|
|
| Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway (465982) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:31:21 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 05:48:15 2007. Sure, the furnishings and number of people to the size of apartment aren't exactly great, but that isn't actually a problem with the building: the issue is that the people were too goddamn poor to afford anything better.No it has nothing to do with the size, but the condition of the buildings - unupgraded 1800's buildings in the mid-1900's. Housing projects, if anything, made the quality of what was affordable worse. I am not arguing that. But at the time, they were thought to be the answer, and were well intentioned. Hindsight is 20-20. ut if those people ultimately get priced out of the city, we can all live in some upper class fantasy land Priced out? What the hel;l are you talking about. You are taking this as a 1980's, 90's, 2000's situation, and placing it in the 40's and 50's when cities were on the decline. By the 70's, many areas you couldn't give away. You are placing today's scenarios of "pricing out and gentrification, in the past's ideal of city flight to the suburbs. If people had been serious about tackling slums, better (and likely cheaper) policies would be: Again, you are taking today's ideas and thoughts, and trying to place them in a different era of thinking when it was out with the old and in with the new, and cities were evil, and suburbs good and the wave of the future while citieas were thought to be dying entities. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|