10 million we simply have fewer buildings in general) but many of our cities are medieval in date and we still consider pretty much any building from before 1900 or so "historic", so I don't see why 19th and 18th-century buildings wouldn't be considered "historic" in Germany just because there's older buildings around. 

Sure, it's easier to tear down a 19th century building than a 17th century building in Sweden, but we still try to preserve 19th century buildings when possible. 

And yeah, converting older buildings to modern standards really hasn't been much of a problem here either (though that precise argument was used when they tore down a large part of central Stockholm in the 50's and 60's). Many older buildings are still substantially cheaper to rent apartments in even with thorough renovations because the buildings were paid of decades or even centuries ago, and the tenants-associations are old with solid economies.


----------



## Adde

^Yeah, not really. An economic recession is not the same thing as continous decline. Come back in ten years and we'll know. Right now it's way too early to tell.

And even with the recession, large parts of Europe are doing fine; Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands, parts of Eastern Europe.


----------



## sebvill

Is just an impression I got this year when Ive been around Europe compare to other times. (Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, UK). The only two that I had an impression of improvement were UK and Sweden. In the other hand, the worst were Spain and Italy. 

Socially, Im impressed with the amount of homeless, beggars and drunk people in French cities. I think most of Europe needs to do some estructural reforms. Its not possible that in the Worlds supposedly to be the most socially-advance continent we can still see that level of segregation. And with the economic crisis I think xenophobia is just increasing all around the Old continent.


----------



## De Klauw

^^Europe has the least amount of poor people in the world because the welfare state that exist in most European countries. Your comment doesn't make sense and is based on personal impression.

List of countries by income inequality:









End of discussion.

In the US eg it's far worse. Not to mention South America or the other continents.


----------



## Jonesy55

Which French cities were these?


----------



## El_Greco

Federicoft said:


> Sounds like a very intelligent and sensible comment.


Hes right though, however Id have said that entire Western World is.



sebvill said:


> Socially, Im impressed with the amount of homeless, beggars and drunk people in French cities.


Marseille is a very special place.


----------



## De Klauw

Jonesy55 said:


> Which French cities were these?


I can imagine he saw some homless people. Those are present in every world city. It's not an indication that the city is poor. It's just an indication that the individual doesn't made it in live. The strange sting is some homeless people choose to be homeless, some of them even have a house. They do that for social reasons. A least in Brussels that's true. Most of these homeless people which are legal citizens can get a house via social services.

The problem is that some of those homeless people are illegal immigrants who can't (those people have to go via regulation procedure first).


----------



## Spookvlieger

sebvill said:


> Actually the whole of Europe is in decay right now, not just some areas.


Lol, I meet lots of people from Latin-America that think Europe is falling down. I've never seen so much inprovement in our city centers overhere. It's 100times better than 30 years ago and new buildings rise everywhere in the city centers where once decay used to be.

You people have a wrong conception about Europe and its current growth rate.


----------



## Federicoft

El_Greco said:


> Hes right though, however Id have said that entire Western World is.


Europe and the Western World are in decay?
I think it's pretty safe to say that the urban evinroment of European cities has never been in better shape than today. Just compare cities such as Barcelona, Berlin or Bucharest today with twenty years ago.


----------



## Spookvlieger

^^So true! They alle have become more livable and people have become richer and richer.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Some (not all) people from two specific continents have, on SSC, on their media and else, an unexplained obsession and need to compare their cities with Europe (or US, but more with Europe) and draw overreaching conclusions, like it were much more important to have a taller building u/c, or a shinny new rail line, or a bigger shopping mall to reassure their own collective self-esteem, a process that is very troubling.

So they almost cheer in joy when travelling to Europe with "oh, I saw a beggar, I saw a beggar in London City!" as if they'd rather have Europe "decay" to the point where their cities could be deemed "better looking".

They don't seem to care much about their own cities filled with slums, really violent gangs, unpaved streets, squats on hillsides that collapse on mudslides and kill hundreds every now an then etc, as long as they can spot a beggar in Paris, Berlin or Rome and open champagne (pun intended) for it. 

Of course, Google Street View and ubiquitous photo online albums brought that trend to a whole new level.


----------



## Jonesy55

joshsam said:


> Lol, I meet lots of people from Latin-America that think Europe is falling down. I've never seen so much inprovement in our city centers overhere. It's 100times better than 30 years ago and new buildings rise everywhere in the city centers where once decay used to be.
> 
> You people have a wrong conception about Europe and its current growth rate.


Same here, if people think these cities are decaying it is because they are not comparing them to the reality of 20-30 years ago but maybe to an idealised picture they held in their minds of what they were like back then.


----------



## El_Greco

Federicoft said:


> Europe and the Western World are in decay?
> I think it's pretty safe to say that the urban evinroment of European cities has never been in better shape than today. Just compare cities such as Barcelona, Berlin or Bucharest today with twenty years ago.


Im not talking about urban environment.


----------



## aaabbbccc

Urban decay in Europe LOL ! WHAT A JOKE ! there is very little urban decay in Europe , I have been to France Spain Italy for some people , you have no idea what urban decay is , just come down to Detroit or Gary Indiana in the states now that is urban decay ! Europe is amazing continent I love it


----------



## sebvill

Ive been 5 complete months in Europe this year. Is just the impression I got. It doesnt mean I dont like Europe or I think Europe is poor. In fact I love Europe and as many other Latin Americans Im half European myself (double nationality). But the crisis has hit hard and will continue to do so. And its not just recent. I mean, between 2002-2010, Peru (to give an example) grew by 60.5% (its not even in the Worlds Top 20 increasements in GDP which is dominated by Asian countries) while Italys was reduced in -1%, so its obvious that after a 10 year recession you see some effects.



Jonesy55 said:


> Which French cities were these?


Paris, Lille, Marseille.

Lyon and Nize are better in this aspect.


----------



## PortoNuts

The crisis has been quite irrelevant actually when it comes to urban regeneration. I don't think European city centres had seen so much revival in decades. 

What's the surprise of having found homeless people? They exist and have existed for centuries. 

Unfortunately Peru still has a very long, long way ahead to even be compared with any European country.


----------



## De Klauw

El_Greco said:


> Im not talking about urban environment.


The European economy is still growing. Not so fast like some years ago but speaking of a decay is a far exaggeration. The only think that's decaying is Europe's power in the world. But Europe is not world leading anymore since WOII so it's not that different than 30 years ago. 

In fact I think the Europe of today is a far better place for anyone than 100 or 200 years ago when Europe was world leading and possessed most of the world.

Yes it's true that lots of other countries are catching up. But it's not that Europe is decaying because of that. IMO it's a good thing. The whole world is developing. The same path Europe and America followed some decades ago.


----------



## Jonesy55

De Klauw said:


> The European economy is still growing. Not so fast like some years ago but speaking of a decay is a far exaggeration. The only think that's decaying is Europe's power in the world. But Europe is not world leading anymore since WOII so it's not that different than 30 years ago.
> 
> In fact I think the Europe of today is a far better place for anyone than 100 or 200 years ago when Europe was world leading and possessed most of the world.


Exactly, I doubt many people would trade the Europe of today for the Europe of 100 years ago. Back then European citizens were lining up to emigrate to the New World countries, the European countries having lots of global power didn't stop that. Today they have much less power but the people are far better off and the cities have much better conditions


----------



## Federicoft

El_Greco said:


> Im not talking about urban environment.


All the relevant macroeconomic parameters in nearly every EU country are better today compared to ten, twenty and thirty years ago. Yes, even today, in the midst of a severe economic downturn (which won't last forever hopefully).
Large parts of the developing world are relatively better off today compared to the Western World, it was just about time and it doesn't mean the West is declining.



sebvill said:


> Ive been 5 complete months in Europe this year. Is just the impression I got. It doesnt mean I dont like Europe or I think Europe is poor. In fact I love Europe and as many other Latin Americans Im half European myself (double nationality). But the crisis has hit hard and will continue to do so. And its not just recent. I mean, between 2002-2010, Peru (to give an example) grew by 60.5% (its not even in the Worlds Top 20 increasements in GDP which is dominated by Asian countries) while Italys was reduced in -1%, so its obvious that after a 10 year recession you see some effects.


It's obvious just to you apparently, since ten years ago most Italian cities were indubitably in a worse shape than today.
Growth percentages are meaningless, you're comparing a country with a per capita GDP of about $6,000 with another of about $37,000. I think Suburbanist correctly diagnosed the problem here.


----------



## Blackpool88

sebvill said:


> Ive been 5 complete months in Europe this year. Is just the impression I got. It doesnt mean I dont like Europe or I think Europe is poor. In fact I love Europe and as many other Latin Americans Im half European myself (double nationality). But the crisis has hit hard and will continue to do so. And its not just recent. I mean, between 2002-2010, Peru (to give an example) grew by 60.5% (its not even in the Worlds Top 20 increasements in GDP which is dominated by Asian countries) while Italys was reduced in -1%, so its obvious that after a 10 year recession you see some effects.
> 
> 
> 
> Paris, Lille, Marseille.
> 
> Lyon and Nize are better in this aspect.




It's very easy for a country with a GDP of hardly anything to experience growth of 60%, do you really think in the established trillion dollar european economies you're every going to have growth like that? It's far more stable over here, trust me, Europe doesn't need to be worrying about such things and just because you saw a beggar in Marsaille once on your holiday is not evidence of a European collapse.


----------



## Sarcasticity

roe5745 said:


> Some photos of decay in Liverpool, UK
> 
> As far as I know all these buildings have been demolished now, but they where left standing there for many years like this on the main entrance into Liverpool city centre hno:


Is this what you call urban decay? Highly doubt that was urban decay. Come to US,or southeast Asian cities and you will see urban decay


----------



## sebvill

Its funny how most Europeans cheat themselves about the real situation in Europe.



PortoNuts said:


> The crisis has been quite irrelevant actually when it comes to urban regeneration. I don't think European city centres had seen so much revival in decades.
> 
> What's the surprise of having found homeless people? They exist and have existed for centuries.
> 
> Unfortunately Peru still has a very long, long way ahead to even be compared with any European country.


The first one that we will catch up is Portugal for sure. :lol:


----------



## julesstoop

You don't have a clue, sebvill.


----------



## Spookvlieger

I think it's because of the media showing all the protests across Europe against the cuts that sebvill thinks this way. I have no other explaination. What he doesn't realise is that Europe is still by far the richest continent on the face of the earth with high standard living conditions and very low rates of inequality that are not found anywhere else....if that is what he calls on the edge of collapsing, let him think so. I've had discussions on this forum with Latin Americans before about this issue. *I wonder if it is their media that picture Europe as so. Can anyone less biased confirm this?*

I also think that most Latin Amercan forumers are upper-class on this forum or upper-middle class and that they have a distorted immage of reality living in their rich, clean and sterile gated community or secured downtown condo. Without even thinking why there are gated communities in their country and that appartment buildings need to be secured in the first place...


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I think it is a matter of a process of survival in very unequal places. After all, Latin America is not only way poorer than Europe but also much more uneven in terms of income distribution (with all indirect repercussions). 

After a while it becomes easier to ignore the extent of one's own problems because, in a natural process, people area more used to limited themselves to their own cohort when living in places with many disparities (and I don't criticize them for that).

However, even high income alone is not necessarily correlated to good standards of infrastructure or urban environment. It might lead to a situation of extreme disparities like Dubai, with shinny skyscrapers (sometimes empty, but whatever) and container-built neighborhoods in the outskirts of the city where cheap imported labors live under the desert heat.

This process, one must say, it nothing new at all. Since colonial times, the first immigrants and settlers from the European elites tried to recreate a nice environment for them in midst of the (then) backward, extremely low-tech and outdated way of life of the locals.

