Thanks for posting this interview. He uses terms similar to those in Jacobs' ch. 20 Salvaging Projects, such as "Reweaving projects back into the city is necessary" (p. 392). Yet, isn't the blowing up of Pruitt-Igoe another attempt at creating a tabula rasa? Couldn't some of the buildings have been kept with the reforms that Jacobs recommends in chapter 20? Interestingly, in one of the images, in Pruitt-Igoe's reading room, one of our books for class, Black Power, is displaced prominently. I wonder why it was so central displayed?
I'm not certain that these type of projects could be salvaged, as somewhat of a dichotomy existed surrounding public housing during their creation. Many of these projects, (and Pruitt Igoe specifically) were designed so that their residents would not want to live there permanently. The buildings were not air conditioned, the elevators only stopped on four of the eleven floors, and they were constructed with cheap materials. This runs contrary to what Jacobs describes in this chapter, that those designing low income housing (Jacobs warned the reader to avoid the term "project"), should always keep in mind that those who reside in these developments consider them homes, not as a stepping stone. In addition, the design of these units were noted to significantly increase crime rates, as hallways were shielded from surveillance, density was substantially increased, and physical security was rarely present.
Furthermore, Jacobs uses the phrase "clean slate" to describe reconstruction of (or at least substantial renovation of) low income housing in a way that will allow it to mesh better with its surroundings, including increased street connectivity and mixed uses. Perhaps she thought that low income housing on a significant scale was so blatantly ill-conceived that nothing socially or architecturally useful could be salvaged from it, we'll never know for sure.
Thanks for posting this interview. He uses terms similar to those in Jacobs' ch. 20 Salvaging Projects, such as "Reweaving projects back into the city is necessary" (p. 392). Yet, isn't the blowing up of Pruitt-Igoe another attempt at creating a tabula rasa? Couldn't some of the buildings have been kept with the reforms that Jacobs recommends in chapter 20? Interestingly, in one of the images, in Pruitt-Igoe's reading room, one of our books for class, Black Power, is displaced prominently. I wonder why it was so central displayed?
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain that these type of projects could be salvaged, as somewhat of a dichotomy existed surrounding public housing during their creation. Many of these projects, (and Pruitt Igoe specifically) were designed so that their residents would not want to live there permanently. The buildings were not air conditioned, the elevators only stopped on four of the eleven floors, and they were constructed with cheap materials. This runs contrary to what Jacobs describes in this chapter, that those designing low income housing (Jacobs warned the reader to avoid the term "project"), should always keep in mind that those who reside in these developments consider them homes, not as a stepping stone. In addition, the design of these units were noted to significantly increase crime rates, as hallways were shielded from surveillance, density was substantially increased, and physical security was rarely present.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Jacobs uses the phrase "clean slate" to describe reconstruction of (or at least substantial renovation of) low income housing in a way that will allow it to mesh better with its surroundings, including increased street connectivity and mixed uses. Perhaps she thought that low income housing on a significant scale was so blatantly ill-conceived that nothing socially or architecturally useful could be salvaged from it, we'll never know for sure.