For the milionth time : ROMANIAN HOUSING STATISTICS ARE FALSE
most people who rent are Young(under 30-35) people who dont bother to change their official Residence from their parents home. There are houses in forgotten villages where officially 10+ family members live, while only 1-2 old people might actually live there
Hundreds of thousands,if not millions of students and graduates rent and appear as having their official adress at their parents
Most people who rent out apartaments to others also do it without declaring it officialy - so to avoid beaurocracy and paying taxes, and thus the people who rent them from those tax evasionists are officially "home owners" according tho this map, because they officially live at their parents/grandparents home
Also, Many people who appear to live in their families home in Romania, actually work, live and rent abroad(again, there are more than a million of such cases)
TL;DR Romania doesnt have any accurate residential occupation official records. Millions of Romanians who appear "homeowners" on these maps, dont own a home, but rather rent or live with many family members in a small, crowded home, because nobody keeps a good track of your residence here, like they do in Netherlands for example
"theirs one day"
Yeah, if you are an only child and your parents managed to get a worthwile home.(not some crumbling house in some forgotten village)
But in many situations there are 3 Brothers each with 2 children in line just for some crumbling house in a desolated village.
Technically speaking here in Albania all the family works to build a house for each of their boys, usually girls according to our culture go to their husband house. But nowadays the family buys a house in the nearest city for the girls when they don't have boys so they own 2 homes. That's why unfinished buildings are all over because needs time and money to finish. It depends but this is the general situation. All of those houses will crumble one day because no one from the age of 18-40 wants to live out of cities, even though they may have a good job and a good place to live in.
What's make you think this doesn't apply to others?
The statistics mesur not who lives where. They mesur how many homes are private owned from the total.
You need to calm down and understand the statistics.
>They mesur how many homes are private owned from the total.
No, thats not what they measure. They measure how many homes are occupied by its owner and his family. And in Romania, millions of people who rent some other home because they dont have one of their own, officially live at their families owned home and wrongly appear as "owners"
Im not angry and I do in fact have a home in my name. Im just annoyed that this map keeps getting reposted on every sub and that it paints a very false picture of housing in Romania, the same way that those maps who say that Romania has the most crowded homes in Europe(which is Obviously the case for the same reason : The state doesnt have the records of people leaving their family home)
You keep misunderstanding the map . Do you think in Serbia 96% of people have a house on their name ? Or that 96% of houses are own by people and not by rent companies? The same question applies to all countries.
Stop sh**ng on you own country. Is a country like all others in europe .
Again, this map doesnt measure if the homes are owned by people or companies or the state.
It measures the % of people who live in their own home AND their families home, and that makes the hundreds of thousands if not millions (just for an example) of Romanians who live abroad, renting, "homeowners" on this map, because officially many those extended families of 5-8-12 + live in a 40m2 crumbling house in an abandoned village
Im not shitting on my country. Im just pointing out we are not much better in regards to owing a home compared to countries who score much Lower on these maps
I understand your point. But is applied the same to evry country on the map . So if a error is distributed equal to all.. that make the statistics right.
You understand that ?
Its not. In some western countries like the Netherlands, they record very well where people live, and the landlords declare the amount of people who live in their rented homes
So while they May not be perfect, some western countries score so much Lower just because they keep a better record, as opposed to Romania where people who live in a rented home officially live in a common family house (when they dont, they wouldnt even all fit)
OMG, do you think a dude was questioning all the people on the continent? And Romanians lied?
They took the national statistics of who owned a hose . That's all . For how many people are living in a house is a different statistic . And there Romania is in top at one of the countries with most crowded homes.
You are incredibly ignorant, and your lack of knowledge is ... amazing. You can move a family of 10 in your head... and still have room.
I get why Microstates are excluded but I’d be genuinely interested in knowing the ownership/rental ratio in Monaco.
Also did the UK fall off Eurostat completely now? No EEA/CH bilateral-style reporting even?
Every citizen of Monaco that is an actual citizen (not a billionaire that buys citizenship) has the right to live in an apartment provided by the state. So it might actually be close 100%? I don't know if this counts as ownership.