*Any* major Latin American city (I stress: any) will have some clusters of high-end housing, shopping and entertainment and a cluster of very bad neighborhoods dominated by gangs and lack of infrastructure. Not even Santiago escapes that. And I also bet that if you take the lower 10% of income in any big Latin American city and compare to the lower 10% of income in any big European city, among legal residents, the situation for the most dispossessed is better on this side of the Atlantic, not because of any crap bogus claim about ethnic/racist superiority, but just because the State is organized. 

That is why "picture wars" or "spot the trash on the sidewalk" posts (here or else) don't excite me a bit: hard numbers and stats are much more telling than cherry-picked Google Street View printouts (that dominate many SSC threads).


----------



## Federicoft

They perfectly know what is the real situation in Europe and in their countries, joshsam.


----------



## Jonesy55

sebvill said:


> Its funny how most Europeans cheat themselves about the real situation in Europe.
> 
> The first one that we will catch up is Portugal for sure. :lol:


I don't think that's the case, less rapid growth is not the same as decay, and i don't really think it is deniable that the urban fabric of most cities is better than it has ever been. 

Compare the subway and high speed rail links of Madrid to the public transport of 15-20 years ago for example, and this is one of the countries you said was the worst.

Of course developing countries should grow quicker and need growth more, they have far more that needs upgrading and are growing from a lower base. There would be something very wrong if they were not growing more rapidly.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ On top of that, merely lower property values or a slow real estate market doesn't equal necessarily decay.

Real estate prices in central areas of Tokyo are, today, in yens, 60-70% lower than at the height of their crazy real estate bubble in the early 1980s. Would someone argue that Japan has been in decay for 25 years?


----------



## Axelferis

Europe knows some hard moments for sure.

But i prefer to live in europe where you have a lot of social security (instead the processus of desindustrialization that hit several workers each years) than to be in a continent like South america where inequalities are higher than here.

In france where i live (Lille) a lot of roms came years ago and you find them around downtown and metro stations, near roads etc...

Roms is a serious european problem whisch is not well treated by Europe.

That for me the biggest sign of europe cities impoverishment.

In England they don't have this problem because it's an island. But the financial crisis make some disasters.We know that a lot of persons lost their jobs like in USA with the collapse of some financial establishments.

I saw the last time in london few homeless guys . But this is due that british authorites makes a lot to avoid to have signs of poverty especially in the touristic center.


Yes Europe crosses a turbulence but it's less spectacular than in south america if you compare the argentina 2002 crisis -> people were really fighting to have meat to eat.

For the moment Europe is not in this state (for the moment)


----------



## roe5745

Sarcasticity said:


> Is this what you call urban decay? Highly doubt that was urban decay. Come to US,or southeast Asian cities and you will see urban decay


So you are saying street after street of abandoned houses is not urban decay?
If not please tell me what you would call it, I would like to know


----------



## Sarcasticity

roe5745 said:


> So you are saying street after street of abandoned houses is not urban decay?
> If not please tell me what you would call it, I would like to know


Those looked like abandoned buildings every city has here and there, but not what I would technically call urban decay. Not unless the entire area looks like that. 

Something like this in NYC is urban decay to me


----------



## henrique42

give Sebvill a break.....have you all ever been to Peru?
I think they deserve their ''15 minutes of fame'', life is horrible over there, people over here in Brazil fallways feel pity for them (IF we remember what Peru is; peru is portuguese for turkey, you see)


----------



## kerouac1848

Sarcasticity said:


> Those looked like abandoned buildings every city has here and there, but not what I would technically call urban decay. Not unless the entire area looks like that.
> 
> Something like this in NYC is urban decay to me


How's this:




















It's Millennium Mills in the Royal Docks in East London. It's weird looking out at it from the train, in fact the whole area around here is rather unique in feeling, not being like the rest of the city tbh.
_
Note: just noticed an image posted on the second page._


----------



## Sarcasticity

kerouac1848 said:


> How's this:
> 
> It's Millennium Mills in the Royal Docks in East London. It's weird looking out at it from the train, in fact the whole area around here is rather unique in feeling, not being like the rest of the city tbh.
> 
> Note: just noticed an image posted on the second page.


I guess that is urban decay. I think its common in cities that were very industrial in the coming of the century. Most of NYCs urban decay are of abandoned mills and factories, so I assume same can be said across the ocean?


----------



## Jonesy55

Sarcasticity said:


> I guess that is urban decay. I think its common in cities that were very industrial in the coming of the century. Most of NYCs urban decay are of abandoned mills and factories, so I assume same can be said across the ocean?


Pretty much, although many in the better locations have been reclaimed and converted to loft apartments/offices.


----------



## sebvill

henrique42 said:


> give Sebvill a break.....have you all ever been to Peru?
> I think they deserve their ''15 minutes of fame'', life is horrible over there, people over here in Brazil fallways feel pity for them (IF we remember what Peru is; peru is portuguese for turkey, you see)


If its horrible to live in Peru I cant imagine how is to live in a country with a lower HDI like......Brazil. :lol:

Go home troll.


----------



## snowland

In Buenos Aires, for an example, we can see a shy gentrifying of urban decay areas, specially those from 2011. 

In Europe, I don't think it's like this anywhere. I've been to Italy, Spain and France this year and I didn't feel this aura.


----------



## Minato ku

I can guarantee you that the situation is improving in France. You didn't feel that because you never been in Europe before.
Urban decay was much worse in the past, more and more industrial wasteland are redeveloped.
Many housing estate are destroyed.

Some satelite picture of the mid 2000's and what we see now at the same place.




































_______________________________________________

Some pictures of urban decay in Paris.



























Last time, I been here, these building were not anymore standing.


----------



## Suburbanist

snowland said:


> In Buenos Aires, for an example, we can see a shy gentrifying of urban decay areas, specially those from 2011.
> 
> In Europe, I don't think it's like this anywhere. I've been to Italy, Spain and France this year and I didn't feel this aura.


You can't just "feel the aura" to evaluate a city objectively. You need hard data, numbers and tables to tell meaningful things about whether a city is "in decay" or not.


----------



## Jonesy55

Minato ku said:


> I can guarantee you that the situation is improving in France. You didn't feel that because you never been in Europe before.
> Urban decay was much worse in the past, more and more industrial wasteland are redeveloped.
> Many housing estate are destroyed.


Yes, I'm sure any European country can find numerous examples, look at Dresden for example.

Here's one from the UK, the inner-city district of Hulme in Manchester was a crime and drug infested commieblock wasteland, it has now been largely rebuilt.

Some pics from the 70s to mid 90s
































































Pics now.


----------



## Minato ku

Jonesy55 said:


> Yes, I'm sure any European country can find numerous examples, look at Dresden for example.


^^ Obviously.
British cities have really improved over the last decade and have had a lot of investment.


----------



## henrique42

''a country with a lower HDI ''

hummm.......HDI, GDP.....a lot of abbreviations that some people nowadays are using so much, without really knowing what they means.

Doesn't take away the fact that peru is a cold, grey, backward, racist and very uninteresting country.


----------



## Jonesy55

henrique42 said:


> ''a country with a lower HDI ''
> 
> hummm.......HDI, GDP.....a lot of abbreviations that some people nowadays are using so much, without really knowing what they means.
> 
> Doesn't take away the fact that peru is a cold, grey, backward, racist and very uninteresting country.


I find Peru quite interesting, I'd love to visit.


----------



## Axelferis

In France we have a major program of urban regeneration!

A lot of "ecoquartiers" appear in every french cities.

Lot of ancient poor belts are destroyed to renew the urban landscapes and let appear green spacious new quarters with new generation of apartments .

The southwest of parisian belt is a great example


----------



## Jonesy55

Dresden 1990:










Today:


----------



## sebvill

henrique42 said:


> ''a country with a lower HDI ''
> 
> hummm.......HDI, GDP.....a lot of abbreviations that some people nowadays are using so much, without really knowing what they means.
> 
> Doesn't take away the fact that peru is a cold, grey, backward, racist and very uninteresting country.


:lol:


----------



## henrique42

''
Cuando tenia 18 años y trabajaba en EUA como mozo y cajero ganaba mas o menos 45 dolares al dia sin contar propinas (eso repartiendo la plata entre los dias que trabajaba y los dias que no) y no vivia muy holgadamente que digamos. Osea estaba lejos de ser pobre pero no tiraba la plata.

Con 45 dolares en Lima al dia...alcanza y sobra. Suponiendo que ahorro 10 dolares diarios para pagar un departamento en una zona regular tirando para buena compartido entre 3-4 personas. 
''




:cheers:


----------



## Spookvlieger

English please. We no speak Americano


----------



## Jonesy55

Some urban decay pictures I took in Birmingham, UK in my lunch break today. These are all less than 5 minute walk from the main central shopping and office area. This part of the city is being gradually redeveloped as buildings like these are refurbished or demolished to make way for new apartments.


----------



## henrique42

''
English please. We no speak Americano  ''

ok! Sorry that I forgot the Belgian difficulties with other languages.


----------



## NordikNerd

Sweden mid 80's urban decay... ^^





...but it's nothing compared to 80's GDR, Dresden 1987. ^^

All photos taken by me.


----------



## snowland

Suburbanist said:


> You can't just "feel the aura" to evaluate a city objectively. You need hard data, numbers and tables to tell meaningful things about whether a city is "in decay" or not.


Of course, but I don't think this actual economic recession that a lot of countries have been passed or passing through can be seen in the streets. Economic stagnation or decay, yeah... Urban decay, not really. All the countries have been improving a lot lately. Spanish and French 80's or 90's riot places mostly disappeared, for an example.


----------



## Spookvlieger

henrique42 said:


> ''
> English please. We no speak Americano  ''
> 
> ok! Sorry that I forgot the Belgian difficulties with other languages.


Strange, when I last checked the stats for my country we where scoring 6th on the world list of best education in foreign languages.


----------



## snowland

What is the most rundown city in Belgium? Liege or Namur, I'd say?


----------



## sebvill

henrique42 said:


> ''
> Cuando tenia 18 años y trabajaba en EUA como mozo y cajero ganaba mas o menos 45 dolares al dia sin contar propinas (eso repartiendo la plata entre los dias que trabajaba y los dias que no) y no vivia muy holgadamente que digamos. Osea estaba lejos de ser pobre pero no tiraba la plata.
> 
> Con 45 dolares en Lima al dia...alcanza y sobra. Suponiendo que ahorro 10 dolares diarios para pagar un departamento en una zona regular tirando para buena compartido entre 3-4 personas.
> ''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:


So you are not only a troll but a clone. I dont know what moderators wait to ban this macaco. :banana: :wave:


----------



## henrique42

''Strange, when I last checked the stats for my country we where scoring 6th on the world list of best education in foreign languages''

Strange, because the flemish and walloons don't seem to understand each other....
:lol:

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668...k-ga-aan-mijn-Nederlands-werken-Eerlijk.dhtml


----------



## henrique42

''So you are a clone''

''como mozo y cajero ''

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## snowland

henrique42 said:


> ''
> Cuando tenia 18 años y trabajaba en EUA como mozo y cajero ganaba mas o menos 45 dolares al dia sin contar propinas (eso repartiendo la plata entre los dias que trabajaba y los dias que no) y no vivia muy holgadamente que digamos. Osea estaba lejos de ser pobre pero no tiraba la plata.
> 
> Con 45 dolares en Lima al dia...alcanza y sobra. Suponiendo que ahorro 10 dolares diarios para pagar un departamento en una zona regular tirando para buena compartido entre 3-4 personas.
> ''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:


Alexpilsen... :gaah:


----------



## Spookvlieger

snowland said:


> What is the most rundown city in Belgium? Liege or Namur, I'd say?


 Charlerloi, but mostly the districts of Bouchetterre, Marchienne-au-Pont.

