>The issue of rentals vs. ownership is an interesting one.
>
Perhaps the issue is not so much whether one rents or owns, but whether one
is classified to be part of a sub-class since s/he occupies one of "those"
units. From design, construction, maintenance, and service, "those"
develpments are treated differently than development that serves the free
market.
My suggestion would be to fund the people and not the architecture. Once
again we have perhaps confused ourselves with the false assumption that
this problem is essentially an architectural concern when it isn't. While
there are obvious relationship with architecture, since we are dealing with
housing, the solution probably is best resolved by avoiding architectural
distinctions.
Just a thought.
David Lee
>
Perhaps the issue is not so much whether one rents or owns, but whether one
is classified to be part of a sub-class since s/he occupies one of "those"
units. From design, construction, maintenance, and service, "those"
develpments are treated differently than development that serves the free
market.
My suggestion would be to fund the people and not the architecture. Once
again we have perhaps confused ourselves with the false assumption that
this problem is essentially an architectural concern when it isn't. While
there are obvious relationship with architecture, since we are dealing with
housing, the solution probably is best resolved by avoiding architectural
distinctions.
Just a thought.
David Lee