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.
Which is why I asked if anyone had any formal studies on the matter, or knew of any.
The broadest and most colonizing of all biases exist in so-called "formal studies." For better or worse. They are invariably aimed at obtaining or retaining funding, rationalizing significant development ("gentrification") or intending to bring about its demise, and so on.
The broadest and most colonizing of all biases exist in so-called "formal studies." For better or worse. They are invariably aimed at obtaining or retaining funding, rationalizing significant development ("gentrification") or intending to bring about its demise, and so on.
Perhaps, which is why its nice to present a variety of formal studies, so you don't just see one side of the equation.
Generally, any major action taken has have both positive and negative effects. Saying that crime went up in Chicago is just one effect of the housing project demolition.
There would have bene other effects, both good and bad. Did Chicago reduce its number of people on public assistance due to the demolition of the projects? Its something that no one here can answer without statistics from the government. Did the tax base of Chicago increase by getting rid of public lands? These things can be said to be positive effects, if they happened.
Did a significant number of people from the housing projects over time find any type of employment?
Haven't you realized that this forum is pro-PJ & anti-hipster? Look at the number of theads about getting & keeping a public housing apt. As well as those complaining about non-locals, who have the temerity to come here, work, pay rent & improve the neighborhood.
You can't connect the dots urself? U really need somebody to do it for you?
There's no dots to connect from that article. There is no proof that crime in Chicago went up because of housing project demolition.
Its baseless speculation on your part.
Also, there would be other effects of the demolition of housing projects in Chicago. Did government spending on welfare programs go down? Did the tax base of Chicago go up with public land privatized? There's a lot of stuff one would need to know to connect the whole picture. Again, how are the former residents doing? (I'm sure there are many different stories on that).
Oh, and by the way, when the housing projects were up, 20 years ago, Chicago has had more murders, as that article claimed it was Chicago's worst year in more than 10 years. So the article has no dots to connect.
Its obvious this form is pro project as whole, which is why I seriously doubt people when they claim Chicago has gotten so much worse since the housing projects were demolished. They would love to think so, partially because if the projects were demolished in Chicago, they could be in New York as well.
By the way, other big cities besides Chicago have demolished projects.
There's no dots to connect from that article. There is no proof that crime in Chicago went up because of housing project demolition.
Its baseless speculation on your part.
Also, there would be other effects of the demolition of housing projects in Chicago. Did government spending on welfare programs go down? Did the tax base of Chicago go up with public land privatized? There's a lot of stuff one would need to know to connect the whole picture. Again, how are the former residents doing? (I'm sure there are many different stories on that).
Oh, and by the way, when the housing projects were up, 20 years ago, Chicago has had more murders, as that article claimed it was Chicago's worst year in more than 10 years. So the article has no dots to connect.
Crime across the US was higher 20 years ago as opposed to today. NYC didnt get rid of any housing projects and our crime was higher 20 years ago than it is today. If you knew more about Chicago you wouldn't bother to debate me on this. All the crime is spreading throughout the West Side, South Side and suburbs of Chicago.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Different people who live in Chicago don't seem to report crime being worse in the city overall. Keep in mind generally, of course housing project people were not placed in expensive neighborhoods or wealthy suburbs. They scattered them around poor suburbs, or even rural areas in Illinois and Iowa.
With that said, it probably was overall for the best, because one problem with the housing projects is if everyone you know around you only gets SSI or whatever government program, there's nothing to ever encourage you to try and do better. Trying to diffuse the population of poor people and scatter affordable housing among wealthier districts gives poor people (who may not have cars) better access to jobs.
Also, I do think having massive housing projects in a way penalizes working people, as you have all these units that are defacto taken off the market for working people.
When you made this statement it became crystal clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of the history of NYCHA. The projects at one time were some of the best places in the city to live for the working class.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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.
