Something like that could create the "small town atmosphere" many city dwellers seek without destroying the city.
Something like that could create the "small town atmosphere" many city dwellers seek without destroying the city.
Also, I think a big reason this model is so "successful" is that people don't have much of an alternative. Really, would you _prefer_ to go to that sketchy-looking grocery store with the mayonnaise next to the cereal, if you had the choice of going a few blocks to a large supermarket? To be honest, I've never spent any time using my own apartment's amenities. I live in the city, because I want to be with people like me, not because I want forced socialization with people who just happen to live together.
I live in the city, because I want to be with people
like me, not because I want forced socialization with
people who just happen to live together.
That just sounds like a contradiction...Aside from my housemates, I don't know so much as the first name of any other person on my block; but I live here because dozens of my friends live within a mile of my house.
In Singapore, 80% of people today live in what are called HDB flats. These are government subsidized housing projects (with few of the downsides that phrase entails in the west). These HDB buildings (or just "HDBs") are each, eventually, integrated as part of an "estate" which usually comprises one or two grocery stores, some restaurants, maybe a salon or barber shop, hardware store, etc.
Given Singapore's population density, there are often several HDBs near each other in one "town." But if you want, you can find one that lets you live in relative isolation, with shopping and eating downstairs, and perhaps a direct connection to the metro to get to work. The playground will be outside, but otherwise you could live almost entirely indoors if you wanted...and some people do, since it's 30 degrees Celsius every day.
The two significant differences here are 1) government officials and law enforcement are part of the housing complex and not external; 2) since they aren't housing projects, the buildings don't have automatic class stigma.
More like a failed experiment in social organization. The same model works fine in Singapore because the government aggressively routes around social problems: for example, they assign ethnic and income quotas in each building in order to maintain a mostly even distribution of population groups, impeding the rise of ghettos and basically forcing different people to get along[1].
The failure of '70s/'80s "projects" in most countries was due to an excess of faith in the ability of mankind to live together given communal spaces, and incomplete information in terms of social dynamics likely to develop in such settings (and around them, e.g. "white flight" was in full swing but it was not completely understood at political level [2]).
[1] Singaporean housing policies are not entirely benign: they are also used to break out political organizations and silence critics of the government. Central planning, as usual, is a double-edged sword.
[2] ... to be kind. A more unkind reading is that upper echelons knew perfectly well what was happening, saw the future coming, and just let it be.
If others are curious, here is the Singapore "Housing and Development Board" website that spells out the details and through which you apply for a spot: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatEthni...
"The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was implemented to promote racial integration and harmony. The policy also aims to prevent the formation of racial enclaves by ensuring a balanced ethnic mix among the various ethnic communities living in public housing estates. [...] When the ethnic group proportion or SPR quota or both have reached the block/neighbourhood limit, a buyer will not be allowed to buy a flat as it will lead to an increase in that ethnic proportion or SPR quota or both."