If you want to see decay take a walk in google street along the N5 (Rue de Bruxelles)or the N90 (Rue de Mons)


----------



## snowland

^^ It doesn't look bad. kay:


----------



## Spookvlieger

^^It does look bad in my eyes... The whole rest of the area around the city also has an industrial rundown look, bad pavement, weeds growing everywhere, empty buildings scattered all around... Only the city center has nice parts.


----------



## snowland

joshsam said:


> ^^It does look bad in my eyes... The whole rest of the area around the city also has an industrial rundown look, bad pavement, weeds growing everywhere, empty buildings scattered all around... Only the city center has nice parts.


So it's the worst major city in Belgium? Those "rues" do have this industrial rundown look, but I think the urbanism is quite ok.


----------



## Spookvlieger

You might find similar area's in all cities along the Meuse and Sambre rivers (steel manufacturing cities) but Charlerloi is the worst in the whole of Belgium by far.

You can also find rundown immigrant neighborhoods in cities like Brussels,Antwerp and Ghent. But unlike Charlerloi there are no abandonned buidlings in these kind of neighborhoods.

*Charlerloi:*

http://maps.google.be/maps?hl=nl&ll...=TbKt2OaqW21sZYCDlDtlrw&cbp=12,88.12,,0,12.41

http://maps.google.be/maps?hl=nl&ll...d=h6gf4d3GJbCkfiyAQass2g&cbp=12,53.99,,0,-0.6

As you can see most buildings in those examples are abandonned.

*Brussels:*

http://maps.google.be/maps?hl=nl&ll...=HuRXEH8z49oK8AYNlMqJOg&cbp=12,325.92,,0,6.11

http://maps.google.be/maps?q=matong...=qiFE6ccMUzdwESNPIkGL2w&cbp=12,243.29,,0,5.21

As you can see, building are just rundown but not abandonned.


Though you might find small spots of decay in any Belgian city like this:

*The city I live in:*
http://maps.google.be/maps?q=Sint-t...pz6YsKf41wh8IBX213L-Q&cbp=12,329.57,,0,-10.61

*Ghent:*
http://maps.google.be/maps?q=gent&h...V5YSnEDPMurKuk5CM-c38g&cbp=12,246.25,,0,12.81

And we have this village that is abandonned due to future enlargement of the Port of Antwerp. But inhabitants where forced to leave...

http://maps.google.be/maps?q=gent&h...d=OTGIsLUg6pjl8Tx0tgCoVQ&cbp=12,330.09,,0,3.8

And that's really about the best I can do for you regarding Belgium...


----------



## snowland

Ghent is kinda rundown (I was passing by the centre and some suburbs in GSV this morning), but it seems to be a great city with great urbanism. I love Belgium. I think the situation in those cities along the Meuse and Sambre rivers might be similar to those in the Great Lakes.


----------



## Spookvlieger

^^Well, the main railway through Ghent happens to run through the "poorer" area's of the city, like the case is in most Belgian cities though. In Belgium you will almost always find the poor city neighborhoods near the trainstations and railways. Ever drivin trough Brussels by train? I wonder what people think that only saw belgium from the train. They must think it's a poor hellhole hno:


----------



## snowland

In Italy, Spain and Argentina it's not so different. ^^

But I wasn't talking about railroads.


----------



## Tchek

snowland said:


> What is the most rundown city in Belgium? Liege or Namur, I'd say?


Far from it. Namur rundown? wtf

Charleroi is the most rundown city of Belgium.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

sebvill said:


> So you are not only a troll but a clone. I dont know what moderators wait to ban this macaco. :banana: :wave:


Out of curiosity: what do you mean by "macaco"?


----------



## Ribarca

joshsam said:


> ^^Well, the main railway through Ghent happens to run through the "poorer" area's of the city, like the case is in most Belgian cities though. In Belgium you will almost always find the poor city neighborhoods near the trainstations and railways. Ever drivin trough Brussels by train? I wonder what people think that only saw belgium from the train. They must think it's a poor hellhole hno:


True. In Spain as well the areas are ugly around the tracks. 

Brussel is interesting indeed. Some areas along the track look like a warzone with buildings with no windows. But my favorite part is that long stretch of hookers along the tracks...

Holland has become so cleaned up. Even Amsterdam. In the old days the entrance along the harbor was very scruffy. Now there are mostly fancy apartments there. Most Dutch photographers go to Belgium to photograph (urban) decay. Our country is a bore in that sense.


----------



## Suburbanist

Ribarca said:


> Holland has become so cleaned up. Even Amsterdam. In the old days the entrance along the harbor was very scruffy. Now there are mostly fancy apartments there. Most Dutch photographers go to Belgium to photograph (urban) decay. Our country is a bore in that sense.


What?

So a country takes care of its urban environment removing bad things like graffiti , crumbling buildings and dilapidated industrial estates and it becomes boring?

Seriously, I never understood this kind of reasoning that sees anything positive on decay.


----------



## Ribarca

Suburbanist said:


> What?
> 
> So a country takes care of its urban environment removing bad things like graffiti , crumbling buildings and dilapidated industrial estates and it becomes boring?
> 
> Seriously, I never understood this kind of reasoning that sees anything positive on decay.


Boring for photographers... I prefer a clean city. But it does not make a good subject for a certain style of photography when a place is so tidy.

A bit of decay does give a city some character and feel of a metropolis. Graffiti is not part of that decay. I hate graffiti unless it's real art like Banksy. I hate tags especially.

Some examples of Hong Kong decay.


Made in Hong Kong part 2 by xavibarca, on Flickr



Made in Hong Kong Part 3: Colossal. by xavibarca, on Flickr


----------



## Manneken3000

Mr Bricks said:


> ^British cities did indeed experience huge loss in population:
> 
> London from 8.6 million in 1939 to 6.6 million in 1981. Population now 7.9 million.
> Liverpool from 846 000 in 1931 to 445 000 today.
> Manchester from 776 000 in 1931 to roughly 500 000 today.
> Glasgow from 1 million in the 1950s to 590 000 today.


 
I would not want to live there either.


----------



## NordikNerd

Urban decay in Tallinn 1998


----------



## Tchek

I think it depends on your social class and your upbringing. I personally find clean suburbs absolutely boring, but since I'm a bohemian of the working class, I've always been fascinated by "urban decay" like Berlin, or the northern or eastern part of Paris, the only place in Paris I'd live. I find grit more interesting than the confortable clean middle class hood. I find the people more interesting too.


----------



## Suburbanist

Tchek said:


> I think it depends on your social class and your upbringing.


No, it has to do with character standards, morals and whether a person finds ok to break the law, disrespect other people's rights, operate as if rules didn't exist etc.



> I personally find clean suburbs absolutely boring, but since I'm a bohemian of the working class, I've always been fascinated by "urban decay" like Berlin, or the northern or eastern part of Paris, the only place in Paris I'd live. I find grit more interesting than the confortable clean middle class hood. I find the people more interesting too.


Your reasoning is exactly the same of those who find "cool" to vandalize a car here, a shopping façade there, to tag somebody's wall over there just because they are "bored". Some people (don't know if it is your case, but you are the one who defined yourself as such) just think they are better than others because they don't live by rules laid by society. It applies to the teen tagger who buys spray and destroy property to people who drink heavily and drive their motorbikes like crazy to serial killers and so on.

Once a person finds not only acceptable, but "cool" and "attractive" to depart from rules meant for an orderly and functional society, the door is opened for more serious violations. One smokes tobacco where not allowed to, tomorrow he's buying illicit drugs, the day after tomorrow organizing a party in a basement without fire protection that catches fire and kills a dozen people. 

Fortunately, we, the normal citizens, law-abiding ones, have the laws and the law enforcement apparatus to get rid of these law-breaking behaviors.

Honestly, I (and I supposed majority of population) don't care a delta if certain cadres of people find law and order "boring". When it is just a matter of personal preferences, like one dressing weirdly or listening trash music, I couldn't care less because it is their personal freedom. But I draw a tick line, one that should be mine-fielded indeed, when illegal actions are involved (like using a derelict - and thus dangerous, maybe full of asbestos, maybe with fire hazard - building for residential squatting).

There is no "right to excitement", to speak so, if it involves trashing our cities!


----------



## Tchek

Come on.
You sound like one of those bourgeois who thinks that poor people are all criminals, drug-dealers or vandals...


----------



## Dahlis

Suburbanist said:


> What?
> 
> So a country takes care of its urban environment removing bad things like graffiti , crumbling buildings and dilapidated industrial estates and it becomes boring?
> 
> Seriously, I never understood this kind of reasoning that sees anything positive on decay.


Its not that simple, its about economy. A well maintained and newly renovated house will have higher rents so smaller shops, restaurants, artists etc. cant affort to rent them. So if all buildings are newly renovated there will only be standardized chain stores and restaurants and a boring neighborhood.

Grafitti has nothing to do with it, thats just a sign that the residents dont care.


----------



## Tchek

Yes a run-down place is run-down because of lack of money to renovate, not because people have vandalized the place.


----------



## Mr Bricks

Manneken3000 said:


> I would not want to live there either.


??


----------



## Suburbanist

Dahlis said:


> Its not that simple, its about economy. A well maintained and newly renovated house will have higher rents so smaller shops, restaurants, artists etc. cant affort to rent them. So if all buildings are newly renovated there will only be standardized chain stores and restaurants and a boring neighborhood.


It is not impossible to build new buildings that are cheap. However, the underlying question is that only gentrification can economically make feasible certain renovation projects, because cities avoid block-wide demolitions and so (which are cheaper than retrofitting or heavily reconstructing without altering façades).

However, there are certain business that shouldn't exist because they can't, financially, bear the burnt of regulations made for the safety of people and property, which is the case of things like mandatory accessibility to people in wheelchair, fireproof, asbestos-free environments, properly ventilated stores, maximum occupancy etc.

All these regulations are deemed sensible (nobody wants a basement store burning on a fire and people dying, or a nightclub with improper emergency exists creating a stampede, or stores/restaurants people on wheelchair can't go to because of narrow stairs. 

Bun on top of that, people don't want cheaper buildings because they want the "visual character" of façades and volumes to be maintained. Then, you need money, lots of it, and only higher rents can justify developer chipping in.

The idea a place should be left "in decay" and in danger just for "underground" or "alternative" business can flourish is abhorrent.



Tchek said:


> Come on.
> You sound like one of those bourgeois who thinks that poor people are all criminals, drug-dealers or vandals...


No, the majority of poor people are decent citizens and can live in sanitized, sterilized, clean and efficient neighborhoods that, if not exciting or particularly beautiful, are at least functional and cared for.

"Bourgois"? WTH? That is so 1989...


----------



## Dahlis

Suburbanist said:


> It is not impossible to build new buildings that are cheap. However, the underlying question is that only gentrification can economically make feasible certain renovation projects, because cities avoid block-wide demolitions and so (which are cheaper than retrofitting or heavily reconstructing without altering façades).
> 
> However, there are certain business that shouldn't exist because they can't, financially, bear the burnt of regulations made for the safety of people and property, which is the case of things like mandatory accessibility to people in wheelchair, fireproof, asbestos-free environments, properly ventilated stores, maximum occupancy etc.
> 
> All these regulations are deemed sensible (nobody wants a basement store burning on a fire and people dying, or a nightclub with improper emergency exists creating a stampede, or stores/restaurants people on wheelchair can't go to because of narrow stairs.
> 
> Bun on top of that, people don't want cheaper buildings because they want the "visual character" of façades and volumes to be maintained. Then, you need money, lots of it, and only higher rents can justify developer chipping in.
> 
> The idea a place should be left "in decay" and in danger just for "underground" or "alternative" business can flourish is abhorrent.


You cant argue with the economics, a 100 year old building will always cost less per month since its been payed for many years ago.

Im not talking about "underground" or "alternative" buisnesses im talking about normal buisnesses like cafes, bookstores etc. that on many occations have been in the same spot for decades that are driven away be modern renovations. 

