brandtheLAND

     Why did Co-op City work when other low income housing developments failed so poorly? Perhaps it was the resilience characteristic of every New Yorker - gotta be tough to win the turf war against the rats. However, I don't believe there was much difference between the residents of Co-op City and those of Pruitt-Igoe, both faced similar circumstances and turmoils. Therefore, the culprit has to be the management and development itself. The ability to own property, to work toward a common goal, to open the doors to multiple types of people all chasing their common ground united the residents to care for and take pride in the place they lived. "I want this place to be nice because one day, it will be all mine" as opposed to "I'm only a renter, it's not my responsibility to maintain this place." The development, like much of New York, was experimental but open-minded and did not restrict the residents or attempt to control them.      Even more amazing was...

       Who is to blame for the failure of Pruitt Igoe? The truth, maybe we are all to blame. If human history, war, terror, climate change, and the "otherness" are to be believed, wherever humans go, destruction, greed, corruption, and selfishness will inevitably follow - the only difference is how well we hide it. As white residents fled the Pruitt Igoe project to the suburbs, they thought it was for a better life. Then suburban sprawl has catalyzed an entirely different collection of environmental and social problems. We are beings without content.      The architect simply designed the buildings - he has no say in how it is used. Is he to blame? The project was a vast collection of identical buildings without a tree, park, or moment of respite in sight. No individuality. No creativity. No adaptability. From my perception of the design characteristics of Pruitt Igoe, it appears almost communistic - those modernists and their universality. The archite...

 When it comes to Modernism, people love to hate it - perhaps rightfully so. The entire goal of the movement was a form of universalization and mass production, experimentation and questioning. Particularly in the article about Scandinavian Suburbs where modernism made all sorts of claims and essentially fed segregation and racism...but did it? The article poses the questions "Prevailing ideas about appropriate cures for the disease of modernist urbanism have taken the form of biopsies, amputations, or why not just euthanasia?" (659) However, I have a very hard time believing the modernist designers sat down and designed neighborhoods, houses, and environments with the intent of causing a separation in society. It is always very easy to look at failed experiments and blame the designer for the side effects. I believe the modernists should be given a bit of forgiveness and leeway in their work. Yes, it had horrible consequences, but the intentions were pure. How can we expec...