To explain the troubling effect of strangers on the streets of city gray areas, I shall first point out, for purposes of analogy, the peculiarities of another and figurative kind of street - the corridors of high-rise public housing projects, those derivatives of Radiant City. The elevators and corridors of these projects are, in a sense, streets. They are streets piled up in the sky in order to eliminate streets on the ground and permit the ground to become deserted parks like the mall at Washington Houses where the tree was stolen.
Not only are these interior parts of the building streets in the sense that they serve the comings and goings of residents, most of whom may not know each other or recognize, necessarily, who is a resident and who is not. They are streets also in the sense of being accessible to the public. They have been designed in an imitation of upper-class standards for apartment living without upper-class cash for doormen and elevator men. Anyone at all can go into these buildings, unquestioned, and use the traveling street of the elevator and the sidewalks that are the corridors. These interior streets, although completely accessible to public use, are closed to public view and thus lack the checks and inhibitions exerted by eye-policed city streets.
From "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", Chapter 2: "The uses of sidewalks: safety", Jane Jacobs
Jane Jacob's book is an essential and phenomenal read for anyone who feels unease with how cities have not provided us with more inviting living spaces --due to many reasons, politics, economics, architects, residents, etc.
Sometimes I would like to see a comparison between Council Estates in the UK and Section 8 housing in the US. as well we the estates in Eastern Europe to see if the experiences are similar or, if there are differences, why/
I feel like since people in UK pride themselves on living in a house and not an apartment building, you end up with a similar segregation like in US along social strata.
I grew up in a concrete panel building in then Czechoslovakia and since the population was mixed, it was all fine. These days, some of these buildings have turned into ghettos due to failed/racist social policies[1].
Thanks, that's quite interesting. I think Brazil tried 'singaporising' some flavelas (move people into Singapore style high rises) but many of the people who moved in did not take well to the new environment --it was too removed from what they were used to.
Also failed housing projects in the outer sections of Paris (outer arrondissements). They also developed into segregated ghettoes.
But it's interesting to see that if everyone is in the same boat --i.e. that's the only kind of housing stock there is, then people can make it work, even if it kind of looks drab and unimaginative from the outside.
One of the nastier bits about the construction of America's old public housing stock was that when they built it in those neighborhoods which were considered slums, replacing a lot of small individual properties with big state-owned properties. Huddled masses yearning to breath free? Sure.
But in this transition, they mangled a lot of the informal economy -- good old-fashioned under-the-table businesses operating out of privately-rented homes, gleefully ignoring all regulations it feels like, and the source of livelihood for many urban poor. Obviously, this was no boon to the future of the community.
Absolutely. When I worked at Stateway Gardens in the 2000s, people would try to set up little businesses in the grassy spaces and were invariably shut down quickly by the police even while drugs were being sold openly 50 yards away.
Various access control projects were undertaken throughout the life of the housing projects - signing in with an attendant, punching codes, swiping cards, etc. In every case the residents objected vigorously and the systems were all either vandalized or removed. The housing authority eventually gave up.
I unfortunately don't have a published source for this, but it's from a family member who was a social work professor in Chicago during that period.
Comments
Not only are these interior parts of the building streets in the sense that they serve the comings and goings of residents, most of whom may not know each other or recognize, necessarily, who is a resident and who is not. They are streets also in the sense of being accessible to the public. They have been designed in an imitation of upper-class standards for apartment living without upper-class cash for doormen and elevator men. Anyone at all can go into these buildings, unquestioned, and use the traveling street of the elevator and the sidewalks that are the corridors. These interior streets, although completely accessible to public use, are closed to public view and thus lack the checks and inhibitions exerted by eye-policed city streets.
From "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", Chapter 2: "The uses of sidewalks: safety", Jane Jacobs
Jane Jacob's book is an essential and phenomenal read for anyone who feels unease with how cities have not provided us with more inviting living spaces --due to many reasons, politics, economics, architects, residents, etc.
Sometimes I would like to see a comparison between Council Estates in the UK and Section 8 housing in the US. as well we the estates in Eastern Europe to see if the experiences are similar or, if there are differences, why/
I feel like since people in UK pride themselves on living in a house and not an apartment building, you end up with a similar segregation like in US along social strata.
I grew up in a concrete panel building in then Czechoslovakia and since the population was mixed, it was all fine. These days, some of these buildings have turned into ghettos due to failed/racist social policies[1].
[1] https://www.google.ca/search?q=sidliste+chanov&tbm=isch
Thanks, that's quite interesting. I think Brazil tried 'singaporising' some flavelas (move people into Singapore style high rises) but many of the people who moved in did not take well to the new environment --it was too removed from what they were used to.
Also failed housing projects in the outer sections of Paris (outer arrondissements). They also developed into segregated ghettoes.
But it's interesting to see that if everyone is in the same boat --i.e. that's the only kind of housing stock there is, then people can make it work, even if it kind of looks drab and unimaginative from the outside.
One of the nastier bits about the construction of America's old public housing stock was that when they built it in those neighborhoods which were considered slums, replacing a lot of small individual properties with big state-owned properties. Huddled masses yearning to breath free? Sure.
But in this transition, they mangled a lot of the informal economy -- good old-fashioned under-the-table businesses operating out of privately-rented homes, gleefully ignoring all regulations it feels like, and the source of livelihood for many urban poor. Obviously, this was no boon to the future of the community.
Absolutely. When I worked at Stateway Gardens in the 2000s, people would try to set up little businesses in the grassy spaces and were invariably shut down quickly by the police even while drugs were being sold openly 50 yards away.
Various access control projects were undertaken throughout the life of the housing projects - signing in with an attendant, punching codes, swiping cards, etc. In every case the residents objected vigorously and the systems were all either vandalized or removed. The housing authority eventually gave up.
I unfortunately don't have a published source for this, but it's from a family member who was a social work professor in Chicago during that period.