There are still regulations that keep unsuitable businesses from opening in for example basements.


----------



## Ribarca

It's preposterous to urban decay with vandalizing and graffiti. In Asia there is a lot of urban decay but hardly any graffiti. People here respect public property. The decay gives cities character. I hate totally tidy cities. I wish I had been able to visit Prague before they turned into a theme park for Japanese and Americans.


----------



## Suburbanist

Dahlis said:


> You cant argue with the economics, a 100 year old building will always cost less per month since its been payed for many years ago.


It depends. If the building was left in shambles and needs renovation, it might cost a lot to do it.



> Im not talking about "underground" or "alternative" buisnesses im talking about normal buisnesses like cafes, bookstores etc. that on many occations have been in the same spot for decades that are driven away be modern renovations.


That is because the business owners don't dare buying places to establish their business, but rent instead. For decades. Renters are just that - renters, and should be prepared to pack and move if the landlord decides to do something else of his/her apartments, stores, warehouses... 

A more complicated issue is that of neighborhood-wide renovation programs with compulsory renovation even for landowners and landlords, but that is a minority among all cases. 90% of people that bitches about being "expelled" didn't own the places they lived, worked or had business operating at in first place.


----------



## Suburbanist

Ribarca said:


> It's preposterous to urban decay with vandalizing and graffiti. In Asia there is a lot of urban decay but hardly any graffiti. People here respect public property. The decay gives cities character.


A rotten, ill and bad character, more or less drug dealing gives a "rough" character to a street, for instance, or artillery shelling in a war gives a place a razed, overwhelmed character...

I will never understand why people that are not losers in life would ever feel this sick attraction for places in decay. It looks like a morbid thing, like those people who want to see gruesome pictures of people dying in accidents or else.


----------



## Ribarca

Suburbanist said:


> A rotten, ill and bad character, more or less drug dealing gives a "rough" character to a street, for instance, or artillery shelling in a war gives a place a razed, overwhelmed character...
> 
> I will never understand why people that are not losers in life would ever feel this sick attraction for places in decay. It looks like a morbid thing, like those people who want to see gruesome pictures of people dying in accidents or else.


I feel you are pushing it. I think we have a different state of decay in minds. I mostly refer to the state of the buildings and have no visions of bad characters and drug dealers. 

My guess is that you live in a soulless city yourself (Almere perhaps). My current hometown Hong Kong is as safe as it gets (on the level of Singapore). Still the urban decay gives the city a vibe that Singapore lacks.


----------



## Suburbanist

First, I don't believe in anthropomorphism: cities are just a collection of steel, glass, concrete, stones, pavement, wires. They are lifeless by definition, they have no "soul" or anything whatsoever.

Second, crumbling buildings attract losers and people with crumbling morals and personal character. I firmly believe in the broken window theory. If you have a neighborhood full of buildings with fainting pain, run-down sidewalks with potholes, sewage seeping into flood drainage curbs, a maze of chaotic wires etc., you end up with the following:

(i) decent people, who will not leave among trash unless they are extremely poor and cannot afford anything else, will move out of decaying place; and then

(ii) people with a bad way of life, losers who don't want to have a life centered on work, weirdos who don't care about taking regular showers or keeping their personal standards and thus don't care about their buildings being in a bad shape, move in and take over the place; and then

(iii) the place become attractive to junkies, addicted, long-term homeless, illegal/under the table business that don't pay taxes etc.

Because government shouldn't force mandatory daily showers or a decent work ethic on people, it is better to remove the cultural, architectural and social breeding grounds for such low-life. Having tidy and clean neighborhoods, not letting buildings into decay (demolish, renovate or rebuild) etc. curtails the substrate upon which outcasts proliferate.

==============

Your reason is akin to the thinking of graffiti on trains as nice because it gives a city's fleet "character", or the thinking it is good to have pickpockets and muggers in a certain area because it becomes 'rough and full of interesting people, instead of families with strollers'.


----------



## Arrrgh

Some pictures of urban decay I've taken through time:

Liverpool

Urban decay by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Urban Decay in Liverpool by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr

Manchester

Slum by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr

Glasgow

Decay by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Sunhill Fashions Ltd by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


IMG_4775 by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Shops by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


IMG_4616 by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr

Porto

Rua de Mousinho da Silveira by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Rua de Mousinho da Silveira by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr

Antwerp

Vlag by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr

Gouda

Verval by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Muur by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Houten Straat, Gouda by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr

Rotterdam

Pigeons by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


----------



## NordikNerd

The old mill was a part of urban decay...









...untill they tore it down.


----------



## torstois

Axelferis said:


> In France we have a major program of urban regeneration!
> 
> A lot of "ecoquartiers" appear in every french cities.
> 
> Lot of ancient poor belts are destroyed to renew the urban landscapes and let appear green spacious new quarters with new generation of apartments .
> 
> The southwest of parisian belt is a great example


Yes I can absolutely approve that. A few years ago I spent 1 year as an exchange student in Evry (Essonne), a suburb of Paris. Due to the fact that plenty of people warned me to move to this or several other suburbs of Paris I expected some very shabby and decayed areas. However, although some social housing projects around there can be a bit rough, they mostly do not look decayed but rather modern, clean and interesting. I made a lot of trips in various suburbs since I am interested in modern architecture and plenty of these social housing areas are impressive examples of modern architecture (although they are not necessarily beautiful, though)

The only area which I remember as being different and very decayed, impoverished and run down was the Cité des Bosquets in Montfermeil and the neighbouring parts of Clichy SOus-Bois. Most parts of the Banlieu I did find quite nice. Did they not even refurbish some parts of the notorious "Les 4000" in La Courneuve?


----------



## Xpressway

Suburbanist said:


> Your reason is akin to the thinking of graffiti on trains as nice because it gives a city's fleet "character", or the thinking it is good to have pickpockets and muggers in a certain area because it becomes 'rough and full of interesting people, instead of families with strollers'.


Some people have a fascination with ran down neighborhoods just like there's a fascination with shocking pictures or films and i don't see a problem with it.

But liking pickpockets or muggers is a disconnection from reality and probably those that appreciate pickpockets or muggers for the sake of having rough people have never been assaulted before. Crime itself is a big factor that contributes to poverty as shop owners close for fear of being robed, people avoids walking in the neighborhood (less customers) and the most talented workers refuse going in the neighborhood and then the neighborhood is trapped in a cycle of violence and unemployment.


----------



## Minato ku

torstois said:


> Yes I can absolutely approve that. A few years ago I spent 1 year as an exchange student in Evry (Essonne), a suburb of Paris. Due to the fact that plenty of people warned me to move to this or several other suburbs of Paris I expected some very shabby and decayed areas. However, although some social housing projects around there can be a bit rough, they mostly do not look decayed but rather modern, clean and interesting. I made a lot of trips in various suburbs since I am interested in modern architecture and plenty of these social housing areas are impressive examples of modern architecture (although they are not necessarily beautiful, though)
> 
> The only area which I remember as being different and very decayed, impoverished and run down was the Cité des Bosquets in Montfermeil and the neighbouring parts of Clichy SOus-Bois. Most parts of the Banlieu I did find quite nice. Did they not even refurbish some parts of the notorious "Les 4000" in La Courneuve?


A big part of Les 4000 have been renovated and they destroyed the notorious Balzac block few months ago.
The redevelopment is not over anyway.
























The demolition of La Forestiere housing estate in Clichy sous Bois also started few month ago.
The redevelopment of Cité des Bosquets is in way since few year.

When the riot started in 2005, the redevelopment of these housing estates was already planned.
The riot was hardly suprise for most people.


----------



## torstois

I used to study at Val D'Essonne University in Evry in from September 2004 to Summer 2005. A few month after I left the riots occured. To be honest, I was not that surprised cause similar riots occured frequently in France (although to a lesser extent, I guess). Due to the social situation and frustration in these areas it surely just needs minor isseus to activate initiate such riots. In 2005 it was surely a combination of several issues such as the child that was killed in gunbattle between gangs, then Sarkozy's reaction regarding Racailles et le Kärcher and finally those teenagers being killed during the case with the police in Clichy.
Myself, I never faced any problems in these areas and the only where I felt a bit insecure was Clichy and Les Bousquets

DO you know if the redevelopments in these areas get the support by the locals or is there rather an atmosphere of distrust (such as the fear of being evicted after the refurbishments etc)?


----------



## eklips

^^ The 2005 "riots" didn't start because of a gunbattle between gangs but because two kids died of electrocution by escaping from the police.

As a matter of fact, every single of these "riots" for the last 30 years has been triggered by an issue of police brutality, often the death of someone living in the area. France actually has one of the most violent police forces in Europe.


As for the "redevelopement" in these areas, they are often oposed by the people who live there, because they generally don't help and make the situation worst...


----------



## Minato ku

^^ Some people are sad to see the building where they lived for several decade to be destroyed but saying that they oposed to the redevelopments is not true at all and redevelopments don't make the situation worse.


----------



## eklips

^^ Go and ask the people themselves (those who actually lived such a process) what they think about it and we'll talk.


----------



## Minato ku

^^ Because you know some people you lived a such process or do you only heard the fear of the novelty and the unknow expressed by many people in France who prefer living in poor condition than having any change ? 
Without forgetting that we often hear more the loud minority than the silent majority.

Myself I know some people who have lived a such situation, I will not say that everything is prefect but their housing condition are much better now.

I am not idealistic and I know that it is not perfect and that there is much more to do than redevelopment but I deeply disagree when you say that redevelopment makes the situation worse.
The best thing to do to make the situation worse is doing nothing and letting these neighborhoods decaying even more.


----------



## Ribarca

Suburbanist said:


> First, I don't believe in anthropomorphism: cities are just a collection of steel, glass, concrete, stones, pavement, wires. They are lifeless by definition, they have no "soul" or anything whatsoever.
> 
> 
> Your reason is akin to the thinking of graffiti on trains as nice because it gives a city's fleet "character", or the thinking it is good to have pickpockets and muggers in a certain area because it becomes 'rough and full of interesting people, instead of families with strollers'.


To many people buildings do have a "soul". When I see an old factory building I think of the products that were made there in a bygone era, when I see the colosseum I think of all that took place there centuries ago. And there are numerous other examples. 

How do you view a painting? After all it's just a canvas with some blogs of paint on it. Most people are moved by art (including architecture). How do you view music, just as a few notes?

You have a very sterile vision of a city. I don't think the majority of people share your vision. To many people whole cities even have a soul. Why do people visit prefer to visit a city like Amsterdam in the Netherlands rather than nearby Almere which is cleaner and as a consequence newer? Would you rather bulldozer an old city like Amsterdam and rebuild it?

I fully agree with you on graffiti and the "broken window" policy in Amsterdam has indeed led to a more dignified city. But you have different gradations of decay and you use the extreme as the norm.


----------



## eklips

Minato ku said:


> ^^ Because you know some people you lived a such process or do you only heard the fear of the novelty and the unknow expressed by many people in France who prefer living in poor condition than having any change ?
> Without forgetting that we often hear more the loud minority than the silent majority.
> 
> Myself I know some people who have lived a such situation, I will not say that everything is prefect but their housing condition are much better now.
> 
> I am not idealistic and I know that it is not perfect and that there is much more to do than redevelopment but I deeply disagree when you say that redevelopment makes the situation worse.
> The best thing to do to make the situation worse is doing nothing and letting these neighborhoods decaying even more.


No, but because they have been relocated to municipalities far from where they once lived which has completely destroyed their private and professional lives, not even mentioning their children.

Destruction is often chosen over renovation, and it is common to destroy the biggest most visible building because they can't stand the symbol of big blocks or towers full of poor/working class people, often non-white, it is too threatening.

