ROBOCRIPPLE
Member
Last year, I was in the Philippines and I saw shanty towns pretty much everywhere, not just in Metro Manila and other big cities but also on the outskirts; when I was going to the beach south of Batangas, I saw quite a few just off the highway!
But here in Canada, we don't have any shanty towns; just "co-ops," mobile home parks, and other low-income housing projects, as well as the homeless. Some time ago, I saw a camp under the bridge near downtown with a bunch of tents, but that was gone shortly after. I looked up on the Internet about the last slum ever in Canada, which was in St. John's, NL, but it was demolished after WWII.
Why don't people build shanties in Canada, the US, and other developed, temperate countries? Living here is much more expensive than in tropical countries like those in Southeast Asia. Food, clothing and housing cost more on average, especially in desirable places to live like Toronto and Vancouver. Everybody needs a place to live, so it makes sense for those who cannot even afford rent in a run-down apartment to build shanties closer to where they work, right?
Building shanty towns and living in them often means you're squatting, because most likely the land is owned by somebody else, even though they don't use it very often. Not to mention that shanties lack any insulation, water, or electricity, and are too weak to withstand heavy snow or strong winds common in temperate regions. In the Philippines, shanty towns have been on the decline, not just to disasters such as fire, but also to land owners, the city, and companies wanting to do something to their land such as renovation or cleaning, and the former squatters are moved to housing projects in the outskirts, far from where they work.
Why can't there be land that nobody owns in any town/city? The only land that I know which isn't owned by anybody is Antarctica, and that is a no man's land.
But here in Canada, we don't have any shanty towns; just "co-ops," mobile home parks, and other low-income housing projects, as well as the homeless. Some time ago, I saw a camp under the bridge near downtown with a bunch of tents, but that was gone shortly after. I looked up on the Internet about the last slum ever in Canada, which was in St. John's, NL, but it was demolished after WWII.
Why don't people build shanties in Canada, the US, and other developed, temperate countries? Living here is much more expensive than in tropical countries like those in Southeast Asia. Food, clothing and housing cost more on average, especially in desirable places to live like Toronto and Vancouver. Everybody needs a place to live, so it makes sense for those who cannot even afford rent in a run-down apartment to build shanties closer to where they work, right?
Building shanty towns and living in them often means you're squatting, because most likely the land is owned by somebody else, even though they don't use it very often. Not to mention that shanties lack any insulation, water, or electricity, and are too weak to withstand heavy snow or strong winds common in temperate regions. In the Philippines, shanty towns have been on the decline, not just to disasters such as fire, but also to land owners, the city, and companies wanting to do something to their land such as renovation or cleaning, and the former squatters are moved to housing projects in the outskirts, far from where they work.
Why can't there be land that nobody owns in any town/city? The only land that I know which isn't owned by anybody is Antarctica, and that is a no man's land.
Last edited:
