I've never really understood it either, but apparently some politicians approve of it. They go out of their way to make subsidized housing as ugly and uninspiring as possible, limiting any potential 'pride of place' or interest in maintaining such.
In Bridgeport, CT, where I once lived, a new set of subsidized rowhouses were built, all at low cost and such that they were very low-maintenance and hard to damage. Before anyone could be moved in, the city coucil and mayor decided that they looked too good, almost as nice as the condos by the water that several coucil members had paid for recently, and therefore were "inappropriate" for low-income persons. Ie., poor people should be given the worst-looking housing to 'know their place', and they had the entire thing Torn Down and replaced with ugly stuff at a cost of $60 million or more. This sort of attitude certainly doesn't help.
(no subject)
In Bridgeport, CT, where I once lived, a new set of subsidized rowhouses were built, all at low cost and such that they were very low-maintenance and hard to damage. Before anyone could be moved in, the city coucil and mayor decided that they looked too good, almost as nice as the condos by the water that several coucil members had paid for recently, and therefore were "inappropriate" for low-income persons. Ie., poor people should be given the worst-looking housing to 'know their place', and they had the entire thing Torn Down and replaced with ugly stuff at a cost of $60 million or more. This sort of attitude certainly doesn't help.