Often not enough affordable housing is being offered as a compensation while expensive private housing is built instead, and the true purpose of "redevelopment" is not to benefit the inhabitants of these neighborhoods but to please surrounding middle and upper class populations who don't want too big "cités" next door for the sake of "mixité sociale". 

Redevelopment by itself can of course be positive, but sadly it is often just an excuse to destroy autonomous districts that are seen as threats by politicians and a part of their electorate.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I think certain communities are like guetthos, concentrating too much poverty, crime and else. It is a good thing to disband these communities (especially as they are like 90% renters and 10% owners, so they don't have many rights to stay in a place like forever to begin with).


----------



## Xpressway

eklips said:


> Redevelopment by itself can of course be positive, but sadly it is often just an excuse to destroy autonomous districts that are seen as threats by politicians and a part of their electorate.


Can the same apply the other way round? Construction of social housing as means of gaining popularity?


----------



## eklips

^^ It did happen in the past, but, at least in the Paris area, there is a clear lack of social housing compared to the present demand, some people have to wait ten years on the lists before having available housing. 

And I don't know any example of a municipality building social housing in a rich area in order to satisfy their electorate or gain popularity, it's always the opposite.


----------



## eklips

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I think certain communities are like guetthos, concentrating too much poverty, crime and else. It is a good thing to disband these communities (especially as they are like 90% renters and 10% owners, so they don't have many rights to stay in a place like forever to begin with).


Generally, the inhabitants never chose to be concentrated in those zones, however with the decades going by, networks start to build themselves as well as forms of solidarity which make the situation more bearable for the inhabitants. And more often than not, these "redevelopments" only manage to destroy these networks and forms of solidarity and little else. 

As for the people in these areas being somehow "deviant" and therefore should be punished, you read classical American sociologist Howard Becker as it'll clarify a few things...


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ These "networks of solidarity" read more like "criminal networks", "under the table jobs network", "illegal immigration facilitation network" etc.

I'm not saying to throw people who are legal in the country in the streets (illegals should be deported, not housed), but I don't think "communities" have collective rights, only citizens, families and individuals. It would be unacceptable to disband a family (unless illegal immigration is involved) in different places, but totally acceptable to scatter some neighbors around if they are on welfare (= social housing).


----------



## eklips

^^ Really? And how would you know? And anyways, none of the things you mentioned are worst than the other forms of networks you can find in the wealthier areas of the region.


----------



## Suburbanist

eklips said:


> ^^ Really? And how would you know? And anyways, none of the things you mentioned are worst than the other forms of networks you can find in the wealthier areas of the region.


What know? Elite clubs are detrimental? Golf clubs are unacceptable? 

Your posts sounds like it were 1965.


----------



## eklips

I'll send you a happy 1966 new year's card in a few weeks then :laugh:

Is corruption a monopoly of the poor? No, it gets worst and bigger in proportion the more we go up on the social ladder, and guess what? Corruption is based on the informal and friendship networks that exist within upper class areas, at least in France.

And that's just an example.

Now please, can you tell me how you know that "These "networks of solidarity" read more like "criminal networks", "under the table jobs network", "illegal immigration facilitation network" etc."

I'm not asking you to justify your point of view by giving me a normative affirmation ("this is good, that is bad"), I don't care. I am asking how you *know* that these collective networks in the french projects are *just* these 'deviant' activities you described?


----------



## Dahlis

Suburbanist said:


> Your posts sounds like it were 1965.


This is coming from someone thats stuck in 1960s modernism.


----------



## Kolony

Honestly i think Urban Decay is mostly found in western europe because i was in summer in eastern europe (russia, ukraine, poland) and they all redeveloped and renewed their neighborhoods and districts. Even in my hometown the abandoned soviet commieblock project was torn down and replaced with a large residential building. 

But when I was in London some things just were undiscribable.....

But if u can show me some decay in eastern europe... i may change my mind....


----------



## Dahlis

Kolony said:


> Honestly i think Urban Decay is mostly found in western europe because i was in summer in eastern europe (russia, ukraine, poland) and they all redeveloped and renewed their neighborhoods and districts. Even in my hometown the abandoned soviet commieblock project was torn down and replaced with a large residential building.
> 
> But when I was in London some things just were undiscribable.....
> 
> But if u can show me some decay in eastern europe... i may change my mind....


I dont know where you have been but in Stockholm there is no urban decay what so ever.


----------



## Kolony

Dahlis said:


> I dont know where you have been but in Stockholm there is no urban decay what so ever.


That's NORTHERN EUROPE. IN NORTHERN EUROPE URBAN DECAY DOESN"T EXIST. (I think).


----------



## Bannor

^^ In the geopolitical east/west europe, Sweden is considered West.

So it depends on definition really... What is east, what is west, what is north (is britain? is germany? is poland?), what is south (is france?)? Is there a "central europe"? etc etc. So confusing!

Considering a list I read in the chinese sub forum in the Wuhan thread, I would make a big guess by claiming that the only place you find "urban decay" in europe is in "southern europe". Not "western europe".

In Athens, Greece and mainly in some portugese and italian cities.


----------



## Mr Bricks

Arrrgh said:


> Porto
> 
> Rua de Mousinho da Silveira by WindwalkerNld, on Flickr


Half of the entire city looks like that. Even Lisbon is quite run-down in places but Porto is something else.


----------



## Kolony

Bannor said:


> ^^ In the geopolitical east/west europe, Sweden is considered West.
> 
> So it depends on definition really... What is east, what is west, what is north (is britain? is germany? is poland?), what is south (is france?)? Is there a "central europe"? etc etc. So confusing!
> 
> Considering a list I read in the chinese sub forum in the Wuhan thread, I would make a big guess by claiming that the only place you find "urban decay" in europe is in "southern europe". Not "western europe".
> 
> In Athens, Greece and mainly in some portugese and italian cities.


What i was triying to say mainly in highly developed countries that arent scandinavian. 

Like France the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Greece


----------



## Ribarca

Mr Bricks said:


> Half of the entire city looks like that. Even Lisbon is quite run-down in places but Porto is something else.


I just hope that one day they will have the cash to renovate characterful buildings (or at least the facade) rather than replace it with some modern blocks.


----------



## Bannor

^^
That depends on these "characterful buildings". I've seen examples of horrific buildings some culturalists want to preserve for all its worth, making large new housing projects impossible.

I just don't want to generalise though.


----------



## El_Greco

Ribarca said:


> I just hope that one day they will have the cash to renovate characterful buildings (or at least the facade) rather than replace it with some modern blocks.


I like them just the way they are tbh. I can't stand the way old buildings have been overly restored in certain places - garish colours everywhere - looks like Disneyland.



Bannor said:


> making large new housing projects impossible.


If in return we are going to get some horrifically ugly plasticy apartment blocks with tiny windows, as wast majority of residential new builds seem to be, then I'd rather old buildings stay. Aesthetics come first.


----------



## Galro

Bannor said:


> ^^ In the geopolitical east/west europe, Sweden is considered West.
> 
> So it depends on definition really... What is east, what is west, what is north (is britain? is germany? is poland?), what is south (is france?)? Is there a "central europe"? etc etc. So confusing!
> 
> Considering a list I read in the chinese sub forum in the Wuhan thread, I would make a big guess by claiming that the only place you find "urban decay" in europe is in "southern europe". Not "western europe".
> 
> In Athens, Greece and mainly in some portugese and italian cities.


I thought you was Norwegian? You will find plenty of urban decay in the Northern parts of Norway and more rural cities/town that have suffered from migrations into our larger cities. You will also find plenty of places on the Oslo eastern side that suffers from decay. 

Example of rural urban decay. A lot of former decaying buildings in this city have been demolished though, and you can still see the empty plots with flagpoles and driveways after them. 
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vard...=KUuMmdXLsDNOFUKvDh0OBQ&cbp=12,340.9,,0,-0.35

Empty land: 
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vard...8NMfxuCxj0bRpey0w&cbp=12,254.15,,0,11.64&z=17

From Oslo east side: 
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Grøn...y4t1lQxqGsr5YKKTcE9qQg&cbp=12,168.46,,0,-2.29


----------



## Ribarca

El_Greco said:


> I like them just the way they are tbh. I can't stand the way old buildings have been overly restored in certain places - garish colours everywhere - looks like Disneyland.


I agree. But if they are empty now and decaying further they might be completely lost soon.

In Singapore they have done exactly what you described to the remaining shophouse areas. Still better than my previous city Hong Kong were basically none are left.


----------



## Ribarca

Bannor said:


> ^^
> That depends on these "characterful buildings". I've seen examples of horrific buildings some culturalists want to preserve for all its worth, making large new housing projects impossible.
> 
> I just don't want to generalise though.


Some buildings might look uninteresting to you but perhaps they make a great ensemble to you in a preserved old area.


----------



## Galro

El_Greco said:


> If in return we are going to get some horrifically ugly plasticy apartment blocks with tiny windows, as wast majority of residential new builds seem to be, then I'd rather old buildings stay. Aesthetics come first.


Our decaying buildings have often "mysteriously" taken fire so they have been very little to discuss really. Oslo have lost numerous old and grand 19th century city blocks that way.


----------



## Ribarca

That seems a common trick. Another one is to let buildings deteriorate so far that they can't be saved anymore.


----------



## Galro

suburbicide said:


> Urban decay relates to entire areas, not individual buildings. Streetview only tells you how things look at one point in time, it tells you nothing about whether things are decaying or not. To determine whether things are decaying or not, you have to look at the development over time.
> 
> There is no "urban decay" in Oslo in this day and age, especially not when compared to areas of urban decay elsewhere in the world.


It's only individual buildings in Detroit too, yet it is usually used as the archetypal example of urban decay in western countries. How many buildings have to be in danger of collapsing, how much plaster have to be falling from the facades, how many shops front have to stand empty, and how much dirt and graffiti does the buildings have to be covered in before it becomes urban decay? If absolute everything in the city/a given area have to be covered in it, then I doubt urban decay actually exist outside of a few abandoned cities and towns. But of course then it does not exist in Oslo either.


----------



## suburbicide

Galro said:


> It's only individual buildings in Detroit too, yet it is usually used as the archetypal example of urban decay in western countries. How many buildings have to be in danger of collapsing, how much plaster have to be falling from the facades, how many shops front have to stand empty, and how much dirt and graffiti does the buildings have to be covered in before it becomes urban decay? If absolute everything in the city/a given area have to be covered in it, then I doubt urban decay actually exist outside of a few abandoned cities and towns. But of course then it does not exist in Oslo either.


You don't understand the meaning of the term "urban decay", so continuing this discussion is pointless. If an area as a whole has improved for the better, it is not in decay.


----------



## Galro

suburbicide said:


> You don't understand the meaning of the term "urban decay", so continuing this discussion is pointless. If an area as a whole has improved for the better, it is not in decay.


It have only improved to the better when compared to how it was on the worst, but it still in decaying shape comparing to how it was in its prime. The fact is that the (eastern) urban parts of Oslo got a considerable amount of buildings with decay that detract from their original and intended appearance - both as a percentage of the building mass and in absolute numbers. I find it natural to refer to this phenomenon as "urban decay".


----------



## VITORIA MAN

decay in spain nowadays , apartments finished without buyers


----------



## Dahlis

There is no Urban decay in Stockholm today, in the 60s however:


----------



## jefferson2

Cool picture of Stockholm! I think we can agree that the level of decay has decayed and there are now less decaying buildings... I wonder if there was more or less decay in the 20's and 30's? Stockholm looks like it had character in the 60's.


