Speaking as someone who would generally like to see these ghettos go away here in Sweden as well, as someone who lived in one for well over a decade, I am not so sure this is the way to go about it honestly. People end up living in these places because they’re cheap. Demolishing the buildings and replacing them with shiny new ones will certainly “gentrify” the area, but the people living there will just go to the next place they can afford. You’re just bouncing the ghettos around.
Are the buildings somehow considered unfit for living in? Is it really cheaper to build new than to renovate?
The method we use for “gentrification” here in Sweden is to sell off these publicly owned houses to private landlords who raise the rent and “increase the standard” by renovating the units and the surrounding area. It’s honestly really skeevy as well, I’d prefer to not have private landlordship, but I’d say it’s less wasteful.
In etiher case though, I think messing with peoples’ living situation isn’t really going to solve anything. If the problem is integration, you’ll need to look at where that fails. Here in Sweden there are issues with certain areas basically going under the rule of clans, and we have issues with clans meting out their own justice among people, leading to women being oppressed and LGBTQ+ people vanishing. I don’t see how “spreading the population” is going to fix any of that, when you have people sending their tweenage daughters back to their countries of origin to get forcibly married to some stranger.
Spreading the population may help by diluting the power that the dangerous extremists have over the moderates in the population by physically separating them. I don’t know. It’s hard to see the good of such policies.
Speaking as someone who would generally like to see these ghettos go away here in Sweden as well, as someone who lived in one for well over a decade, I am not so sure this is the way to go about it honestly. People end up living in these places because they’re cheap. Demolishing the buildings and replacing them with shiny new ones will certainly “gentrify” the area, but the people living there will just go to the next place they can afford. You’re just bouncing the ghettos around.
Are the buildings somehow considered unfit for living in? Is it really cheaper to build new than to renovate?
The method we use for “gentrification” here in Sweden is to sell off these publicly owned houses to private landlords who raise the rent and “increase the standard” by renovating the units and the surrounding area. It’s honestly really skeevy as well, I’d prefer to not have private landlordship, but I’d say it’s less wasteful.
In etiher case though, I think messing with peoples’ living situation isn’t really going to solve anything. If the problem is integration, you’ll need to look at where that fails. Here in Sweden there are issues with certain areas basically going under the rule of clans, and we have issues with clans meting out their own justice among people, leading to women being oppressed and LGBTQ+ people vanishing. I don’t see how “spreading the population” is going to fix any of that, when you have people sending their tweenage daughters back to their countries of origin to get forcibly married to some stranger.
Like, clearly the problem isn’t distance.
Spreading the population may help by diluting the power that the dangerous extremists have over the moderates in the population by physically separating them. I don’t know. It’s hard to see the good of such policies.