This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pruitt鈥揑goe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
Pruitt鈥揑goe has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice to have some pictures of just how vile this place was on the page. Kevo00 20:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone provide the actual street address where this complex was located? --unsigned by 68.6.184.19, 16 April 2006
Originally it was believed that the design was dehumanizing and this caused the failure of the building. Current thinking has changed to focus more on the quality of construction which was so low that the buildings were falling apart from the first day and essentially unmaintainable at any cost. -- M0llusk 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
During the late 50's and on St. Louis was going through a huge population decline as well. They had expected to have a steady tenant base and it wasnt there. Without having the facility fully occupied there was no way the tenants could afford the skilled maintenance workers needed to keep the buildings in a proper state. Spiciernoodles ( talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This building type originated with
Le Corbusier, a very influential modernist architect, it seems the page should be linked to his. it is frequently cited in arguements about his work.
Possibly Jane Jacobs/Robert Moses as well? this complex is the poster child for the failures of massive government planning & urban renewal.
--unsigned by 71.232.58.118, 24 March 2007
How do you pronounce Pruitt-Igoe? Maybe that information could be added by someone who knows. -- 128.176.231.100 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The intro paragraph needs to be edited. It is argumentative and un-encyclopedic. Arnob 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "Similar projects in other cities, however, were quite successful in terms of increasing quality of life for residents, and reducing racial tensions." is noted as needing citations; without them, this should prolly be removed. --unsigned by 68.94.33.19, 29 July 2007
Looking up some of the Googlebooks, the pages used for citations are not available for preview. It is my understanding that these must be available for their use as wikicitations. Namely, Ramroth; pages 164. It there some way to physically verify these citations and then include them?-- Richard W. Pointer ( talk) 19:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at satellite photos of the cite, it seems to be not empty. Is there a big-box built on the site? DarwinPeacock 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is basically empty. Much of the site is grass or plant vegetation. The building to the south is Gateway.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&q=Cass+Ave+%26+N+Jefferson+Ave,+St+Louis,+St+Louis+City,+Missouri+63106&ie=UTF8&cd=4&geocode=FV2tTQIdEnaf-g&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ll=38.645635,-90.205865&spn=0.015351,0.038624&t=h&z=15 鈥擯receding
unsigned comment added by
Lenin333 (
talk 鈥
contribs) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There is little evidence presented here on the causal connection between Brown V Board 1954 and the failure to have whites move into Pruitt-Igoe. From the article cited in the footnotes, it seems that whites refused to move in from the very beginning. And since the buildings were completed in 1956, Brown V Board would not have been an explanatory variable when explaining why whites moved out. They never moved in, so they could not have moved out. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 76.71.100.90 ( talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The 1968 photo shows four V- and X-shaped structures south-west from Pruitt-Igoe; they have been replaced with lowrise since. What was there and when were they demolished? NVO ( talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The conclusion is very poorly done. Emphasis mine:
Charles Jencks, one of the critics who referred to non-existent awards issued by AIA,[24] used Pruitt-Igoe as an example of modernists' hazardous intentions running contrary to real-world social development.[24] This concept disregards the fact that location, population density, cost constraints, and even specific number of floors was imposed by the federal and state authorities.[25]
This concept does nothing of the sort. Modernist architecture theory INFORMED the very federal and state policies on how to construct these buildings in the first place. If anything, the last sentence should read:
Charles Jencks, one of the critics who referred to non-existent awards issued by AIA,[24] used Pruitt-Igoe as an example of modernists' hazardous intentions running contrary to real-world social development,[24] with the results that important issues of location, population density, cost constraints, and even specific number of floors were not adapted to local needs, constraints of human sociality, or material sustainability. These issues were constrained and imposed by the federal and state authorities,[25] and these authorities were influenced by the theories and ideological framings of Modernist architecture. 鈥擯receding
unsigned comment added by
Hwarwick (
talk 鈥
contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of similar houses in the post communist countries, but there is/was no such association with crime. (Search for "panel house" or "Panel谩k"). -- Zslevi ( talk) 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"Pruitt鈥揑goe evolves as a self-sustaining myth shrouded in misconceptions." Wow, actual thoughtful commentary in a Wikipedia article! (OK, so it's from a source, but hey original research isn't supposed to be here, anyway.) This deserves a gold star! drone5 ( talk) 14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
To me this is a good example of an article which simply needs to be shorter. It reads well, but more like a journalistic feature than a concise encyclopedia entry. There simple are not enough facts to fill the paragraphs, which inevitably means subtle POV and editorializing. A good example is the phrase about corridors attracting muggers. They do? In my corridor there are none. A citation is simply not enough here. The sentence should probably just have been left out. Other than these quibbles, nice work. I learned stuff. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo ( talk 鈥 contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"A 1956 Missouri court decision desegregated public housing in the state.[citation needed] The following year, occupancy peaked at 91%.[14]"
Very next sentence:
The buildings remained largely vacant for years, although sources on exact depopulation rate differ: according to Newman, occupancy never rose above 60%;[13].
