The NYT article proves a very good point: architecture does not guarantee anything. This actually reminded of a conversation my sister and I had while walking around our neighborhood this weekend. We decided to walk around the many streets of brownstones in Harlem, and spotted one for sale. This ignited our usual conversation about how can we get one/ how much it cost/ finding it on street easy and the conclusion that we’ll never be rich enough to own our very own brownstone. This is when my sister mentioned that her friend lives in one of these brownstones, and her parents bought it when they first immigrated to the US for a couple of thousand dollars. Not only that, but her friend claims to have family friends who bought their brownstones in the area for only a few dollars only a couple of decades ago. This was when the government would practically give them away in an attempt to upscale the place and “get the meth heads out.” So although the houses we’re beautiful, they’re value was not insured by their architecture but by their surroundings.

This, I learned, is much like public housing. Public housing was build with the mind of futuristic and innovative design, even inspired by Europe. However, as white flight took over and cities got abandoned the towers design for a overcrowded city become looming, gloomy eyesores. An area to be avoided and practically separated from the rest of the community. I always questioned why “the projects” always looked so threatening and people told me to avoid them, but they became threatening as more people avoided them creating a sense of isolation and opportunity for criminals. I do wonder that as the city is becoming increasingly denser, and these buildings are designed for dense cities, if their stigma will go away and they’ll become part of the skyscrapers in the sky line.