Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happened to the Brewster Douglas homes in Detroit and Cabrini green in Chicago? I mean many tax payers money was spent on building these. Are hire rise public housing a flaw in urban planning? And if so why does it work so well in NYC.
What happened to the Brewster Douglas homes in Detroit and Cabrini green in Chicago? I mean many tax payers money was spent on building these. Are hire rise public housing a flaw in urban planning? And if so why does it work so well in NYC.
Concentration of poverty never works well. I can point to all of New Orleans' notorious projects that we're demolished. And most others around the country.
Heck, they still have volunteer Fire Companies too here. They have their own bars and restaurants to fund the firehouse. The State grants them laxer gambling and means to raise funding and can stay open till 3 am as Clubs. I belong to a couple. Only $1.25 no tax for a full pint of Draft brew LOL.
It's calling me right now. Might just go and stay at my Mothers overnight and hit up on one LOL.
You take the two things that have about the highest correlations with violent crime, combine them, get violent crime. Nothing unique about high-rises, they just exacerbate the density end of the problem and make policing them even more difficult. Plus high-rises are expensive to construct and maintain which just makes them less sustainable. PJs nearly always end up being rundown as their run by what amounts to some of the worst slumlords you can find, government agencies with no incentive to maintain the property.
Basically every form of welfare housing is more efficient and produces better outcomes than PJs, which is why it's swung so widely to TIF and Section 8 vouchers. They simply private better, cheaper housing for less dollars than PJs do. Basically PJs are the flaw in urban planning, high-rise just tends to be a particularly poor way of implementing an already terrible policy.
My understanding of why the towers worked in NYC but not elsewhere is a combination of two things:
1. They had to because of the density. You simply couldn't argue that demolishing the towers and putting in smaller-scale buildings would make any economic sense.
2. NYCHA uniquely had a policy that if you were in low-income housing and eventually started making more money, they wouldn't kick you out. As a result, the buildings drifted into defacto mixed-income housing over time, with the middle class in the buildings effectively becoming the public advocates - ensuring that the buildings themselves would never be in danger of being demolished.
You take the two things that have about the highest correlations with violent crime, combine them, get violent crime. Nothing unique about high-rises, they just exacerbate the density end of the problem and make policing them even more difficult. Plus high-rises are expensive to construct and maintain which just makes them less sustainable. PJs nearly always end up being rundown as their run by what amounts to some of the worst slumlords you can find, government agencies with no incentive to maintain the property.
Does density correlate for violent crime once poverty is taken into account?
My understanding of why the towers worked in NYC but not elsewhere is a combination of two things:
1. They had to because of the density. You simply couldn't argue that demolishing the towers and putting in smaller-scale buildings would make any economic sense.
2. NYCHA uniquely had a policy that if you were in low-income housing and eventually started making more money, they wouldn't kick you out. As a result, the buildings drifted into defacto mixed-income housing over time, with the middle class in the buildings effectively becoming the public advocates - ensuring that the buildings themselves would never be in danger of being demolished.
also in other cities with decaying projects; the nearby private housing market also declined and became really cheap. Many public housing tenants left for the private housing market. The NYCHA stayed a good deal price-wise.
It's not like lowrise housing projects did so great either. And many high crime areas of Memphis, Atlanta, Detroit, Houston, Dallas... aren't in very dense areas.
RIP All Chicago's Projects. They were a FAILED GREAT SOCIETY SOCIAL EXPERIMENT that Failed BIG TIME.
I hate to get in the way of your dogma, but highrise public housing projects like Cabrini or Pruitt-Igoe (St. Louis) were actually built following the Housing Act of 1949 and mainly constructed during the Eisenhower administration. By the time the Great Society came around (1964) most of these types of projects were no longer being built, and by 1968 HUD was working with the local housing authorities to close them or in some cases to demolish them. The Nixon administration cut funding levels for public housing hugely, so the process of closing them and replacing them with scattered-site or lower-density housing was stalled. Nixon's approach to low-income housing (which has survived to this day) was to incentivize banks and wealthy investors through income tax credits and/or deductions to build "affordable" housing, and using rent supplements (Section 8) to allow low-income people to rent private apartments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