That's completely dependent on how this is legally organised. It could very well be ownership, especially because there is no universal definition for ownership.
ownership is the right to choose how something should be used. That includes the right to sell or dispose it.
If i am prohibited to sell my home and instead someone else has that right, then it isn't mine at all.
You said "right to live in an apartment provided by the state". Which in any other context and country means social housing - in other words - state property you are allowed to live in
I think it's more like the state has to provide it and you live in it. You can still own it, even if you can't sell it, because the law might not allow this. Monaco is extremely small and this law is in place to guarantee monaguese person can actually live in the principality. And no, ownership of property is not the same or even similar in many countries, so depending on definition of ownership there might be completely different numbers for that. For example in China you can own property, do what you want with it, sell it, remodel it, but legally all land belongs to the state and it wil return back to the state at some point. The whole system is still internationally recognised as ownership, even though it's completely different from western countries. The true problem with the while map is, that there isn't one definition for ownership.
I guess?
In Romania, private property is defined as " Private property is the [right in question] owner's right to possess, use and dispose of a good exclusively, absolutely and perpetually, within the limits established by law"
What China has is more akin to what in Romania would be a property "dismemberment" called "superficie". You have exclusive right to a building on someone elses land for a maximum of 99 years (could be forever in the past), but after that expires you have to sell the building to the owner of the land or the other way around. Which means both of you have a private proprety right to realestate, but your right is limited in use by the right of the other
There are three different types of citizenship: actual monegasques, people that live in Monaco for multiple generations and wealthy foreigners. There are differences concerning were you can live and stuff. I am definitely no expert on the topic lol
In many countries of the socialist camp, there was a program for the construction and provision of free housing for all working citizens.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, almost all apartments given to citizens were privatized for free.
But modern housing is very expensive and not very affordable. I think in the country where I live (Russia), home ownership rate will decrease in the next 20 years. In Russia, a housing mortgage for 20-25 years requires a monthly payment of $ 350-450 with an average salary of $800 (2023 years).
"If in Russia, for example, we were allowed to privatize apartments, we can say they were simply transferred to ownership, then in the GDR it was different. There, the apartments became the property of large corporations, like property in the bankruptcy of some company. West Germany also took over pension and trade union funds, and appropriated them as well. So the citizens of the GDR, when Germany was united, found themselves in apartments for which they had to pay rent."
This is auto-translation of the first link from the Russian segment Google.
In Romania it wasnt free. Most people paid* rent or in some cases morgage to the state, and it wasnt a symbolical amount. It also could last years before you would even get the chance to rent one, and all the New commieblocks were very small/crowded.
People became owners after the fall of communism, when the state sold out the social housing to the people who were renting them.
> Most people *paid* rent or
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This is because at the time of the political transformation, it was possible to buy a flat outright from a cooperative or communal stock, with a large discount, which was readily taken advantage of.For this, our cities and the state have now almost given up on building public housing.In 2022, almost 240,000 flats and houses were built , of which only 629 were communal.
If you lived in a polish village, it basically ment that you are an owner of a small piece of land. All you had to do was to buy building materials which were very affordable under communism.
If you lived in the city, the communist state would just build an appartment for you. There was an insane amounts of those famous communist blocks and once communism fell, anyone could buy it for a very small price.
Sadly nowadays becoming a home owner in Poland is very hard for young people without inhertiance. My parents almost lost their house due to financial struggles when capitalist Poland had a "capitalist shock therapy" policy that put many people into poverty and debt and destroyed any type of financial power Polish working class had.
As all other said, comunism facilitated home ownership, but the houses it created were small and the quality was poor. The ones with the highest ownership rate are also the countries with the biggest overcrowded %, as most people cannot afford to rent or buy at current prices they live with their parents until it is no longer viable/possible.
Current constructions can be even weirder due to the weird economics of the area (a lot of ppl need to move to start a family, so a lot of apartments are created at sky-high prices, compared with salaries, because at some point you no longer have a choice to stay with your parents).
