Perhaps the one sentence that stood out the most to me from Kimmelman’s piece was found in the middle of the article: “Public authorities and cultural experts after the fact blamed the residents or the architecture, but these both were more the victims than the cause.” I find that in hindsight, some people tend to pinpoint one cause in particular, because suddenly everything seems so obvious because, well, all the stuff already happened and you’re just analyzing the past. However, they fail to take into account all the factors that play into the situation, which reminded me of the nature-nurture debate and the complicated feat of parenting.

I remember reading an article, last year I believe, from The Washington Post about a loving couple with an autistic child, who would have random meltdowns in public and start doing inappropriate things, such as banging his head or stripping off his clothes. They were at a park and on the boardwalk in Austin, Texas for a family day out, and miraculously, the son was actually doing great at the time; he wasn’t having any meltdowns whatsoever. Nonetheless, they were approached by police, who wanted to speak with them about their son. As it turns out, people had called the cops on the couple because the son’s hair and pants were messy, a byproduct of his autistic tendencies and severe sensory issues, and assumed that they weren’t taking good care of him. They were quick to assume abuse, rather than giving the parents the benefit of the doubt by considering other possible factors. I brought up this example because in the case of the Pruitt-Igoe — Penn South discrepancy, authorities and experts blamed the victims of a mixture of factors, rather than the factors themselves. While Pruitt-Igoe faced inadequate funding, unfathomable welfare rules, and counterproductive legislation, Penn South received steady income, tax relief, and a sense of community.

All in all, I think people need to take a step back more often, look at the big picture, and most importantly, think critically.