Increasing trashiness of the poor and working class?

Jul 2016
8,203
USA
#81
This is an extrmely light weight article. Jane Jacobs was NOT against suburbs, she was against dominitary suburbans, monoculture of commuters. She was also against High Rise.

You got some social scientists types celebrating High Rise? High Rise seems to come form the confluence of Architects , Developers (making money) and Government (saving money)
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.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,350
#82
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.
.
It a extrmely poor source, it's just vague as hell and does not rellay support your positon. It's quote from some guy launching an attack of p[eople. What you wnat is a osurce written by social sicteneints where the espouse the position you say they supported. Chepa criticism for were otehr people put words in their mouths is hardly a source of any description.

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.
Whats the substance of their criticism? What wer ethey wrong about. This is the problem with teh artcile it does not deal with substance. There are specfific criticism of Suburbia rather than a blacket rejection of.

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.
you were clealrty talking about High Rise ...
"while celebrating the urban high rise "Projects" public housing as the fruition of mankind"
And again you say social scietnetinets supported these developments.

I ask for some substance/source to back up this claim.
 
Jul 2016
8,203
USA
#83
you were clealrty talking about High Rise ...
"while celebrating the urban high rise "Projects" public housing as the fruition of mankind"
And again you say social scietnetinets supported these developments.

I ask for some substance/source to back up this claim.
So if I was I was just talking about high rise and not high rise public housing why did I write 'urban high rise "Projects" public housing?" The most expensive condos in the Upper West Side of NYC are high rise. Do you think I'm talking about them? No, I'm talking about these monstrosities.

And I did back up the claim with a source. You didn't accept it. Because you wont accept any. Because there will never be a source written well enough, in your opinion, to change your opinion.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,350
#84
So if I was I was just talking about high rise and not high rise public housing why did I write 'urban high rise "Projects" public housing?" The most expensive condos in the Upper West Side of NYC are high rise. Do you think I'm talking about them? No, I'm talking about these monstrosities.

And I did back up the claim with a source. You didn't accept it. Because you wont accept any. Because there will never be a source written well enough, in your opinion, to change your opinion.
Becaus the source is justy some guy ranting about cetrin people in a magzine article without any reference , rather than any rational dicussion of what they advocated.

You ares till saying the certain types of people supported certian high rises without any substance to support this view.
 
Feb 2019
72
California
#86
So if I was I was just talking about high rise and not high rise public housing why did I write 'urban high rise "Projects" public housing?" The most expensive condos in the Upper West Side of NYC are high rise. Do you think I'm talking about them? No, I'm talking about these monstrosities.

And I did back up the claim with a source. You didn't accept it. Because you wont accept any. Because there will never be a source written well enough, in your opinion, to change your opinion.
What is so monstrous about the building in your photo? Certainly nothing that your photo makes apparent....
 
Jul 2016
8,203
USA
#87
What is so monstrous about the building in your photo? Certainly nothing that your photo makes apparent....
Bad architecture and layout. Purposeful clustering of individuals living in extreme poverty, stacking them high and deep as possible with notable results. Poor construction. Lack of security measures.

And they're ugly as sin too.
 
Jul 2016
8,203
USA
#88
Becaus the source is justy some guy ranting about cetrin people in a magzine article without any reference , rather than any rational dicussion of what they advocated.
Some guy ranting about certain people describes pretty much every social science paper ever written.

You ares till saying the certain types of people supported certian high rises without any substance to support this view.
Sure, it was a complete accident they were all built that way across the entire United States over a multi-decade period. What a coincidence! Surely wasn't planned, and surely urban planners never spoke to pet social scientists who encouraged it, because if there is one thing that has never happened in US history is social engineering by do-gooders.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,350
#89
Bad architecture and layout. Purposeful clustering of individuals living in extreme poverty, stacking them high and deep as possible with notable results. Poor construction. Lack of security measures.

And they're ugly as sin too.
Read anything eeh social scientists wrote and you see this is what they were opposed to. Diversity of social class and uses is basically their key argument, opposition to monoculture, and more 'village;' atomsphere. which is why they were opposed to this syle of development.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,350
#90
Some guy ranting about certain people describes pretty much every social science paper ever written.
characturatures by people's enimies is often not the most accurate portrayal of other people.

Sure, it was a complete accident they were all built that way across the entire United States over a multi-decade period. What a coincidence! Surely wasn't planned, and surely urban planners never spoke to pet social scientists who encouraged it, because if there is one thing that has never happened in US history is social engineering by do-gooders.
Your assumption that do gooders and social scientists where some how in conriol and deciding all this stuff is pretty ludicrous. It is one thing that never happened in US history. Never been an influential group. Capitalism, large corporations, developers., much more influential in urban design and development.

Archetects were on this brutalist/modernist binge, developers wanted to developp this way to make the most money and governments wante dto do this as it was cheaper.