----------



## NordikNerd

Urban decay in Linköping. This disused petrol station was supposed to be demolished last year, but there seems to be some quarrel between the landlord and the local authorities about who is going to pay for the clearance. This eyesore is still here and the neighbours are complaining


----------



## Adde

Dahlis said:


> There is no Urban decay in Stockholm today, in the 60s however:


The urban decay in Stockholm in the 60's has been highly exaggerated. Certainly, much of the older housing stock had not been updated to modern standards, but houses were structurally sound and rarely totally or even partly abandoned. When we see pictures of decay it's usually of so called "rivningskåkar", houses that had been slated for demolition, emptied and then left standing abandoned for years as demolition slowly neared. Sweden was actually going through a strong economic expansion at the time so there wasn't a lack of money. Instead, the "urban decay" was actually caused by the expanding economy, with it's need for a modern financial district in the center of town.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne

In Latvia the most decaying urban areas are:

1) the housing districts for Soviet army soldiers such as Karosta with much of the buildings now abandoned and the rest sparsely inhabited:









2) the old Soviet factory areas which have been abandoned during the deindustrialization in the 90ies








Here the scene is a bit better since the decay has recently stopped - many of the abandoned buildings have been turned into shopping centers, offices, apartment buildings (such as on the right in the picture above) or been demolished.

And then there is the once popular resort town of Ķemeri (now part of Jūrmala city). Still decaying since no one seems to be able or interested in doing something about it.
The oldest parts of the abandoned resort buildings have recently suffered from fire:








The newest parts (Sanatorium Līva complex) is continuing to decay:








And the recently reconstructed hotel building is still abandoned due to many conflicts. The building's previous owner went bust, and now the city council can't sell the building because neither it, nor anybody else wants it for some reason.


----------



## Maximalist

There are many types of urban decay in Spain. First there are entire subdivisions that were finished off, but no one has ever lived in because the economic crisis lowered their values and the banks stopped handing out mortgages. So they are just sitting there rotting. Secondly, there are large development projects that were just halted in their tracks when their developers went bankrupt during the crisis. In my area, we have a 60%-built professional soccer stadium that has just been standing there untouched for five years and a hospital in the same state.

Thirdly, there are buildings that need repairs that no one will pay for., so they decay slowly, bit by bit. And finally there are large areas of graffiti (not street art or murals, but just long streaks of black paint or words) that scar the built form for blocks on end.


----------



## ThatOneGuy

Dahlis said:


> There is no Urban decay in Stockholm today, in the 60s however:


My god how refreshing those towers looked back then...


----------



## Lindemann

'Las 3000 viviendas' (_the three thousand homes_) in Seville, Spain. 
It was built in the 1960s as a public housing project for gypsies and other people living in slums in the outskirts. 
Today is notorious for being one of the most dangerous districts in Spain, and the best example of social and urbanistic failure in the country.


----------



## Nolke

^^ Important to notice that, despite its look, homicide rates and violence over there aren't particularly remarkable by global standards. 

It already underwent a renovation project in the 90s I think, yet you can see the results. Another one is being put in operation at the moment.


----------



## Svartmetall

I managed to find it on street view if anyone is interested. The street view images are quite up to date (Jan 2014).

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.359...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sugJNDM6hC95gjYuO-nUo9A!2e0


----------



## Marco Bruno

Mr Bricks said:


> Half of the entire city looks like that. Even Lisbon is quite run-down in places but Porto is something else.


Remember that Portugal has frozen rents since 1910. Most tenants pay only 20 euros or less in the city centers. Many landlords are broke. 

Even if you have money to buy an empty old run-down building for refurbishment, the bureaucracy is such that you will have to wait 5, 10 or more years to get approval from the city council.


----------



## Mr Bricks

^That's interesting. How has it come to that? I mean how can rents be at 1910 level?


----------



## Eric Offereins

That is just stupid. No one is going to invest in those buildings, which means they will fall into decay.


----------



## juan.83

rubbish everywhere, which means the city needs to educate and integrate the people who live in this area of seville


----------



## Marco Bruno

Mr Bricks said:


> ^That's interesting. How has it come to that? I mean how can rents be at 1910 level?


The first law was created in 1910 by the "first republic" (in 1908 our king was murdered). Later, during the fascist regime (1926-1974) the politicians didn't change the law. The country was poor, the frozen rents were a way to give acessible housing to many people as possible. After the revolution (1974) "everybody" was pro-comunist or sympathizer. Thus the philosophy: landlord = capitalism, tenant = "the people". Eventually the democracy evolved, and in the 80's some updates were made: rents before 1980 and after 1980. But the people living in the historic centers were getting older and older. The years passed and no politician had the guts to change the old rents.

In the same building old tenants pay 7 Euros, and new tenants pay 500 euros or more. So what they do? They run to the suburbs, where flats are less expensive. Lisbon lost 300.000 inhabitants since 1980.

In 2008/2009 came the financial crisis, the bailout, etc. Among other things, the IMF forced our government to change the crazy renting market, specially the frozen rents. But now there's again a lot of pressure to go back.

This Lisbon map (in portuguese) shows Lisbon's renting prices by district. 50% of the population pays under 60 Euros = a ruined city



Eric Offereins said:


> That is just stupid. No one is going to invest in those buildings, which means they will fall into decay.


It's stupid and also hard to explain to foreign people. Tourists usually think that Lisbon has many run-down buildings because "portugal is poor" or "portugal has a crisis". In fact those old building are very good. They survived at least 250 years without a single intervention :lol:

Obviously there are more crazy things going on, like the _ultimate godzilla level bureaucracy_ related with licensing and approvals.


----------



## kalinka?

Marco Bruno said:


> The first law was created in 1910 by the "first republic" (in 1908 our king was murdered). Later, during the fascist regime (1926-1974) the politicians didn't change the law. The country was poor, the frozen rents were a way to give acessible housing to many people as possible. After the revolution (1974) "everybody" was pro-comunist or sympathizer. Thus the philosophy: landlord = capitalism, tenant = "the people". Eventually the democracy evolved, and in the 80's some updates were made: rents before 1980 and after 1980. But the people living in the historic centers were getting older and older. The years passed and no politician had the guts to change the old rents.
> 
> In the same building old tenants pay 7 Euros, and new tenants pay 500 euros or more. So what they do? They run to the suburbs, where flats are less expensive. Lisbon lost 300.000 inhabitants since 1980.
> 
> In 2008/2009 came the financial crisis, the bailout, etc. Among other things, the IMF forced our government to change the crazy renting market, specially the frozen rents. But now there's again a lot of pressure to go back.
> 
> This Lisbon map (in portuguese) shows Lisbon's renting prices by district. 50% of the population pays under 60 Euros = a ruined city
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid and also hard to explain to foreign people. Tourists usually think that Lisbon has many run-down buildings because "portugal is poor" or "portugal has a crisis". In fact those old building are very good. They survived at least 250 years without a single intervention :lol:
> 
> Obviously there are more crazy things going on, like the _ultimate godzilla level bureaucracy_ related with licensing and approvals.


Wow this must be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...? Frozen rents??? Is this legit?


----------



## Spookvlieger

Frozen rents seriously? That's crazy!!!


----------



## Marco Bruno

kalinka? said:


> Wow this must be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...? Frozen rents??? Is this legit?





joshsam said:


> Frozen rents seriously? That's crazy!!!


Yes, and some tenants don't even pay. I remember one case showed on TV, where a couple was expelled, because they didn't pay the rent during 18 years. The landlord had to wait almost two decades. 

No comments...


----------



## Spookvlieger

What a skewed system... People in Portugal will freak out when they see our rents :lol:

Anyway, it's quite effective probably to have no homeless.
The be fair the situation reminds a lot of the situation in Cuba.
Now I also know why in Porto for instance, houses that seemed like nearly collapsing and houses with allready collapsed top floors where still inhabited. I thought they where just dirt poor, but apparently the system in Portugal is seriously ****ed up.


----------



## VITORIA MAN

salaries in portugal are very low , 400-500 euros


----------



## Fern

^^ That's not even minimum wage :lol: Household income is just below the OECD average but well above the World average. No point in disseminating false information. 




joshsam said:


> What a skewed system... People in Portugal will freak out when they see our rents :lol: Anyway, it's quite effective probably to have no homeless. The be fair the situation reminds a lot of the situation in Cuba. Now I also know why in Porto for instance, houses that seemed like nearly collapsing and houses with allready collapsed top floors where still inhabited. I thought they where just dirt poor, but apparently the system in Portugal is seriously ****ed up.


This is a situation that has affected older buildings and cannot be extrapolated to more recent neighbourhoods, so it is in effect not similar to Cuba's situation.


----------



## Marco Bruno

Since the IMF/Troika came here (2011), I've seen more refurbishing than in the last 30 years. Now, at least in Lisbon, even the approvals by the city council are faster and easier to make. Maybe it's the beginning of a new era!


----------



## Gorky

VITORIA MAN said:


> salaries in portugal are very low , 400-500 euros


?!?!

Not even 10% of the population ahah...the avarege in Portugal is 1000€ 

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/...gal-foi-metade-da-media-europeia-em-2013.html


----------



## Fern

Marco Bruno said:


> Since the IMF/Troika came here (2011), I've seen more refurbishing than in the last 30 years. Now, at least in Lisbon, even the approvals by the city council are faster and easier to make. Maybe it's the beginning of a new era!


There are still "minor" details to address such as illegal parking and grafitti. A city can only go so far in attracting new inhabitants if it does not offer clean streets and comfortable/safe pavements to pedestrians.


----------



## VITORIA MAN

Fern said:


> ^^ That's not even minimum wage :lol: Household income is just below the OECD average but well above the World average. No point in disseminating false information.
> 
> 
> sorry for the mistake if it is not true , the portuguese people coming to spain used to say that


----------



## Fern

No worries, we love to put down our country these days :lol: 

In effect even the €1000/month mentioned by Gorky is heavily skewed since Portugal is one of the European countries with the most business owners and, since by law business owners have to act and pay income tax as managers, they tend to pay themselves minimum wage. The rest of their income consists of the profit the business makes, which is taxed at a lower rate than the combined income tax + company's contribution to social security which stands at 23,75%.


----------



## skyshakernowlive

Marco Bruno said:


> The first law was created in 1910 by the "first republic" (in 1908 our king was murdered). Later, during the fascist regime (1926-1974) the politicians didn't change the law. The country was poor, the frozen rents were a way to give acessible housing to many people as possible. After the revolution (1974) "everybody" was pro-comunist or sympathizer. Thus the philosophy: landlord = capitalism, tenant = "the people". Eventually the democracy evolved, and in the 80's some updates were made: rents before 1980 and after 1980. But the people living in the historic centers were getting older and older. The years passed and no politician had the guts to change the old rents.
> 
> In the same building old tenants pay 7 Euros, and new tenants pay 500 euros or more. So what they do? They run to the suburbs, where flats are less expensive. Lisbon lost 300.000 inhabitants since 1980.
> 
> In 2008/2009 came the financial crisis, the bailout, etc. Among other things, the IMF forced our government to change the crazy renting market, specially the frozen rents. But now there's again a lot of pressure to go back.
> 
> This Lisbon map (in portuguese) shows Lisbon's renting prices by district. 50% of the population pays under 60 Euros = a ruined city
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid and also hard to explain to foreign people. Tourists usually think that Lisbon has many run-down buildings because "portugal is poor" or "portugal has a crisis". In fact those old building are very good. They survived at least 250 years without a single intervention :lol:
> 
> Obviously there are more crazy things going on, like the _ultimate godzilla level bureaucracy_ related with licensing and approvals.


I would take advantage and buy up all that property and form a HDB inspired by namesake of Singapore.


----------



## djbowen

Roughly 10% of homes in parts of rural Denmark are empty and blighted:

http://cphpost.dk/news14/national-n...-blighting-the-danish-countryside/111768.html


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ This seems to be a problem across the world at the moment where everyone is moving to the cities away from rural areas. Perhaps we're making a big mistake here as we do actually need people in the rural areas, farmers etc.


