Bloom addresses the Robert Moses-led policy on slum clearance in the post war era in this excerpt from his book, Public Housing that Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century. Personally, I am disturbed by the phrase “slum-clearance.” Communities that have fallen into disrepair should not be condemned to be “cleared.” Perhaps a more constructive, democratic approach might have been to rejuvenate these communities: by renovating existing buildings, updating infrastructure such as roads, building and/or updating community spaces such as parks and libraries can all be ways to attract newer residents and businesses into the area.

The biggest problem I saw with these plans is the uninspired Tower-Block design. These projects were praised for the ability to achieve “high density” accommodation. It seems almost like an effort to take certain parts of the population and force them to occupy these specially designed structures that would have “low ground coverage.” Rejecting the idea that the existing community might have any value at all and preemptively making the decision to destroy everything to replace it with these tasteless structures would not fixed the neighborhoods – it would have killed them.

I found it odd that getting public-private partnerships to happen in the target areas was seen as such a monumental task. Personally, I fail to see why existing private properties in slums, at least the ones that were not in disrepair were not simply allowed to stay on where possible. Instead of trying to force new private interests to move into freshly cleared area that was previously considered a slum, perhaps allowing the private citizens of the community to make certain decisions and assume responsibility for some of the projects would have served the community better in the long run.

Without any ties to the old well-established communities, these neighborhoods would have faced a high risk of becoming rife with undesirable elements again. In this matter, I agree with Jane Jacobs: having a community of people who are well established in the neighborhood and are invested in the happenings is the most sure-fire way of preventing crime and other unfavorable elements. Bloom says that having uniform designs allowed for easier “long-term maintenance.” This may be true but I am not convinced that “maintenance” is what these communities needed. Building these super structures and then regularly “maintaining” them through government agencies does not achieve any greater value for the city. Instead, if these communities had been renovated and given the right incentives, they might have grown to not need any government maintenance or oversight at all.

I agree with Mr. Lewis Mumford, who is quoted by Bloom in his piece. These buildings appear to have been “designed by one mind…intended for people of one class, bred like bees to fill these honeycombs.” It is shocking to me that ideas of “economic design” and “long-term maintenance” would be the foremost considerations while dealing with in-need communities.