I don't have a problem with people hating on 5-over-1 buildings. I have a problem with people trying to pretend that streamlining construction designs are fundamentally Capitalist or praising streamlined Capitalist buildings like Brownstones and Victorians just cuz they're old
You like mass constructed boxes with pretty ornaments on them built by Capitalists and were hated by the architecture critics of the time.
Housing construction standards in Communist countries dismissed unique designs considered inefficient at the goal of mass housing.
Architects under Capitalism: All these buildings look the same cause Capitalists are lazy money grubbers
Architects under a system that prioritizes shelter over the aesthetic whims of the bourgeois (From Russia's most popular Christmas film The Irony of Fate, 1978):
Most people's complaints about 5 over 1s arent even about that but its facade. This is a 4 over 1 built in my hood (homeless housing). I suspect people will like this style because the architect used bay windows and a arched roof to look older and hide its box design.
Some architects just suck and make ugly designs they think are futuristic
Correct, when the NIMBYs opposed this building their prime complaint was that the colors were boring and it should be shorter. They would codify bad ideas like this if they could
Even Color of Law got this wrong. The famous HOLC redlining maps were hardly used. The real redlining maps by the Federal Housing Administration that prohibited Black people from getting loans were destroyed and never recovered after a Civil Rights lawsuit governing.com/context/redlin…
The HOLC maps were just New Deal area descriptions of lending conditions written by local experts for homeowner-supporting banks that lent to Black people. Federally backed mortgages NEVER did and those maps were destroyed before people got their hands on them.
This map of Chicago is a rare surviving secret FHA map. It is quite different than the HOLC maps which were always public
Today I learned I can't say ma'am anymore, I guess. I'm in the store a woman impatiently cuts in front of me to self checkout and I'm like: "Ma'am, I'm next in line."
"Who are you to be calling me ma'am?!"
Me: "Uh."
One of the store clerks found it hilarious and after she stormed out the clerk tells me she thought I was calling her old. So I guess I'm stuck with Miss and Misses except I have to guess if you're married or not which I dont have to do with ma'am.
It's probably best to to avoid ma'am for like gendering purposes but me and the store clerk was pretty sure she was inferring I was calling her old.
Honestly, a 60/40 split in Women/Men college enrollment is pretty shocking. I didn't realize it was that stark. It has to be because boys are under performing in grade school academics. There aren't programs aimed at boys improving their academics so they just drop out.
Feminism talks a lot about boy's issues. It just never gets coverage because the language is not from an average man's POV. Broader liberal society, including men, don't really talk about men's issues at all because the implication is they have none.
This leaves a vacuum open for the right to weaponize these issues but of course all those incels and MRAs blame women for men's issues when feminism accurately prescribes the problem as toxic masculinity but the language and its speakers are easily derided.
Re-releasing this after others reviewed it:
I calculated a map of changes from Census 2010 to 2020 in California by population, race & housing. Colors are coded by percent increase. Select a subject then hover the mouse to see demographics.
Disclaimers⬇️ darrellowensrcd.github.io/infoTransit/ce…
- Colors were originally percentage increase/decrease, now they are total number increased/decrease for more visual accuracy
- All races besides Latinos are non-Hispanic
- Housing Units include Occupied and Vacant. Vacant count is included.
Black tracts are tracts that changed names and I could not find patterns with. Most changed tracts were identified by my algo and were calculated into the 2010 tract baseline map. So 101.01 and 101.02 in 2020 is put under 101 (2010).
I was a CS major so all my classes were filled with white and Asian men but I get the impression if you're a guy and you're not going for a science or engineering then you don't go to college, really. Women seemed much larger in all other majors, particularly law and poli-sci.
I think that since men are expected to be high earners, getting a higher paying job out of high school is quite the incentive to stay away from college. Whereas women are not expected to be higher earners and thus can forgo high paying work for studies.
Anecdotally, many girls I know are getting degrees to go into fields that traditionally did not require them such as teaching. So I wouldn't be surprised if despite the disproportionately female enrollment that men will still consume the higher paying jobs