----------



## Adde

But farming is so mechanized in the developed world these days that it doesn't employ enough people to sustain rural areas. For instance, in Sweden only 1,5% of the work force work in agriculture. Most people in the countryside have service jobs (healthcare/elder care, retail jobs, the hospitality industry) or trade jobs (builders, mechanics etc). As people move to the cities, there's not enough people to sustain local shops, cafés, tradesmen etc in rural areas.


----------



## Svartmetall

Adde said:


> But farming is so mechanized in the developed world these days that it doesn't employ enough people to sustain rural areas. For instance, in Sweden only 1,5% of the work force work in agriculture. Most people in the countryside have service jobs (healthcare/elder care, retail jobs, the hospitality industry) or trade jobs (builders, mechanics etc). As people move to the cities, there's not enough people to sustain local shops, cafés, tradesmen etc in rural areas.


Yes, but that is Sweden. Have you noticed how much of our food we import simply because we cannot grow stuff here that people want to eat? Bad example. 

Anyway, those who do work in primary industries (forestry, agriculture, mining, whatever) do require the services to sustain their communities and as such it is a shame to see these communities dying out.


----------



## Chrissib

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ This seems to be a problem across the world at the moment where everyone is moving to the cities away from rural areas. Perhaps we're making a big mistake here as we do actually need people in the rural areas, farmers etc.


It seems that the only rural areas where desertification isn't a problem are those that are dense enough. If you live in a village in England or the Netherlands you are always in commuting distance to a city where there are enough jobs for highly skilled people. In less dense countries highly skilled people are forced to leave rural areas because commuting would simply be too time consuming. 

The threshold for rural areas though is rather high, at around 400 inh./km², so only really dense rural areas can survive. So unless there is a population explosion in less dense parts of Europe, say goodbye to many villages.


----------



## Robi_damian

Chrissib said:


> It seems that the only rural areas where desertification isn't a problem are those that are dense enough. If you live in a village in England or the Netherlands you are always in commuting distance to a city where there are enough jobs for highly skilled people. In less dense countries highly skilled people are forced to leave rural areas because commuting would simply be too time consuming.
> 
> The threshold for rural areas though is rather high, at around 400 inh./km², so only really dense rural areas can survive. So unless there is a population explosion in less dense parts of Europe, say goodbye to many villages.


I think an exception is represented by countries that tend to have multiple regional clusters. Villages around regional centres can do ok, even if they sometimes act as suburbs/exurbs. I would give France as an example, as one can notice that many departments (even fairly rural ones) are seeing population growth...


----------



## importedfromserbia

Marco Bruno said:


> Remember that Portugal has frozen rents since 1910. Most tenants pay only 20 euros or less in the city centers. Many landlords are broke.
> 
> Even if you have money to buy an empty old run-down building for refurbishment, the bureaucracy is such that you will have to wait 5, 10 or more years to get approval from the city council.


I have heard the similar "project" law for NYC, where many landlords got broke, not invested any dollar in their rentals, b/c rent was limited by NYC officials.


----------



## Chrissib

Robi_damian said:


> I think an exception is represented by countries that tend to have multiple regional clusters. Villages around regional centres can do ok, even if they sometimes act as suburbs/exurbs. I would give France as an example, as one can notice that many departments (even fairly rural ones) are seeing population growth...


The situation in France wonders me, to be honest. They seem to have growth even in regions that are far away from reasonably large cities (100k+). I have always wondered what these people who move to the villages in France do for a living or whether they commute really far.


----------



## skyshakernowlive

Chrissib said:


> The situation in France wonders me, to be honest. They seem to have growth even in regions that are far away from reasonably large cities (100k+). I have always wondered what these people who move to the villages in France do for a living or whether they commute really far.


Old people? I think commuter towns would attract families, while isolated places would attract old people. The ratio of towns to types of people may be good in France.

Otherwise I have no idea how they support themselves, unless one person works away during weekdays or second home owners are counted,


----------



## Robi_damian

^^Well, it is not as if jobs exist only in large cities. As France has a fairly egalitarian wage scale (as in, jobs in a small town are not that much less attractive income-wise than in Paris) and has a fairly large number of state employees, I expect smaller towns to provide sufficient employment for non-agricultural work. Than you have loads of _sui generis_ situations like, for example, touristic regions.


----------



## Adde

Svartmetall said:


> Yes, but that is Sweden. Have you noticed how much of our food we import simply because we cannot grow stuff here that people want to eat? Bad example.
> 
> Anyway, those who do work in primary industries (forestry, agriculture, mining, whatever) do require the services to sustain their communities and as such it is a shame to see these communities dying out.


I don't think its a bad exempel, but obviously the situation varies depending on variables such as population density and land use. 

And I don't see how "what people want to eat" matters? Sweden could produce enough food to feed its population. The fact that people no longer are willing to only eat what can be locally grown is a separate issue. Few, if any places on earth, can produce everything people want. Every country imports food of different kinds. 

I agree that it's sad that lots of rural communities are dying out. But my point was that the people needed for the primary industries just aren't enough for the most part to sustain well serviced rural communities the way the agricultural economy used to. In densely populated regions this isn't as much of a problem because people can commute into towns for work, but in sparsely populated areas it's a problem.


----------



## tanosmile

In *Italy* we have a loooot of urban decay, specially in the south or in small towns in the mountains. Many of them are empty for decades or more, also because of earthquakes or landslides or whatsoever..

Some cities suffer of urban decay in their old towns because most of the times the expansion of the city has moved the barycenter to newer areas.

here below is a short gallery of cities from the south with 4 different urban decay reasons:

*Palermo*
the city of Palermo has known an incredible real estate investing in the 60's that instead of restore the old town, has built the equivalent of a new one around it. The young people were attracted from the new neighborhoods with more and more modern services and the old town has been left in the hands of the old people first, and than due to the cheap rents, in the hands of poor immigrants and low class people, most of it though has been completely abandoned
Fortunately in the past 10 years, even with the crisis that has hardly hit this city, a lot of private investments have been done in the old town and now we could say the half of it has been fully restored, but there is still a lot of work.
in this thread you can follow this process
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=124076412#post124076412
however is very easy to stumble in areas like these




























*Napoli*
Napoli is divided in two areas, the most ancient one inhabitated by low class people, and the area urbanized in the 1800-1900 that is still now inhabitated by a upperclass society. The most ancient one which is also the city center of the city simply never started a gentrification process, due to economical reasons and lack of investments also discouraged by the strong control that mafia had or has had on the city. In the past few years though the city has been riscovered by the tourists and big investments have been done in public transports, the subway has reached those areas and the neighborhood is slowly restoring his buildings, a lot of new hostels and b&b are opening, as well as restaurants and cafés. There is still a lot to do though, but these areas 15 years ago where off limits while now are full of young people and tourists 24h 











*Taranto* and *Cosenza*
Those two are minor cities in Italy and the problem of their uban decay is due to the fact that the urban devolopment of the two cities was fully oriented only on one side of the city. 

*Taranto*
Taranto old town was originally built on an island attahced to the land by a bridge... the urban development has than contiuned on the main land and the old town suddenly was not in the centre anymore but was the outskirts



















https://www.google.de/maps/@40.4763...!1e1!3m2!1s5Uy1rDcaXLOpnlsOU38VKg!2e0!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.de/maps/@40.4783...!1e1!3m2!1sEBLdseei0J6WJbtUWFIzmg!2e0!6m1!1e1


*Cosenza*
Cosenza as well lived the same problem, but the old town was built on a hill like many medieval cities in Italy. The urban development of the past century has spread the city only on the valley on the south side, while the north, the east and the west are closed by hills and mountains, therefore the old town is now in the extreme outskirt, therefore lost a lot of population and is now almost abandoned










https://www.google.de/maps/@39.2889...!1e1!3m2!1sKc0H0-w0UNIBYckbgmJVbw!2e0!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.de/maps/@39.2900...!1e1!3m2!1sc87gasB6-lRjMyAiDNhhCg!2e0!6m1!1e1


----------



## Chrissib

Robi_damian said:


> ^^Well, it is not as if jobs exist only in large cities. As France has a fairly egalitarian wage scale (as in, jobs in a small town are not that much less attractive income-wise than in Paris) and has a fairly large number of state employees, I expect smaller towns to provide sufficient employment for non-agricultural work. Than you have loads of _sui generis_ situations like, for example, touristic regions.


Can be an explanation, but the question remains whether having such a bloated government sector that provides jobs for the highly skilled in rural areas is sustainable in the long run.


----------



## tanosmile

well, a lot of southern european cities, like Napoli, only suffer of lack of mantainment due to economical issues, wrong politics and low cultural level of the people that live in these areas. Beside that they are not deserted like in the US or UK, a lot of time is the contrary, a lot of people and a lot of economical activities go on here, sometimes they are even over inhabited, specially when we talk about poor immigrants.


----------



## Jonesy55

Chrissib said:


> The situation in France wonders me, to be honest. They seem to have growth even in regions that are far away from reasonably large cities (100k+). I have always wondered what these people who move to the villages in France do for a living or whether they commute really far.


 Run a campsite for passing tourists and sell them produce you make, make crafts and sell them on the internet, in fact anything internet based can be done from home these days pretty much.


----------



## VITORIA MAN

perpignan , france
Perpignan - France by Hubert Marot, en Flickr
Dans les rues de Perpignan 2013 by nadassfoto, en Flickr
UNESAINTJACQUES by HARRY JORDAN, en Flickr


----------



## openlyJane

*Liverpool *is, perhaps, the British city which has witnessed the most prolonged degeneration; especially considering its* fantastic architectural pedigree and status.* Thankfully, this is now slowly being addressed. Even buildings such as* The Albert Dock *complex ( now part of the city's world heritage site) were at one point, in the 1980s, threatened with demolition. Very central and formerly very impressive streets such as Dale Street had been left to decay. Mile upon mile of derelict dockland and warehousing.
Urban renewal also meant that whole communities, such as at* Everton & Kirkdale, *were demolished and the populations moved out to satellite towns and new estates, leaving behind vast areas of wasteland and under-utilised space. This is still a problem in some inner city areas such as *Toxteth *and *Kensington *where recent government housing initiatives were cancelled, leaving street upon street of boarded up housing:









Just to think that this fabulous dockside complex was threatened with demolition as recently as 30 years ago:





_Areas of the city such as* The Ropewalks* have been taken over by independent shops, bars, restaurants, but still suffer from significant neglect and abandonment:
_



_...boarded up *georgian housing* awaiting new uses:
_


_Acres of *derelict dockland.*...._



_...including the awesome* tobacco warehouse *( currently under renovation):
_




_Streets in *Toxteth *are finally being rescued from abandonment in community led regeneration schemes:
_




_Too many areas still given over to *surface car parks:*_





_This georgian building was recently demolished to make way for a new company headquarters:
_


*Everton Library*_ - still awaiting regeneration:
_





_Of course all of the above plus more is only a part of the Liverpool story - and people really ought to visit for themselves to see the other side - which is magnificent. Check out my Liverpool photo thread below._


----------



## Mr Bricks

Incredible how what was once a vast imperial city in some areas has come to look like a rust belt town. Having said that, Liverpool has enormous potential, more so than any other British city perhaps.


----------



## openlyJane

Mr Bricks said:


> Incredible how what was once a vast imperial city in some areas has come to look like a rust belt town. Having said that, Liverpool has enormous potential, more so than any other British city perhaps.


Definitely; the potential is vast.... Nairn in _'Nairns Towns' _written in the 1960s, calls Liverpool _"a world city, more so than either London or Manchester"_. It just has a certain feeling and atmosphere. Currently, however, its huge potential whilst slowly being re-discovered and renovated is under threat from lack of central government funding and money being sucked instead into nearby Manchester.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Speaking of Liverpool and its condition, it is worth posting in this thread about the notion of "managed decline", if you haven't heard of it already.