All in all, even if those high-ownership places look great, the reality is quite painful as the old apartments are small, and the new ones removed the niceties of the old (if there is no law forcing them to build it, they will remove it - 0 storage spaces for example) but kept the bad things (small size, bad material quality, etc).
Communist blocks are known for their good quality. They have a bad reputation for looking bad, because of their basic shape and lack of maintanance, but functionality wise they are good and can look good if maintained well
Yeah, here in Serbia the communist blocks built in Yugoslavia are actually quite good. The look poor, but the flats are usually quite solid. They range from 40-50 sqm to >100 sqm, and provide massive amounts of housing to the city that is actually in the hands of the people, rather than corporations.
They all have really good green spaces around them and access to transportation, parking and schools. Sure, its not easy to buy a flat in Serbia so people often live with their parents, but in some cases id argue that is better than renting a mouldy and dilapidated flat for ungodly amounts of money like I did when I studied in London.
You can say what you want about those flats but I guarantee that modern flats that are being built right now wont be nearly as functional and useful in 50 years compared to those communist blocks now.
Not all flavours of comunism where the same, I just looked at a map of your capital and I am gushing over the space, if only we would have gotten something similar :(.
This might be the case in other countries but in RO, for example, they had a lot of issues. Let's be honest about it, the walls were not straight, staircase had bumps/not straight, electrical was a nightmare (most people with money replaced it), etc. IDK how it was elsewhere, but around here they were mediocre at best. There are even cases where they lacked materials for the later floors and they built with scraps, those being incredible unsafe structurally.
They are still seen as better than new construction mainly due to 3 factors:
1. Corruption on the side of new developer and government
2. Lack of oversight
3. Incredible dumb new apartment layouts
They were not all bad, the ones made for the security police and the other special members of the party were AMAZING. I saw a few of their layouts, they were getting for 2 rooms 87sqm, in comparison the regular person might have 37sqm for 2 rooms. It's hard to explain over the internet the difference, but when you start searching for a flat you keep seeing it.
2 rooms != 2 bedrooms, 2 rooms = 1 livingroom + 1 bedroom in RO
I never said that they are all horrible. Just pointed out that much of Reddit cannot accept criticism of any sort of commieblocks, except maybe that they should "be renovated" (fresh coat of paint).
Many have this idea that commieblocks are automatically decent quality, "affordable", "comfy" and in "walkable " and "green" neighbourhoods all the same time and everywhere
Dar da mi te rog un link pentru apartamentele de "doar" 2 camere care știi sigur ca sunt pentru securitate sau alti boieri, ca sunt curios. Eu ce apartamente am văzut dintr astea pentru elita sunt de 4 camere, duplex din anii 80
It's almost as if communist countries were not all alike and people had no idea because they didn't actually travel among countries and when they did, they had a limited experience. Such as the Poles believing that only Gypsies live in Romania because they were the ones who sold them stuff on overnight trains.
Well, yeah; when communism finally fell, people were basically given the homes in which they were residing. I'm pretty sure this is how my grandparents came to own their house.
The newly re-established democratic states didn't want to own all the homes nor could they afford to maintain them (not that maintenance was good during the communist era, hence the images of decrepit commie blocks). The people living in them also couldn't afford to buy them, so the easiest solution was to basically give away the homes in order to place the burden of maintenance upon the residents.
This plot makes no sense. The U.K. is in Europe. If it’s supposed to be a map or the EU then it’s (a) poorly titled and (b) wrong - Norway. If it’s supposed to be the EEA then, again, it’s poorly titled (and Turkey?).
So what *exactly* is this plot trying to show?
Indeed, but I only needed to give one country, not an exhaustive list, to demonstrate that if it’s supposed to be the EU rather than Europe, it’s wrong.
This conversation arises with every other map about Europe at least.
Almost certainly the reason is these are EuroStat numbers, and the UK doesn't share theirs with EuroStat. Also explains why some non-EU countries like Turkey are included, because they provide the data.
Let me walk you through it.
