After completing the two readings for today’s class, my biggest takeaway is that the value of housing (especially public housing) goes deeper than the architecture and material appearance of the construction – for a public housing block to be successful, it must resonate with its residents and fit well with the underlying community.

For one, the Pruitt-Igoe buildings were designed by renowned architects that went on to complete the construction of the World Trade Towers, and the apartments were hailed as revolutionary during their construction, so it would be unreasonable to credit the complex’s demise to its architecture. The planning of the project seemed thorough; instead, the challenges began when residents began to occupy the buildings. It seems as though the housing block’s size was the biggest issue, as maintenance and repair issues arose frequently. The natural correction for this was a decline in occupancy, at which point, quality of life began to deteriorate.

Clearly, there was never a connection among neither the housing block and its residents, nor the housing block and its surrounding community, as the article mentioned that surrounding areas remained in tact and unchanged throughout the rise and fall of Pruitt-Igoe. Taking a step back, it seems like these buildings were simply too large for the community they were placed in:

(image found through Wikipedia)

Judging by the picture, it feels like the complex was isolated from its surroundings, and quality of life began to decline, that isolation would have surely been amplified. I think this isolation may have escalated the block’s descent into poverty, and is what separates it from the Penn South buildings of comparable size, as mentioned in the NY Times article.