The problem with this is that these housing projects often delay any chance of real change because they uproot poor populations and disrupt their social networks and ability to get to their workplaces. This means that the people in power get to say they are doing something while also keeping the poor broken up and unable as easily amass a critical mass of unhappy people with the power and cooperation to either make their own changes or push those in power to make real ones.
As for what Is do... I don't know. This problem is an issue with cities and has been a thing since cities began. Cities don't produce resources so access to resources is limited to those with the money and power to bring them in so I don't know if there IS a solution.
You are right to point out some potential issues with renewing housing stock - ultimately it is liable to break up communities to some extent, as they must be removed from a place at least during rebuilding.
However, it's not that hard to make sure there is reasonable, affordable housing in cities: there's just little or no political will to make it happen. It requires local governments to tell property developers they can't turn that patch of land into a luxury apartment block. And if the developers decide it's not worth their efforts to make affordable housing, then the government steps in and builds the housing itself (or subsidises it.) Governments don't do this because they are usually lobbied hard not to, and sufficiently cash-strapped that they're usually more interested in ways that they can profit from an expensive development (where available).
So in the UK, London is essentially exiling a lot of its poor. Many local councils have decided their answer to needing to supply some accommodation to the poor is to exile the poor to other cities. Needless to say, much of what this accomplishes is to put even more strain on the social services of poorer cities, so staggeringly wealthy London can fill with more millionaires and second homes for the international elite. Sweet - for London. And yet there are plenty of houses built in London, just no-one will build them for poor people. And let's not forget the
Grenfell fire. In the 4 years since, the government has effectively decided that property owners can pass the cost of fixing their dangerous tower blocks onto the residents. Often very poor households expected to cough up sums of £100,000 (~3 times median household income) if they want their home not to be a fire risk. We could not have a clearer idea who the whole system is serving, and it's ultimately how politicians want it to work.
Maybe, and I know this sounds like a joke, but maybe weed is an answer? Weed is a crop that can be crown in cities and poorer people can get access to the crop and you don't need to get an education to learn how to grow it.
They will be outcompeted by professional weed growers, just like any tenant farmer gets outcompeted by large agribusiness.
I would legalise weed for literally no other reason than it would remove a huge source of income from some of the most dangerous criminals out there. That nice guy many users buy it from might be genial and good-natured, but chances are at least someone in the supply chain is having legs broken and murdering rival gang members.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/GYCGRT2ANNN53G3KSU5BLVNXYY.jpg)