The U.K. is omitted from the plot, yet the plot is titled “Europe”, and the U.K. is in… Europe. Therefore there must be a reason why it’s omitted. It could be:
* because it’s supposed to be the EU, but then it’s poorly labelled and wrong
* it could be that it’s supposed to be the EEA, but then it’s poorly labelled and wrong
* it could be that it’s supposed to be continental Europe, but then it’s poorly labelled and wrong (Ireland)
* it could be that it’s only the countries for which there is data, but then it’s poorly labelled
* and so on
As far as I can think, there are no obvious demarcations that make this plot correct, and well labelled. Hence my criticism.
A clear, correct, well labelled plot is not a “nice to have” it’s a prerequisite for good visual communication. It would be trivial to write a caption with the data source and/or specifying something like “for countries with available data”. At no point did I say every omitted country needs to be explicitly listed. The fact that one can *guess* what the reason is, is no excuse for the reason not to be specified. This is a poorly labelled plot, however you try to spin it.
And the problem with it? I can't wrap my head around why people in the West would all life long pay money to someone else to lend them a place to live. How ridiculous it is. But they "want to have flexibility and move to other places more often" my ass.
They dont "feel". They HAVE to. When they will retire with 350euro pension, how will they afford 400euro rent? Minimum wage is also 400 euro.
If they lose their job or cant work, how will they not become homeless?
There is no rent control or many renters protections. You have to own a home sooner or later here, or if not, have family members you can rely on to take you in
I find it interesting that the former Eastern Bloc has such a high ownership rate when the West doesn’t, especially since I live in the UK where we hold home ownership as pretty much sacred. Renting is incredibly strange to us and a waste of money.
The government and state-owned companies used to give apartments to the people. Sometimes these people were coming from a countryside. And it was supposed to incentive them to settle in the city and work for these companies. But not any more.
I also don't like the idea of paying someone to let them rent me a place to live. Ridiculous.
I get what you're saying but here in the UK almost 1 fifth of people rent their homes, it's quite a privileged position to be able to own your own home here nowadays with prices as high as they are.
I don't argue that renting is a waste of money in the sense that your just paying someone else's mortgage though
At current interest rates you are usually paying more in interest than rent - so British property is overvalued if rates stay here. Obviously there's an expectation they go down.
I don't get Germany. To me, Germans seem very .... passive.
You accept ridiculous tax and so many people who could buy (if they compromised on area) don't.
As a germanophile Brit I feel scared for both countries for broadly similar reasons
87% is way too high, the number probably includes children that live someplace else while still registered as living with their parents.
I would guess the average age when a Pole buys a house would be 30 something.
I get what you mean but it's propert of their parents and in majority of cases they have no say in how it runs so they shouldn't really be included in this statistic.
That can be true. People had flats guaranteed for working during communism. Young inherit it after grand parents, aunts etc. and sell or live there. Other thing is everybody is crazy to own an apartament, even with a high mortgage rate.
Compare this [with the one about overcrowded houses](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/6Wa5lLrkYZ). Hungary, Czechia and Estonia looking great this way
For the milionth time : ROMANIAN HOUSING STATISTICS ARE FALSE most people who rent are Young(under 30-35) people who dont bother to change their official Residence from their parents home. There are houses in forgotten villages where officially 10+ family members live, while only 1-2 old people might actually live there Hundreds of thousands,if not millions of students and graduates rent and appear as having their official adress at their parents Most people who rent out apartaments to others also do it without declaring it officialy - so to avoid beaurocracy and paying taxes, and thus the people who rent them from those tax evasionists are officially "home owners" according tho this map, because they officially live at their parents/grandparents home Also, Many people who appear to live in their families home in Romania, actually work, live and rent abroad(again, there are more than a million of such cases) TL;DR Romania doesnt have any accurate residential occupation official records. Millions of Romanians who appear "homeowners" on these maps, dont own a home, but rather rent or live with many family members in a small, crowded home, because nobody keeps a good track of your residence here, like they do in Netherlands for example
Same for Albania. But anyway their parents home is going to be theirs someday, a house all worked to build.
"theirs one day" Yeah, if you are an only child and your parents managed to get a worthwile home.(not some crumbling house in some forgotten village) But in many situations there are 3 Brothers each with 2 children in line just for some crumbling house in a desolated village.
Technically speaking here in Albania all the family works to build a house for each of their boys, usually girls according to our culture go to their husband house. But nowadays the family buys a house in the nearest city for the girls when they don't have boys so they own 2 homes. That's why unfinished buildings are all over because needs time and money to finish. It depends but this is the general situation. All of those houses will crumble one day because no one from the age of 18-40 wants to live out of cities, even though they may have a good job and a good place to live in.
What's make you think this doesn't apply to others? The statistics mesur not who lives where. They mesur how many homes are private owned from the total. You need to calm down and understand the statistics.
>They mesur how many homes are private owned from the total. No, thats not what they measure. They measure how many homes are occupied by its owner and his family. And in Romania, millions of people who rent some other home because they dont have one of their own, officially live at their families owned home and wrongly appear as "owners"
Ok, if you think so . I guess you are one of those millions, because you are really angry.
Im not angry and I do in fact have a home in my name. Im just annoyed that this map keeps getting reposted on every sub and that it paints a very false picture of housing in Romania, the same way that those maps who say that Romania has the most crowded homes in Europe(which is Obviously the case for the same reason : The state doesnt have the records of people leaving their family home)
You keep misunderstanding the map . Do you think in Serbia 96% of people have a house on their name ? Or that 96% of houses are own by people and not by rent companies? The same question applies to all countries. Stop sh**ng on you own country. Is a country like all others in europe .
Again, this map doesnt measure if the homes are owned by people or companies or the state. It measures the % of people who live in their own home AND their families home, and that makes the hundreds of thousands if not millions (just for an example) of Romanians who live abroad, renting, "homeowners" on this map, because officially many those extended families of 5-8-12 + live in a 40m2 crumbling house in an abandoned village Im not shitting on my country. Im just pointing out we are not much better in regards to owing a home compared to countries who score much Lower on these maps
I understand your point. But is applied the same to evry country on the map . So if a error is distributed equal to all.. that make the statistics right. You understand that ?
Its not. In some western countries like the Netherlands, they record very well where people live, and the landlords declare the amount of people who live in their rented homes So while they May not be perfect, some western countries score so much Lower just because they keep a better record, as opposed to Romania where people who live in a rented home officially live in a common family house (when they dont, they wouldnt even all fit)
OMG, do you think a dude was questioning all the people on the continent? And Romanians lied? They took the national statistics of who owned a hose . That's all . For how many people are living in a house is a different statistic . And there Romania is in top at one of the countries with most crowded homes. You are incredibly ignorant, and your lack of knowledge is ... amazing. You can move a family of 10 in your head... and still have room.
I get why Microstates are excluded but I’d be genuinely interested in knowing the ownership/rental ratio in Monaco. Also did the UK fall off Eurostat completely now? No EEA/CH bilateral-style reporting even?
We left the union and the continent it seems
And yet that paragon of European identity, Turkey, remains in all these bullshit maps.
Turkey? You mean Germanys citizen factory?
No it is one of the dominants forces in the Continent for couple centuries.
Cope and seethe racist
Every citizen of Monaco that is an actual citizen (not a billionaire that buys citizenship) has the right to live in an apartment provided by the state. So it might actually be close 100%? I don't know if this counts as ownership.
That does not count as ownership.
Because?
If you can’t sell it and it belongs to the government and you have authorization to just live in it then it’s not « ownership ».
That's completely dependent on how this is legally organised. It could very well be ownership, especially because there is no universal definition for ownership.
ownership is the right to choose how something should be used. That includes the right to sell or dispose it. If i am prohibited to sell my home and instead someone else has that right, then it isn't mine at all.
Because its not yours the same way the house you rent from your landlord is not yours. Its his.
Is this is how it legally works or is this what you think it works like, because of how I phrased the sentence?
You said "right to live in an apartment provided by the state". Which in any other context and country means social housing - in other words - state property you are allowed to live in
I think it's more like the state has to provide it and you live in it. You can still own it, even if you can't sell it, because the law might not allow this. Monaco is extremely small and this law is in place to guarantee monaguese person can actually live in the principality. And no, ownership of property is not the same or even similar in many countries, so depending on definition of ownership there might be completely different numbers for that. For example in China you can own property, do what you want with it, sell it, remodel it, but legally all land belongs to the state and it wil return back to the state at some point. The whole system is still internationally recognised as ownership, even though it's completely different from western countries. The true problem with the while map is, that there isn't one definition for ownership.
