I believe Pruitt-Igoe’s demolition was destined in the midst of a city that was experiencing shifting population and changing economic outlook. Through the parallels that the author draws, it’s not hard to see there are de facto no difference between infrastructures of Pruitt-Igoe and those of Penn South – what differs are the policies and cities that supported them respectively. They were brought to life with positive hopes and outlooks; the early stages of Pruitt-Igoe could almost prove it to be successful if they were to last, which sadly wasn’t the case. Once the people started fleeting, there was no end to this journey downhill. From a policy perspective, if similar projects were to enact, what can best protect the interest of its residents? besides setting aside enough fundings on the onset for maintenance and repair, it should also be protected from buyers once the property values go up – which can only be created through the vague sense of community; I think that would be the only way one would turn down an offer for the place one calls home. More importantly, such a community cannot exist if the conditions within the city are deteriorating. The city itself needs to be reinventing itself for needs of its residents. Communities cannot insulate itself from the city that they are surrounded by and that is the fundamental problem which caused the tragic of Pruitt-Igoe in my opinion.