A New Chapter for Atlanta Civic Center (2014, loans)

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

And that is certainly an issue...a big one in fact. But...were the slums that were razed any less crime-ridden than the new complexes they were shuffled to?

Yes, very much so. There was no big crack/heroin epidemic back then, there was no issue with illegal guns, etc.

Were the people better off in the slums than they were in new housing projects?

In one sense they were, but it was essentially trading one set of issues (those related to health issues stemming from substandard housing) for another (the social ills that came along with the housing projects).

If not, what caused them to breed more crime their new homes than in the slums they came from?

Aspects of public assistance programs and the ill-conceived War on Drugs that played huge roles in the breakdown of families, and the actual influx of illegal drugs that occurred soon afterward. It was all by design.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Yes, very much so. There was no big crack/heroin epidemic back then, there was no issue with illegal guns, etc.

In one sense they were, but it was essentially trading one set of issues (those related to health issues stemming from substandard housing) for another (the social ills that came along with the housing projects).

Aspects of public assistance programs and the ill-conceived War on Drugs that played huge roles in the breakdown of families, and the actual influx of illegal drugs that occurred soon afterward. It was all by design.

So, the issue isn't the difference between living in a slum or a new apartment. It was other issues that took rise around the same time that the people were moved to new apartments. So, those same issues probably still would have arisen, but the people would have also been living in squalor. I seriously doubt that living in squalor was the preferred situation.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Dude...it was the very definition of slum: a squalid urban area inhabited by very poor people. It's not what "I call" a slum...it was literally a slum. Do you think that the image I posted from Joesph E. Lowery should be left as is if some squatters move in, even if they're dumping their trash and waste out of the windows? There comes a time when you have to call a duck, a duck.



And that is certainly an issue...a big one in fact. But...were the slums that were razed any less crime-ridden than the new complexes they were shuffled to? Were the people better off in the slums than they were in new housing projects? If not, what caused them to breed more crime their new homes than in the slums they came from?

The street view of Joseph E Lowery Blvd, I see potential for affordable housing in near the thousands of jobs in Midtown and Downtown on a frequent bus route and close to the future BeltLine.
No the housing projects were worst than what they replaced because the razing of those "slums" destroyed any sense of community that existed before.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So, the issue isn't the difference between living in a slum or a new apartment. It was other issues that took rise around the same time that the people were moved to new apartments. So, those same issues probably still would have arisen, but the people would have also been living in squalor. I seriously doubt that living in squalor was the preferred situation.

The same issues may or may not have arisen as the design and location of many public housing projects were big issues also.

Beginning with the New Deal and for a couple of decades after World War II, America’s federal, state and municipal housing authorities built public housing projects containing subsidized units for low- and moderate-income tenants. Ultimately inhabited mostly by people living at the edge of or in poverty, projects labeled “public housing” became negatively stigmatized.

Stigmatization was attributable to poor design, often shoddy construction, inadequate property repairs and maintenance, neglected landscaping and pervasive crime. Plagued by these severe physical and socioeconomic problems, developing public housing was deemed politically and socially taboo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/reale...=.fc5ca266569e

Neither the slums nor public housing were ideal, but at least the slums had a greater level of social cohesion and were much more like traditional neighborhoods.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Neither the slums nor public housing were ideal, but at least the slums had a greater level of social cohesion and were much more like traditional neighborhoods.

Agreed!

[aries4118]

Buttermilk Bottom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttermilk_Bottom

Buttermilk Bottom
Brian's old Atlanta blog: Buttermilk Bottom

Buttermilk Bottom
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographs

Buttermilk Bottom
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/do..._bottom_45.htm

Buttermilk Bottom
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/do...lk_life_02.htm

Buttermilk Bottom
https://patch.com/georgia/cascade/ma...ttom-community

[Saintmarks]

I am wondering if anyone commenting on this is old enough to remember the squalor that many lived in the south in the days of segregation. I do not remember Buttermilk Bottom but I remember homes in Griffin, Greenville, LaGrange and Hogansville during my youth in the 60s and 70s that were abysmal structures and unfit for human habitation. Many with no proper plumbing, no electricity, dirt floors. Not fit for animals and yet thousands lived in these conditions.

As generic and sterile as new public housing units were at the time, at least they started out sterile and had proper utilities. Time has proven they weren't the answer but at the time, they were at least humane structures for people to live in.

Kudos to the people that made a life of dignity in such surroundings. Bravo to those that remember the stories and keep photos and memorabilia so that we know what previous generations had to live through. But any kind of nostalgia to bring that back.... misguided and bordering on patronizing. Trust me, that kind of living (if that can be called living) needed to go.

[jsvh]

If you think destroying people's homes and neighborhoods made their lives better, you are fooling yourself.

Massive "Urban Renewal" was a failure.

"Slums" that have survived Urban Renewal attempts such as Boston's North End ended up much better off then places like the area around this Civic Center or Summerhill where the neighborhoods were simply leveled.

I wonder if anyone actually has stats on Buttermilk Bottom. Because many other places also called "slums" often had low disease rates, low mortality rates, and little street crime. (Read "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" if you want a whole book on this)

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by jsvh

If you think destroying people's homes and neighborhoods made their lives better, you are fooling yourself.

Massive "Urban Renewal" was a failure.

"Slums" that have survived Urban Renewal attempts such as Boston's North End ended up much better off then places like the area around this Civic Center or Summerhill where the neighborhoods were simply leveled.

I wonder if anyone actually has stats on Buttermilk Bottom. Because many other places also called "slums" often had low disease rates, low mortality rates, and little street crime. (Read "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" if you want a whole book on this)

I have seen homes in the northeast and have seen the shanties that were built in the south. They didn't build the type of shack like that in Boston. I don't think north Boston and Buttermilk Bottom are a good apples to apples comparison.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I have seen homes in the northeast and have seen the shanties that were built in the south. They didn't build the type of shack like that in Boston. I don't think north Boston and Buttermilk Bottom are a good apples to apples comparison.

Oh please.

But regardless, leveling their homes and neighborhoods did not make these people (or areas) better off. Only now that we are returning new private housing to so many of these sites are they getting back on their feet.

Urban Renewal was a failure.

Edit: Here is a picture of "Buttermilk Bottoms". Do some minor renovations to the homes and park some Priuses & BMWs on the street and this scene could fit in with most of the reviving in-town neighborhoods today.


Source: https://www.atlantaphotos.com/butter...ghborhood.html