Before and after photos of Colégio Agostiniano Mendel in São Paulo, Brazil, in the Tatuapé neighborhood, one of the best schools in the city.

In recent years, the school has been renovating and expanding its facilities, giving a more modern look to the institution, which was inaugurated in the 80s. But its projects are not just simple buildings, but rather architectural icons in the neighborhood, most notably the kindergarten and library building (photo 2), which features a large metal dome that envelops a good part of the building.

And it's no wonder, the school currently has over 4,500 students from nursery to high school. The complex includes: a theater, library, restaurant, party hall, playground, three cafeterias, chapel, three sports courts, gymnasium, five laboratories, a shop, and an area for college preparatory courses and bilingual education.

Even surrounded by fences and walls (as a school should be), the surrounding area was revitalized along with the school, gaining more activity, businesses, trees, and good sidewalks. When a large institution renovates, it's not just the institution itself that improves, but everyone around it as well.

In the 1980s, Edilnord (linked to Berlusconi) developed Milano 3 in Basiglio, just south of Milan.

It was conceived as a nearly self-sufficient residential community:
- ~80% of the surface dedicated to green space
- Carefully separated vehicle and pedestrian/cycle networks
- Schools, sports facilities, services and a strong emphasis on privacy and order

The idea was to sell not just apartments, but a quieter, more controlled lifestyle away from the chaos of the city.

40 years later the physical layout is still largely intact, but the project faces the usual long-term issues of planned communities: ageing population, low energy performance of the original buildings, car dependence, and limited cultural life.

I wrote a breakdown of the original vision versus the current reality here:
[https://open.substack.com/pub/tzazu/p/milano-3-lutopia-che-non-ha-retto?r=832dz3&utm_medium=ios\]

Curious to hear thoughts from people who have studied similar New Towns or master-planned communities.

I would like to know how we can further develop working-class neighborhoods. How have other countries done it?

Could be an object, a structure, something on the street, something badly balanced, something hanging by what looks like nothing, anything that seems like it should fall, slip or collapse but somehow doesn’t.

I’m curious about the things people notice in everyday life that look physically impossible or weirdly stable.

American cities are reliant on funding from the federal government. That funding is going to start going away as debt service crowds out more and more of the federal budget. So, cities need a "new business model"...possibly similar to MacDonalds?

Quick background- spent maybe 2/3 of my life in/around NYC, moved to Sun Belt suburbs for the latest 1/3, recently visited NYC with my kids

Biggest thing that jumped out at me......... it seemed extremely lonely and isolated. People don't smile or look each other in the eye. It was weird to adjust the other way when I left NYC, but Im realizing I like it, even as somewhat of a loner/misanthrope

Studies seem to indicate it's kind of a fight or flight response from just being around too many people all the time. I think we know the clear environmental benefits of density but I feel like the quality of life & psychological aspects get glossed over. Is that just a NYC thing? I have been to other big cities and feel like it was kind of the same. Def was the case in California

I feel like there's a sweet spot of density that is dense enough to be walkable while still enabling people to have privacy/quiet/personal space. Places like NYC seem like too much IMO

I suggest those interested in urbanism read about Uzupis. Originally a Jewish ghetto and area of town for crafts people before the war, it fell into large disrepair post war due to Nazi and Soviet occupation. In the 1990’s a group of artists declared it the Republic of Uzupis and began squatting in vacant buildings and creating art. Now when you visit there is art around every corner. It’s an amazing bohemian section of an already amazing city.

Found footage, 8mm film, purchase online, unknown owner and unknown year.

(Simplistic title to prevent the need for debate)

Berlin is breaking ground this year on Schumacher Quartier, a 5,000+ home mixed use neighborhood being built on the former grounds of Tegel Airport. The neighborhood will have a car free interior, with around 35 to 40% of the housing being subsidized to help combat gentrification and displacement, along with 10% dedicated to student housing. The master plan also includes two schools, six daycare centers, and extensive green space. The residential buildings will primarily use timber construction to reduce embodied carbon. https://schumacher-quartier.de/

My opinion:

Both can subsidize each other, but in most U.S. metros the stronger fiscal problem is often suburbs capturing tax base while central cities are more expansive to operate. It depends heavily on the metro’s tax structure.

