Increasing trashiness of the poor and working class?

Feb 2019
63
California
#91
Y
You wanted a source, I provided you one. I don't care if you think its light weight. Of course you would, you don't agree with it at all. No source I could possibly provide would suffice as a good source if you already made your mind up.

Numerous social scientists throughout the '50-70s commented that suburbia was bad for American civilization and society as a whole, leading to conformity, blah blah blah. They were dead wrong.

And High Rise isn't what I was talking about, that can apply to anything tall. I'm referring to public housing project, which were cheap and crappy high rise apartment buildings designed for poor people, funded by the govt. Likewise, social scientists thought it was going to be awesome, a grandiose social experiment ushering in new wave of urban living for the poor. It actually turned out to be one of the worst architectural ideas ever, a total disaster.

Yeah but the problem wasn't the buildings---it was the people. Still is.
 
Jul 2016
8,168
USA
#92
Y
Yeah but the problem wasn't the buildings---it was the people. Still is.
It was both. If you stick a heck of a lot of very poor people in an urban development, it better be set up properly. They weren't.

This wasn't just true of African American dominated projects but all races. Look at the Irish in South Boston, the Projects there are disgusting too and created horrible crime rates and very low standards of living.

The best thing HUD could do is destroy the Projects and get the low income people out of the cities into small groups mixed into greater suburbia. In a couple generations the problem fixes itself.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,318
#93
It was both. If you stick a heck of a lot of very poor people in an urban development, it better be set up properly. They weren't.

This wasn't just true of African American dominated projects but all races. Look at the Irish in South Boston, the Projects there are disgusting too and created horrible crime rates and very low standards of living.

The best thing HUD could do is destroy the Projects and get the low income people out of the cities into small groups mixed into greater suburbia. In a couple generations the problem fixes itself.
which is the very solution that the social scienetists were advoacting.
 
Jul 2016
8,168
USA
#94
which is the very solution that the social scienetists were advoacting.
This discussion is getting absurd. Where the heck do you think Projects are located? When were they built? Who endorsed them? We know who built them, but who convinced the politicians it was a good idea?

They built inner city high rise projects because that was what they wanted. There wasn't even actual suburbs when they decided it, the idea started in the 30s and went into the 50-60s, while suburbia didn't really even start until the 50s and the social scientists, then and now, still hate them. Have you ever noticed that Projects aren't located in Suburbia? They're in major cities. Why are they in major cities? Because the social scientists hated the suburbs and wanted to cluster all the poor, after demolishing old tenements, into cheap and tall public housing because they thought the idea rocked. They thought it made the most fiscal sense, it was the easiest to do (true in short term), and the misguided fools thought sociologically it would be great for the residents.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,243
South of the barcodes
#95
Theres one other thing to think of.

Classic projects such as Cabrini Green were designed and built for WW2 to fit as many mostly Italian-American war workers into a small space near the factories with reasonably good living conditions.
It would pay for itself with decent level rents from well paid war industry factory workers.

then the war ended and the factories closed.

The owners suddenly had a massively oversized white elephant with no way to fill it, not enough residents meant not enough rents meant no wy to pay for maintenance. They tried to make up for it by bringing i poor black families to replace the Italians who were moving out.

The social scientists tended to affect how a building was constructed, they never had any effect on how cheaply it was built or how badly it was maintained.
 
Jul 2016
8,168
USA
#97
Theres one other thing to think of.

Classic projects such as Cabrini Green were designed and built for WW2 to fit as many mostly Italian-American war workers into a small space near the factories with reasonably good living conditions.
It would pay for itself with decent level rents from well paid war industry factory workers.

then the war ended and the factories closed.

The owners suddenly had a massively oversized white elephant with no way to fill it, not enough residents meant not enough rents meant no wy to pay for maintenance. They tried to make up for it by bringing i poor black families to replace the Italians who were moving out.

The social scientists tended to affect how a building was constructed, they never had any effect on how cheaply it was built or how badly it was maintained.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,318
#98
This discussion is getting absurd. Where the heck do you think Projects are located? When were they built? Who endorsed them? We know who built them, but who convinced the politicians it was a good idea?

They built inner city high rise projects because that was what they wanted. There wasn't even actual suburbs when they decided it, the idea started in the 30s and went into the 50-60s, while suburbia didn't really even start until the 50s and the social scientists, then and now, still hate them. Have you ever noticed that Projects aren't located in Suburbia? They're in major cities. Why are they in major cities? Because the social scientists hated the suburbs and wanted to cluster all the poor, after demolishing old tenements, into cheap and tall public housing because they thought the idea rocked. They thought it made the most fiscal sense, it was the easiest to do (true in short term), and the misguided fools thought sociologically it would be great for the residents.
because almost everything you say here is wrong. You have a prejudice about who is wrong, social scienetists and just ascribe everything you think is wrong to them. and it's simply not true.

social scienetists have nealry always advocated mixed zones wherte a variety of social classes and a variety activities are in a neighborhood rather than mono cultures.

Find some actual evidence of social scientist types advocated these housing project.
 
Feb 2019
63
California
#99
I'm no social scientist, but I do believe that mixing "enemies" together and forcing the to live cheek-by-jowl usually ends up resulting in "friends."*

*Well there will still be enemies, but they will be selected for actual reasons.....
 
Oct 2009
3,416
San Diego
So this is for a North American context only, but is it a fair thing to say that the poor and the lower half of the working class have gotten a lot trashier generally speaking in the way they carry themselves since the 50s? Ok this may be offensive to the liberal people here, but when you look at period photos from the 30s, or from the turn of the century, for lack of a better term, the poor and the working class just generally seems to dress and carry themselves better, compared to the type of people you see in the people of Walmart, even among the lumpenproletariat in the Depression years ,or the early 1900s, or maybe this is just conservative elitism?
EVERYONE today looks like hammered crap.
Billionaires think a T-shirt and sweatpants are proper attire for being seen in public.

Back in the day- even poorer folks wore clothing that had been tailored to fit- and felt they should look their best when out in public.

Heck- when I was 20, folks DRESSED UP to go to the airport... even if they were only meeting someone flying in.

But- sorry- it has nothing to do with socioeconomic class.... people today dress like slovenly sluggards... everywhere, all the time.