Toxteth riots: Howe proposed 'managed decline' for city

Conservatives are evil, kids!


----------



## openlyJane

Institutional prejudice is hard to shift.....but Liverpool and its people are incredibly resilient.....


----------



## Spookvlieger

alexandru.mircea said:


> Speaking of Liverpool and its condition, it is worth posting in this thread about the notion of "managed decline", if you haven't heard of it already.


Brussels is known( was known even more in the past) in Belgium for political games in wich they let rot whole city blocks and then raise them to the ground to build new stuff on them

Picture by me; near the south station; 2014.

This city block was left to rot for 3 decades and then they raised it early 2000's and it's been like this ever since. Picture was taken here: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8416456,4.3344305,293m/data=!3m1!1e3
if you look around the area you can discover more empty blocks.


----------



## jacint.mif

I would say most Belgian cities are in some stage of decay, even in super touristy Brugge you find unsavoury buildings/streets on your way from the station to the city centre. They usually have a somehow maintained historic centre surrounded by lots of crap and then, incredible suburbs with big houses and manicured lawns. The result of virtually no planning for decades.


----------



## jacint.mif

Chrissib said:


> The situation in France wonders me, to be honest. They seem to have growth even in regions that are far away from reasonably large cities (100k+). I have always wondered what these people who move to the villages in France do for a living or whether they commute really far.


For some reason France has managed to maintain a higher birth rate than other European countries. But it is still a contrast, you have regions such as Champagne-Ardenne, the Roussillon or Picardy which have been losing inhabitants for years. And then other regions such as Midi Pyrenees, which have been growing a lot, but mostly in the capital, while the countryside decays. 

Back home, we would cross the border into the Roussillon quite regularly, and there was a lot abandoned buildings, rotting infrastructure, stray dogs, etc, until you reached the coast. Much of it looks no better than some third world countries.


----------



## Mr Bricks

jacint.mif said:


> I would say most Belgian cities are in some stage of decay, even in super touristy Brugge you find unsavoury buildings/streets on your way from the station to the city centre. They usually have a somehow maintained historic centre surrounded by lots of crap and then, incredible suburbs with big houses and manicured lawns. The result of virtually no planning for decades.


That is why Belgian cities are interesting.


----------



## Spookvlieger

Belgian city historic centers tend to be quite rich, but like said they are surrounded by densly populated and semi-rundown districts that infact not always (but probably on 2/3 of the cases) are inhabited by lower middle class or low class people. 

The same people that can afford a terraced house in some of those rougher looking area's could also afford a suburban villa with a manicured lawn...It is the lifestyle you prefer. Infact, these houses on the inside can be rather modern and well kept while the outside look a bit rundown with bricks full of soot from the city pollution.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

jacint.mif said:


> I would say most Belgian cities are in some stage of decay, even in super touristy Brugge you find unsavoury buildings/streets on your way from the station to the city centre. They usually have a somehow maintained historic centre surrounded by lots of crap and then, incredible suburbs with big houses and manicured lawns. The result of virtually no planning for decades.



This surprises me, as I had a good exploration of Bruges a few years ago and I don't really recognize it at all from your description. In fairness I didn't get there by train so I went on Street View to make the trip from the railway station to the centre. I have to say that to me it looks perfectly fine.


----------



## jacint.mif

alexandru.mircea said:


> This surprises me, as I had a good exploration of Bruges a few years ago and I don't really recognize it at all from your description. In fairness I didn't get there by train so I went on Street View to make the trip from the railway station to the centre. I have to say that to me it looks perfectly fine.


Maybe it is just me having somewhat higher standard from comparing with other countries with a similar level of wealth to Belgium. For example, in general compared to, say, Austrian cities, Belgian cities look much more rundown and overall dangerous. 


Also, Belgium is the first country i am actually living it after leaving home, and i must say i was surprised by the amount of dirt, grit and horrible infrastructure.


----------



## jacint.mif

joshsam said:


> Belgian city historic centers tend to be quite rich, but like said they are surrounded by densly populated and semi-rundown districts that infact not always (but probably on 2/3 of the cases) are inhabited by lower middle class or low class people.
> 
> The same people that can afford a terraced house in some of those rougher looking area's could also afford a suburban villa with a manicured lawn...It is the lifestyle you prefer. Infact, these houses on the inside can be rather modern and well kept while the outside look a bit rundown with bricks full of soot from the city pollution.


I thought urban decay was not related to the income of inhabitants, nor to how pretty the houses are on the inside. When i think of urban decay I think of walking through he streets, and getting a sense of insecurity, dirt, etc.


----------



## jacint.mif

Mr Bricks said:


> That is why Belgian cities are interesting.


Agreed, it makes for some very interesting urban exploring.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

jacint.mif said:


> Maybe it is just me having somewhat higher standard from comparing with other countries with a similar level of wealth to Belgium. For example, in general compared to, say, Austrian cities, Belgian cities look much more rundown and overall dangerous.
> 
> 
> Also, Belgium is the first country i am actually living it after leaving home, and i must say i was surprised by the amount of dirt, grit and horrible infrastructure.


Overall I agree with you on Belgium, though I'm not sure about their wealth level - they have really struggled to battle against the effects of de-industrialisation. Maybe this is more relevant to Wallonia while the Flemish part is indeed comparable in wealth with Austria, I don't know. Also it would be interesting to know how much of the cause of this phenomenon was due to legislation that did not have the tools to stop wealth going out of the cities towards suburban areas.

When visiting Brussels I left with a good impression of what I could see from the inner city, but more recently I was on my way to Amsterdam and the train entered a Brussels station that had some surprisingly run-down buildings all around it. It was similar in other stations although not on the same level. It is something I always expect from cities, though, and I never judge them on the area of the railway station. I have found little to no exceptions to this, I can't think of any right now. 



jacint.mif said:


> I thought urban decay was not related to the income of inhabitants, nor to how pretty the houses are on the inside. When i think of urban decay I think of walking through he streets, and getting a sense of insecurity, dirt, etc.


Where houses are private property the income of the owners are a factor, though. There are places where it seems obvious that people consciously choose not to invest in the exteriour of their houses, to save money that therefore go into the lifestyle and the interiour. I come from Transylvania where the mentality is at the opposite and such an attitutde would be frowned upon, you're expected to be a serious and competent person (a "gospodar"), and this is supposed to be visible from the outside of your home. 
But I've now got used to not making a direct corellation between wealth and the condition of the buildings. Even in Romanian cities, commieblock neighbourhoods that may still look grim to you now hold most of the country's middle class, who have invested a lot in buying and/or completely renovating the old appartments like they see in the West. There just isn't any care for the exteriours, which is expected to be someone else's problem.


----------



## jacint.mif

alexandru.mircea said:


> Overall I agree with you on Belgium, though I'm not sure about their wealth level - they have really struggled to battle against the effects of de-industrialisation. Maybe this is more relevant to Wallonia while the Flemish part is indeed comparable in wealth with Austria, I don't know. Also it would be interesting to know how much of the cause of this phenomenon was due to legislation that did not have the tools to stop wealth going out of the cities towards suburban areas.
> 
> When visiting Brussels I left with a good impression of what I could see from the inner city, but more recently I was on my way to Amsterdam and the train entered a Brussels station that had some surprisingly run-down buildings all around it. It was similar in other stations although not on the same level. It is something I always expect from cities, though, and I never judge them on the area of the railway station. I have found little to no exceptions to this, I can't think of any right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Where houses are private property the income of the owners are a factor, though. There are places where it seems obvious that people consciously choose not to invest in the exteriour of their houses, to save money that therefore go into the lifestyle and the interiour. I come from Transylvania where the mentality is at the opposite and such an attitutde would be frowned upon, you're expected to be a serious and competent person (a "gospodar"), and this is supposed to be visible from the outside of your home.
> But I've now got used to not making a direct corellation between wealth and the condition of the buildings. Even in Romanian cities, commieblock neighbourhoods that may still look grim to you now hold most of the country's middle class, who have invested a lot in buying and/or completely renovating the old appartments like they see in the West. There just isn't any care for the exteriours, which is expected to be someone else's problem.


I do think in the case of Belgium one of the main problems is the lack of any urban planning. For the past decades they have let anyone built whatever they want wherever they want. IT is very apparent in Brussels, specially in the historic centre, they left a lot of the historic part rot and replace it with crap, for profit I guess. It really didn't help that people were basically free to eat up the countryside with endless sprawl due to relatively low prices. A bit counterproductive in such a densely populated country as Belgium.

You are totally right, i do think cultural perception affect the way buildings are maintained, which might explain why central european countries (Transylvania included, although i have never been there), have, in my opinion, less urban decay. It is just simply not acceptable to most people. 

And again, we agree, as said in my last post, I do not think urban decay is necessarily related with the level of income of the population, it is way more complicated than that.


----------



## jacint.mif

alexandru.mircea said:


> the train entered a Brussels station that had some surprisingly run-down buildings all around it. It was similar in other stations although not on the same level. It is something I always expect from cities, though, and I never judge them on the area of the railway station. I have found little to no exceptions to this, I can't think of any right now.


The stations in Brussels are a disgrace, specially the main 3 ones, not only the surroundings, the stations themselves are terrible. I can't really think of anything good to say about those stations. 

Again, as an exception i would say Austria, I didn't any rotting areas around any of the stations, maybe they were not the best neighbourhoods, but nothing compared to Bru. Zuid/Midi. Switzerland also comes to mind.


----------



## NordikNerd

Nazi architecture in decay on the island Rugen, but this is a tourist attraction so I dont think these buidlings ever will be demolished.


----------



## Capricornium

Urban decay can be fixed Easily, 

Put a Limit to the Building Property ownerxship. That neither physical person nor moral person can own more than 3 houses in a town. 

You must know that most of those decaying building are falling down because their owners who also own many more properties are wanting to demolish those building to buit new ones, but as those buildings are considered Architectural Patrimony of the City, they are protected from demolishing, then the owners rise the rent of the apartments and commercial locals to get more money from them and if they dont get rented, they simply let them decay.

Most of those decaying buildings have owners who do not live in them, but they neither fix them nor sell them cheap. The law must be changed in order to provide the state the capacity to remove decaying buildings from owners to be given to young couples with Family. 

Europe is in a Demografic decay, old people want to live from the work of Young people, and young people want to have a family when they have somehow their housing problem fixed, that make young people not to get married until 30's or 40's when they can only have 0 or 1 child. 

Then the state can take those properties from old greedy rascals and give them to Young couples so they can worry on having 3 or 4 children per couple.


----------



## skyresident

Capricornium said:


> Urban decay can be fixed Easily,
> 
> Then the state can take those properties from old greedy rascals and give them to Young couples so they can worry on having 3 or 4 children per couple.


"Old greedy Rascals" LOL
IMO young people should pay for properties like the so called old Greedy Rascals did.
The state can help out by reducing taxes, and provide long term financing.


----------



## NordikNerd

It's really hard to find urban decay in Linköping, Sweden, but sometimes buildings are neglected if they are going to be demolished when there is new construction planned in the area.









Photo taken yesterday


----------



## Rev Stickleback

skyresident said:


> IMO young people should pay for properties like the so called old Greedy Rascals did.


They would love to have the chance to.

Going by inflation, a house that cost £25000 in 1980 should cost about £100,000 now.

Instead, it will cost about £300,000.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Rev Stickleback said:


> They would love to have the chance to.
> 
> Going by inflation, a house that cost £25000 in 1980 should cost about £100,000 now.
> 
> Instead, it will cost about £300,000.


Both my parents owned houses before they were 30 back in the 1970s. I'm 25 and can't even think about it.


----------



## DrunkMonkey

I'm sure theres some urban decay in eastern ukraine


----------



## NordikNerd

*Hjortkvarn, Sweden*









A building in poor condition in this godforsaken village.


----------