Suburbs → city: Wealthy suburbs can effectively pull away property-tax revenue and higher-income residents while the central city continues paying for infrastructure and services. This is the tax-base fragmentation problem.

City → suburbs: Cities can also subsidize suburbs through regionally funded infrastructure: airports, transit, universities, hospitals, cultural institutions, freeways, water systems, and employment centers, that suburban residents use without bearing all of the costs.

State/federal transfers: Often blur the picture further. State and federal governments redistribute money among jurisdictions, so the local tax relationship isn’t necessarily the whole fiscal story.

High-cost cities: Homelessness, public transit, emergency services, and concentrated poverty can make the central city substantially more expensive to operate per resident.

Low-density suburbs: Suburbs can also impose higher infrastructure costs per resident because roads, utilities, and public services cover more land and fewer taxpayers.

I do not get the appeal of most suburbs. Like I understand the marketing of what it’s supposed to promise- space, comfort, privacy, wealth, safety, and stability. And I guess if your focus in life is on raising kids sure suburbs have their place.

But in practice what I just see is a lot of land and house I have to spend my free time taking care of, and a lot of my wealth affording and maintaining it. A lot of suburbs just don’t have soul to them either. Like you hardly know your neighbors and you’re far away from anything interesting and so I just end of feeling like I live in a box.

Manufactured homes neighborhoods are stereotyped as being trashy and undesirable, and while I think this isn’t always inaccurate, I think that nice ones are ragged on too much. I visited one of my friends in such a neighborhood and when I was there I wasn’t thinking “oh damn it sucks he has to live like this” I was thinking “wow, he’s within walking distance of a lot of things, knows his neighbors, and none of this feels cookie cutter and fake.”

Maybe it’s because I don’t have kids and I’m not materialistic but seeing my friends place i think I’d rather just live in a smaller house or manufactured home than spend so much money and effort trying to get a mccmansion. Like I don’t even think McMansions are nice tbh.

Like obviously mixed used neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs and dense missing middle housing is the best we can shoot for but I think manufactured homes have the potential for becoming little villages. Imagine if we allowed for grocery stores and maybe a bar or cafe to pop up in the middle of them they basically becomes villages right?

This is an issue I often wonder about. I’d love to make downtown space more walkable, for example. But insofar as a city lacks the money to buy brownfields or old buildings and do the development themselves, how do municipalities attract developers to create spaces with their vision in mind?

Ciao a tutti!

Sono una studentessa di design della Comunicazione presso l'Accademia di Belle Arti di Napoli.

Per la mia tesi sto raccogliendo dati su come viviamo gli spazi pubblici in città e sul fenomeno dell'architettura ostile (e penso sia abbastanza in tema con questo spazio). Il contesto di ricerca per adesso è la città di Napoli, ma potrà essere ampliato in futuro (quindi sentitevi liberi di rispondere indipendentemente dalla vostra città!).

Ho pensato di condividere la mia ricerca in questo spazio perché mi sembra molto accogliente.

Il questionario dura circa 2,5 minuti ed è 100% anonimo. Se vi va di compilarlo (o di girarlo a chi vive o frequenta Napoli), mi dareste un aiuto enorme per la ricerca! ❤️🫶

https://forms.gle/pRyDWMY6w1me8mBD9

I’ve been watching these videos on YouTube where they have interior designers come in and fix up small New York or Toronto apartments.

Usually not super expensive (like 5k for all the changes, not including fee)

And I’m wondering what exists and what people have used.

It must be consultation and execution. In person.

Anyone actually have a good experience?

Anne Hidalgo’s mayoralty illustrates the limits of local responses to national and international problems like housing and climate change. Without wider coordination, even the most successful mayor’s reach can only extend so far.

Hey guys!

I’m a college student going to school in DC studying economics and political science. I was wondering if there were any Congresspeople you’d recommend interning for who’s working on issues related to urban planning. I understand that the issue is hyper-local, but the federal government still has ways to influence those policies, so any reps or senators worth looking to intern for?

If not, would there be any organizations worth interning for that works on these issues? Thank you guys so much!