Trying to pretend that the "bad part of town" can be removed if we just figure out the magic steps is part of the problem.
There are no easy solutions to these problems, at anyrate. We will all have to make a few trade offs, but they have to be more reasonable than dumping all of the problem in a few places.
On HN, fortunately, we have a simpler playbook than the Big Book of Social Norms Worldwide, which is impossible to make consistent. It's at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and I think that the rules "please don't call names" and "eschew flamebait" suffice for us all to just avoid the Karen thing here.
Notice I really haven't used the term myself (or "boomer" in a derogatory way) but it's the sort of thing that admittedly ruffles my feathers.
EDIT: Alright, apparently I did allude to someone being a boomer once, but it was fittingly in a generational way and not as gratuitous name-calling.
An example people probably won't like is those mixed income buildings (can't remember where now) that had separate entrances for the subsidized units. It's definitely not egalitarian in some sense, but if it allows more subsidized housing to be built for people that need it, is it really better just to not do it?
But the masses simply ignored the service provision aspect and screamed "Why do you guys have a poor people door!?!?!"
I've often wondered if mass transit would do better if we just openly had first class cars and otherwise segregated them on a price level.
I don't live in a dangerous area (Westminster), but targeted robberies happen here too. I (and much less my girlfriend with her high jewellery obsession) wouldn't feel super comfortable living in a townhouse or apartment building without 24/7 security staff.
If someone wants to kidnap or assassinate you, this kind of security will probably do nothing to stop them. At least it'll disincentivize robberies, there are easier targets out there.
You see this with other goods too, notably cars. Creating a car that meets all contemporary safety standards is hugely expensive.
Is that safety a net good? Yes. Does it have societal costs? You betcha.
And those kind of affordable housing schemes are a joke from a social perspective. Yes, it's great if you win the lottery. But it doesn't do much for the 99.998% of people who don't win the lottery.
We are going to build giant housing projects (with what capital or grants) and then create mass transit to them?
How’s that ended up working so far?