I guess? In Romania, private property is defined as " Private property is the [right in question] owner's right to possess, use and dispose of a good exclusively, absolutely and perpetually, within the limits established by law" What China has is more akin to what in Romania would be a property "dismemberment" called "superficie". You have exclusive right to a building on someone elses land for a maximum of 99 years (could be forever in the past), but after that expires you have to sell the building to the owner of the land or the other way around. Which means both of you have a private proprety right to realestate, but your right is limited in use by the right of the other
Do they have different tiers of citizenship?
There are three different types of citizenship: actual monegasques, people that live in Monaco for multiple generations and wealthy foreigners. There are differences concerning were you can live and stuff. I am definitely no expert on the topic lol
But but thats communism!
78% my ass
It is higher in former communist countries interesting..
In many countries of the socialist camp, there was a program for the construction and provision of free housing for all working citizens. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, almost all apartments given to citizens were privatized for free. But modern housing is very expensive and not very affordable. I think in the country where I live (Russia), home ownership rate will decrease in the next 20 years. In Russia, a housing mortgage for 20-25 years requires a monthly payment of $ 350-450 with an average salary of $800 (2023 years).
Why didn't it happen in Germany? Was the policy something different in East Germany?
"If in Russia, for example, we were allowed to privatize apartments, we can say they were simply transferred to ownership, then in the GDR it was different. There, the apartments became the property of large corporations, like property in the bankruptcy of some company. West Germany also took over pension and trade union funds, and appropriated them as well. So the citizens of the GDR, when Germany was united, found themselves in apartments for which they had to pay rent." This is auto-translation of the first link from the Russian segment Google.
In Romania it wasnt free. Most people paid* rent or in some cases morgage to the state, and it wasnt a symbolical amount. It also could last years before you would even get the chance to rent one, and all the New commieblocks were very small/crowded. People became owners after the fall of communism, when the state sold out the social housing to the people who were renting them.
> Most people *paid* rent or FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This is because at the time of the political transformation, it was possible to buy a flat outright from a cooperative or communal stock, with a large discount, which was readily taken advantage of.For this, our cities and the state have now almost given up on building public housing.In 2022, almost 240,000 flats and houses were built , of which only 629 were communal.
If you lived in a polish village, it basically ment that you are an owner of a small piece of land. All you had to do was to buy building materials which were very affordable under communism. If you lived in the city, the communist state would just build an appartment for you. There was an insane amounts of those famous communist blocks and once communism fell, anyone could buy it for a very small price. Sadly nowadays becoming a home owner in Poland is very hard for young people without inhertiance. My parents almost lost their house due to financial struggles when capitalist Poland had a "capitalist shock therapy" policy that put many people into poverty and debt and destroyed any type of financial power Polish working class had.
As all other said, comunism facilitated home ownership, but the houses it created were small and the quality was poor. The ones with the highest ownership rate are also the countries with the biggest overcrowded %, as most people cannot afford to rent or buy at current prices they live with their parents until it is no longer viable/possible. Current constructions can be even weirder due to the weird economics of the area (a lot of ppl need to move to start a family, so a lot of apartments are created at sky-high prices, compared with salaries, because at some point you no longer have a choice to stay with your parents). All in all, even if those high-ownership places look great, the reality is quite painful as the old apartments are small, and the new ones removed the niceties of the old (if there is no law forcing them to build it, they will remove it - 0 storage spaces for example) but kept the bad things (small size, bad material quality, etc).
