paS2K

I think that the architecture may be a contributing factor, but the real socio-economic force is probably the ghetto-ization of the immigrants in one area....rather than dispersed throughout the urban area.

Interestingly, many newly-arrived ethnic immigrant groups gravitate to a single area for the 'comfort level' of common language, small ethic grocery stores, etc. They form a community by choice....rather than by force of bureaucracy. I know this exists in Philadelphia with foks from Liberia, Russia, Ethiopia, etc.

It's pretty widely accepted that high-rise 'public housing' was not a good idea. In many cities (including Philadelphia), some high rise buildings from the 50's and 60's have actually been demolished....with replacement by low-rise units (1 or 2 stories/ attached units). This has brought some improvement....allowing better self-policing by the neighborhood folks.

The discussion about Marseilles is pretty interesting. In the 70's I visited the Le Corbusier Unite d'Habitation in that city; it was definitely middle class housing at that time. I'm not sure about the current demographics of the project.

By contrast, I think high-rise housing (with generous green space and courtyards surrounding) has been a pretty successful housing type for middle and upper class areas. An example would be Society Hill Towers in Philadelphia by I.M. Pei....very upscale location within the historic residential part of the city, with views of the Delaware River.

The 'pushing out' of highrise 'project' housing to the suburbs has not occurred very often in the US because the suburbs are a different governmental unit (often Republican) and rarely in cooperation with the city administrations (often Democrat). IIRC, Miami (Dade County) is a rare exception....with a large geographical area under a single governmental and planning unit.

This is certainly the case in Philadelphia, but I would be interested to hear about the scenario in other larger cities

DrCloud

In most of the places I'm familiar with, the trend has been away from "public housing" toward "affordable housing." I believe that there is more to the distinction than mere PC wordsmithing.

Many of the affordable housing projects function in such a way that the residents wind up with a personal stake in the units -- they "own" them in some sense. Pride of ownership, plus the personal investment aspect of it, leads to better communities, in the sense that folks just won't put up with the nonsense that's associated with public housing.

Of course, the public subsidies that allow "affordable housing" to be possible, particularly in areas where housing is expensive, are another issue altogether.

So, with respect to the architecture question, I'd suggest that management of the buildings (are they free or semi-free apartments, or are they condos, or what?) may be as much of an issue as the buildings and their location. HPH

Chazmo

Dean, I see no reason at all to interfere here (sorry if I got nervous). As CO, I was just getting concerned. I hope the tone around Vintage does start to swing back to normal. Conversations like this one here are not at all what I'm worried about.

ralper

I think that there is a major difference in the location of housing projects in the United States and France largely due to the age of the communities and when the cities were formed.

In the United States, the poor neighborhoods are largely located in the inner cities or the immediate surrounding suburbs. I think that is simply because those are the neighborhoods that got older and with the newly found mobility of the 20th century, the middle class was able to move farther and farther out, leaving the inner cities and immediate surrounding suburbs to the poor. When it came time to construct the housing projects of the 40s and 50s, the natural inclination of the local governments was to tear down the older nonsatisfactory houses that were in these neighborhoods and replace them with high rise projects. It wasn't until the 80s and later that we all came to realize that these high rise building didn't work. In New York (and especially Brooklyn) and the close in New Jersey suburbs, a number of these buildings still remain. In the boroughs the trend in the last 20 years has been to demolish the high rise buildings and replace them with one or two story homes (similar to what Jerry said is being done in Philadelphia). While much more successful, these low rise projects are still located in or near the inner city. Again, I think this has less to do with the politics of the cities (and outter lying areas) and more to do with where the older communities were located.

I think that in France (and most of Europe), the inner city has always been held in higher value. I don't think middle class people tended to abandon their communities when they get old as they do in America.

Another interesting question is why do low rise housing projects for the poor work but high rise projects don't. Is it because people feel more attached to them as they live closer to the ground level?

dean

When will we be seeing a list of clearly defined guidelines as to what constitutes a political vs. apolitical topic? Or, will that also be left to determination through anonymous backchannel communications after the fact, as apparently the original decision to remove the subject of American politics altogether was made?

Chazmo

Not sure about that, Dean. Right now, any political discussion is subject to being moved. For new threads, we will probably discuss it with the participants first. Not sure.

paS2K

As the NYT article pointed out, the high-rises have often turned into prisons. The 'warden' who grants visiting privileges exacts a bribe for safe passage in elevators and even stair towers. The elderly and single moms must pay $$ to ensure safety in their own building!

It's not easy in low-rise areas with roaming gangs, etc....but at least there is a chance of police surveillance and/or community 'town watch' types of oversight.

DrCloud is also correct in noting the trend towards 'affordable' housing for the needy, with a self-help sweat equity component. That's part of the mission statement of Habitat for Humanity , with which (some of you know) I have been involved for +10 years

Val or Lainey, can you help out with a carpenter and hammer emoticon here

Lainey

Here ya go Jerry. Best I could to. Keep up the good work.

paS2K

Perfect! Thank you!

Traveler

This certainly seems to be the case in Singapore. Over 70% of the population lives in "public" housing, but most of it is owner occupied. There was a newspaper article there recently claiming that over half of the people in the lowest 20th percentile of income are home owners.

Most of this housing seems to be high rise. I didn't visit any while I was there, but those that I saw from the train on my daily commute looked OK. No burned out cars. No graffiti. No broken windows.