This article by Michael Kimmelman is about a St. Louis public-housing complex, Pruitt-Igoe, and a housing cooperative in Manhattan, Penn South. The two housing complexes were the same structurally, with brick and concrete high rises scattered across grassy plots, but while Penn South is thriving today, Pruitt-Igoe became known for its poverty, crime, and segregations and was demolished in 1972 after. The question this poses, and what the article explores is why the two housing complexes went completely different ways.
Pruitt-Igoe had problems from the beginning and it sounds like it was destined to be doomed. There was inadequate money set aside for maintenance, welfare rules that said abled-bodied men couldn’t stay with a women who received government aid, and night staff who kicked out fathers from the apartments. This just leads to poorly maintained buildings as well as separated families. This along with the segregated towns that led to a loss of jobs in the city just spells disaster. I think that if a place is built well and similar to other successful housing, if it is not taken care of, and the people in it are unable to support themselves, it will just have bad results. The economic factors are probably one of the largest in determining the success of a place.
Penn South had a stable income from the maintenance payments and retail units in commercial buildings the co-op owned. The residents invested in the buildings and made improvements, which means that they cared and were able to get jobs and support themselves and their families and also have enough to spend on improvements. Penn South was in a different situation from Pruitt-Igoe, so it is not surprise that there were different results. Because the structures were about the same for both, it seems like architecture isn’t as large of a role in the success of buildings as the residents and how much money they and the building has. Architecture may play a role in how successful housing complexes are, but I believe the comparison between the two show that social and economic factors play a larger role.
Some of the comments of the article talk about how the comparisons between Pruitt-Igoe and Penn South don’t really make sense, because as the article says, Penn South isn’t public housing but Pruitt-Igoe is. Penn South is made affordable to working class families, but isn’t public housing. I think that there are often stereotypes associated with public housing, such as it being dangerous, which just already makes it more likely to not thrive and be successful. In addition, Penn South is in an affluent, diverse neighborhood in New York, whereas Pruitt-Igoe wasn’t. Architecture might have been similar, but the surrounding areas were not.
It would be interesting to compare other public housing complexes that were similarly built and in the same situation as Pruitt-Igoe to see what has become of them to see what causes success and failure. It would also be interesting to look into what the city and other places are planning for the future of affordable housing. Given that most NROCs in New York are towers in the park, is this what the city is planning? Is there enough space to build more places like this? Or will land have to be taken to build more housing? There are so many questions to be asked about the future of housing in New York and it remains to be see what will be done and if it will all be successful.