Communist blocks are known for their good quality. They have a bad reputation for looking bad, because of their basic shape and lack of maintanance, but functionality wise they are good and can look good if maintained well
Yeah, here in Serbia the communist blocks built in Yugoslavia are actually quite good. The look poor, but the flats are usually quite solid. They range from 40-50 sqm to >100 sqm, and provide massive amounts of housing to the city that is actually in the hands of the people, rather than corporations. They all have really good green spaces around them and access to transportation, parking and schools. Sure, its not easy to buy a flat in Serbia so people often live with their parents, but in some cases id argue that is better than renting a mouldy and dilapidated flat for ungodly amounts of money like I did when I studied in London. You can say what you want about those flats but I guarantee that modern flats that are being built right now wont be nearly as functional and useful in 50 years compared to those communist blocks now.
Not all flavours of comunism where the same, I just looked at a map of your capital and I am gushing over the space, if only we would have gotten something similar :(.
This might be the case in other countries but in RO, for example, they had a lot of issues. Let's be honest about it, the walls were not straight, staircase had bumps/not straight, electrical was a nightmare (most people with money replaced it), etc. IDK how it was elsewhere, but around here they were mediocre at best. There are even cases where they lacked materials for the later floors and they built with scraps, those being incredible unsafe structurally. They are still seen as better than new construction mainly due to 3 factors: 1. Corruption on the side of new developer and government 2. Lack of oversight 3. Incredible dumb new apartment layouts
Redditors love commieblocks relentlessly, they never had to live in ours (RO) to understand whats wrong with them
They were not all bad, the ones made for the security police and the other special members of the party were AMAZING. I saw a few of their layouts, they were getting for 2 rooms 87sqm, in comparison the regular person might have 37sqm for 2 rooms. It's hard to explain over the internet the difference, but when you start searching for a flat you keep seeing it. 2 rooms != 2 bedrooms, 2 rooms = 1 livingroom + 1 bedroom in RO
I never said that they are all horrible. Just pointed out that much of Reddit cannot accept criticism of any sort of commieblocks, except maybe that they should "be renovated" (fresh coat of paint). Many have this idea that commieblocks are automatically decent quality, "affordable", "comfy" and in "walkable " and "green" neighbourhoods all the same time and everywhere Dar da mi te rog un link pentru apartamentele de "doar" 2 camere care știi sigur ca sunt pentru securitate sau alti boieri, ca sunt curios. Eu ce apartamente am văzut dintr astea pentru elita sunt de 4 camere, duplex din anii 80
It's almost as if communist countries were not all alike and people had no idea because they didn't actually travel among countries and when they did, they had a limited experience. Such as the Poles believing that only Gypsies live in Romania because they were the ones who sold them stuff on overnight trains.
Communist block is better built than the housing (80s) I experience now in Germany.
Well, yeah; when communism finally fell, people were basically given the homes in which they were residing. I'm pretty sure this is how my grandparents came to own their house. The newly re-established democratic states didn't want to own all the homes nor could they afford to maintain them (not that maintenance was good during the communist era, hence the images of decrepit commie blocks). The people living in them also couldn't afford to buy them, so the easiest solution was to basically give away the homes in order to place the burden of maintenance upon the residents.
This plot makes no sense. The U.K. is in Europe. If it’s supposed to be a map or the EU then it’s (a) poorly titled and (b) wrong - Norway. If it’s supposed to be the EEA then, again, it’s poorly titled (and Turkey?). So what *exactly* is this plot trying to show?
[удалено]
Indeed, but I only needed to give one country, not an exhaustive list, to demonstrate that if it’s supposed to be the EU rather than Europe, it’s wrong.
This conversation arises with every other map about Europe at least. Almost certainly the reason is these are EuroStat numbers, and the UK doesn't share theirs with EuroStat. Also explains why some non-EU countries like Turkey are included, because they provide the data.
Indeed. But that rather reinforces my point that these plots need better labelling.
No no, you're Islanders, not mainland Europeans.
Tell that to Ireland and Iceland.
I was joking you're taking these crappy maps too seriously.
Oh. Hahahahahahahaha. Ha. Haha. Ha. Good one.
Whatever you say Islander
Ok continentaler.
[удалено]
Nowhere, try reading my comment again.