Fantastic work guys!
68.188.90.70 (
talk) 20:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Matt
The source (or rather, the editor of the source) Lawrence Larsen says on pg 60 "There was so much decay that neighborhood gentrification never received serious consideration." [1] Gentrification is the result of evolving historical and social processes which are considerable only during, or after the fact. So the question remains... Consideration from whom? Consideration asks "Can something occur?" because an act to consider implies that the thoughts and ruminations of the one who is considering will, in some way, place impact upon that which is considered, and thus, weights its possibilities in light of whomever is doing the considering. The implication is that their consideration can and might affect the standing of whatever is being considered--its 'raison d'etre.' Any question over gentrification removes the inputs and opinions of the person doing the considering; rather, they are a bystander, only observing events as they occur--for there is nothing for an observer to consider except the outcome. Larsen's placing of consideration before an outcome has occurred is spurious, at best. Spintendo ( talk) 02:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Proper representation is not the problem here. Despite minimalizing the work made by contributers, and a generally (but not surprisingly) closed approach taken by some in reviewing and interpreting information brought by contributers to the table -- this disputed sentence, nonetheless, raises important issues which deserve to be addressed and heard equally.
I. The Suspect Sentence - What Does it Say?
"Decay was so profound that gentrification of the existing real estate was never seriously considered as a possibilty."
In the light of day, the suspect sentence above appears to make what is quite certainly a strange claim: That a consideration was made by a group of people I will call here the Considerees. Included in their consideration was (A.) that an observation of "decay" was or had occurred at Pruitt-Igoe. This decay was "profound." This observation, after appearant consideration. then (B.) ultimately instills in the Considerees a belief that any future gentrification ought "never be seriously considered as a possibility."
II. The Suspect Sentence - Is It Misinterpreted? or Does It Misinterpret??
The sentinal problem with this sentence is that the cited source, Lawrence Larsen as editor, fails to include evidence supporting how the Considerees arrived at these beliefs; specifically, what was it about thier knowledge / lack of knowledge which led them to assume that an observation of profound decay is indicative of a state where gentrification ought never be considered as a possibilty. Without direct linkage from the "issue under consideration" and the Considerees claim statement regarding gentrification liklihood, the disputed sentence becomes a subjective value statement devoid of qualifying reasons for arriving at its conclusion -- that gentrification cannot exist in the same time and space as profound decay. Rather, it assumes that decay and gentrification exist as opposite poles of two magnets, pushing each other away. Any challenge to this statement's logic is halted, as Larsen provides no immediate evidence for that particular claim. Indeed, the sentence just hangs there, defying both contemplation and interrogation. In any event, the exigent claim made in the disputed sentence by the Considerees fails to comprehend what was, at that time, a barely emerging discipline of gentrification.
III. Does the Suspect Sentence Allow for Traditional Challenges to its Claim?
By presenting a statement that, coupled with faulty logic (the front door) and a dearth of evidence provided for its claims (the back door), it would seem that the sentence presents as a riddle, leaving questioners unable to enter it through the front or back, in order to challenge its claims--in other words, its reason for being there in the article.
IV. Does the Suspect Sentence Remaining in the Article Advance or Hinder Our Understanding of Pruitt-Igoe?
The gentrification discipline as it stands currently was unknowable to the Considerees and thus from their viewpoint, immaterial. Acting then as Uninformed Considerees, their hypothesis regarding the liklihood of gentrification can not stand. Resting on an outdated understanding of the discipline, the sentence makes a claim statement regarding a supposed 'consideration' upon gentrifying forces at work on Pruitt-Igoe. As Ive just specified, this view of "decay" as it was understood by the Uninformed Considerees, fails then and now to comprehend the complex character of change in an urban environment. [1]
If the Uninformed Considerees had access to current views on gentrification, they might have noticed the new direction which highlights "causal mechanisms and processes of socio-spatial change." [2] They might also note the conspicuous absence from the newer models of much of the urban research conducted from 1920-1965, research which was, to them, current and unimpeachable. We know now that gentrification exists as a confluence of cyclical, natural processes, hypothesized to affect how a site is ultimately changed and used, via redevelopment opportunities provided by local, federal, and private sector agents, incentivized to steward a property in a direction towards betterment. [3]
V. If Not Here, Then Where? Where Does the Suspect Sentence Belong, in Order to Better Our Understanding of Urban Planning?