[удалено]
Let me walk you through it. The U.K. is omitted from the plot, yet the plot is titled “Europe”, and the U.K. is in… Europe. Therefore there must be a reason why it’s omitted. It could be: * because it’s supposed to be the EU, but then it’s poorly labelled and wrong * it could be that it’s supposed to be the EEA, but then it’s poorly labelled and wrong * it could be that it’s supposed to be continental Europe, but then it’s poorly labelled and wrong (Ireland) * it could be that it’s only the countries for which there is data, but then it’s poorly labelled * and so on As far as I can think, there are no obvious demarcations that make this plot correct, and well labelled. Hence my criticism.
[удалено]
A clear, correct, well labelled plot is not a “nice to have” it’s a prerequisite for good visual communication. It would be trivial to write a caption with the data source and/or specifying something like “for countries with available data”. At no point did I say every omitted country needs to be explicitly listed. The fact that one can *guess* what the reason is, is no excuse for the reason not to be specified. This is a poorly labelled plot, however you try to spin it.
[удалено]
Yes, good labelling is a skill. A skill that’s not on display here.
[удалено]
It's from Eurostat. The UK no longer supplies figures sadly
I can confirm for Romania. People feel like THEY MUST OWN THEIR OWN PLACE by any means. Renting for your whole life is a big no.
They just live with their parents https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/6Wa5lLrkYZ
And the problem with it? I can't wrap my head around why people in the West would all life long pay money to someone else to lend them a place to live. How ridiculous it is. But they "want to have flexibility and move to other places more often" my ass.
They dont "feel". They HAVE to. When they will retire with 350euro pension, how will they afford 400euro rent? Minimum wage is also 400 euro. If they lose their job or cant work, how will they not become homeless? There is no rent control or many renters protections. You have to own a home sooner or later here, or if not, have family members you can rely on to take you in
I find it interesting that the former Eastern Bloc has such a high ownership rate when the West doesn’t, especially since I live in the UK where we hold home ownership as pretty much sacred. Renting is incredibly strange to us and a waste of money.
The government and state-owned companies used to give apartments to the people. Sometimes these people were coming from a countryside. And it was supposed to incentive them to settle in the city and work for these companies. But not any more. I also don't like the idea of paying someone to let them rent me a place to live. Ridiculous.
I get what you're saying but here in the UK almost 1 fifth of people rent their homes, it's quite a privileged position to be able to own your own home here nowadays with prices as high as they are. I don't argue that renting is a waste of money in the sense that your just paying someone else's mortgage though
At current interest rates you are usually paying more in interest than rent - so British property is overvalued if rates stay here. Obviously there's an expectation they go down.
UK left EU, not Europe.
Yeah we are fucked in Germany. Rental prices are skyrocketing the last years.
I don't get Germany. To me, Germans seem very .... passive. You accept ridiculous tax and so many people who could buy (if they compromised on area) don't. As a germanophile Brit I feel scared for both countries for broadly similar reasons
No way 87% of poles own home so what does home ownership here means
why no way?
87% is way too high, the number probably includes children that live someplace else while still registered as living with their parents. I would guess the average age when a Pole buys a house would be 30 something.
So if they live with their parents, it's also "their own house" which they share with the parents.
I get what you mean but it's propert of their parents and in majority of cases they have no say in how it runs so they shouldn't really be included in this statistic.
Getting your own house in Poland is very hard nowadays but it used to be very easy due to communism
It used to be very easy in Western Europe pre 1990 too.
I love the smell of fresh bread.
That can be true. People had flats guaranteed for working during communism. Young inherit it after grand parents, aunts etc. and sell or live there. Other thing is everybody is crazy to own an apartament, even with a high mortgage rate.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/
\*European Union
I always thought France had a VERY high Ownership rate but I see it's not really the case compared to the rest of Europe, interesting
Property is very cheap in France for sure.
Compare this [with the one about overcrowded houses](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/6Wa5lLrkYZ). Hungary, Czechia and Estonia looking great this way
I'm always surprised it's that low in Turkey
WTF are Germans doing.
Damn german speaking nations be homeless
'Europe' map includes TR but excludes UA, BY.. what a BS
You left out the two countries with the highest share of home ownership. Albania and Kosovo stand at 97+%.
YES. UK is in North America