Offering non-descript "decay" as the only variable worth considering in any forcast of gentrification goes beyond the scope of the article. As this "decay" and what it represented in 1971 is not a valid harbinger of gentrification, the suspect sentence would be better placed in an article discussing societal forces upon the gentry and the poor, rather than within this article. Spintendo ( talk) 21:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
I think this should appear in the article as well. Experimentation on the people there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-0b-wH_kY?t=96 and and 29:48min mark https://www.amazon.com/Obsolete-Aaron-Dykes/dp/B01MDQIAPA/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1480531239&sr=1-1&keywords=obsolete+movie 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 72.94.158.73 ( talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pruitt鈥揑goe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we should add more material on the documentary The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Plenty of RS such as this [2] -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping there would be a way to show readers this relevant excerpt from Koyaanisqatsi that shows the demolition using Philip Glass's excellent music, which I added here. I wasn't sure if that would create a copyright problem, so I immediately asked at the relevant notice board [3]. JJMC89 did consider it a problem and quickly removed it. I am adding this note to document that I had taken the precaution of asking about it right after I had added it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
A request has been submitted to WikiProject Missouri for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in Missouri. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 ( talk) 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I have been expanding and revising the article in preparation for GA and possibly FA in the future, and I thought I'd leave a note summarizing the main sources used in case it is helpful for anyone in the future.
Rainwater and Meehan are the best sources for factual information about Pruitt-Igoe. Bristol and Ramroth also have some useful details specifically about the project's design. Newman should be avoided for factual claims as he makes a couple of basic errors (he says that Pruitt-Igoe was "torn down about 10 years after its construction", but actually the first building was torn down after 18 years; he claims that "the project never achieved more than 60 percent occupancy", but Meehan shows that occupancy remained above 65% for most of the sixties), however he is still useful for architectural criticism. Larsen & Kirkendall are used for background about St. Louis in the 1940s and 1950s, but where possible specific claims about Pruitt-Igoe are cited to better sources; Larsen & Kirkendall themselves seem to have used Meehan. Ru斜lov ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I may get around to incorporating these sources myself, but if not, anyone else is welcome to. rblv ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Rublov has asked me to mentor them through the process of potentially nominating this article as an FAC. Here are some of my preliminary observations and suggestions:
鈥 Epicgenius ( talk) 15:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pruitt鈥揑goe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
Pruitt鈥揑goe has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice to have some pictures of just how vile this place was on the page. Kevo00 20:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone provide the actual street address where this complex was located? --unsigned by 68.6.184.19, 16 April 2006
Originally it was believed that the design was dehumanizing and this caused the failure of the building. Current thinking has changed to focus more on the quality of construction which was so low that the buildings were falling apart from the first day and essentially unmaintainable at any cost. -- M0llusk 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
During the late 50's and on St. Louis was going through a huge population decline as well. They had expected to have a steady tenant base and it wasnt there. Without having the facility fully occupied there was no way the tenants could afford the skilled maintenance workers needed to keep the buildings in a proper state. Spiciernoodles ( talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This building type originated with
Le Corbusier, a very influential modernist architect, it seems the page should be linked to his. it is frequently cited in arguements about his work.
Possibly Jane Jacobs/Robert Moses as well? this complex is the poster child for the failures of massive government planning & urban renewal.
--unsigned by 71.232.58.118, 24 March 2007
How do you pronounce Pruitt-Igoe? Maybe that information could be added by someone who knows. -- 128.176.231.100 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The intro paragraph needs to be edited. It is argumentative and un-encyclopedic. Arnob 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "Similar projects in other cities, however, were quite successful in terms of increasing quality of life for residents, and reducing racial tensions." is noted as needing citations; without them, this should prolly be removed. --unsigned by 68.94.33.19, 29 July 2007
Looking up some of the Googlebooks, the pages used for citations are not available for preview. It is my understanding that these must be available for their use as wikicitations. Namely, Ramroth; pages 164. It there some way to physically verify these citations and then include them?-- Richard W. Pointer ( talk) 19:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at satellite photos of the cite, it seems to be not empty. Is there a big-box built on the site? DarwinPeacock 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is basically empty. Much of the site is grass or plant vegetation. The building to the south is Gateway.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&q=Cass+Ave+%26+N+Jefferson+Ave,+St+Louis,+St+Louis+City,+Missouri+63106&ie=UTF8&cd=4&geocode=FV2tTQIdEnaf-g&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ll=38.645635,-90.205865&spn=0.015351,0.038624&t=h&z=15 鈥擯receding
unsigned comment added by
Lenin333 (
talk 鈥
contribs) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There is little evidence presented here on the causal connection between Brown V Board 1954 and the failure to have whites move into Pruitt-Igoe. From the article cited in the footnotes, it seems that whites refused to move in from the very beginning. And since the buildings were completed in 1956, Brown V Board would not have been an explanatory variable when explaining why whites moved out. They never moved in, so they could not have moved out. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 76.71.100.90 ( talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The 1968 photo shows four V- and X-shaped structures south-west from Pruitt-Igoe; they have been replaced with lowrise since. What was there and when were they demolished? NVO ( talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The conclusion is very poorly done. Emphasis mine:
Charles Jencks, one of the critics who referred to non-existent awards issued by AIA,[24] used Pruitt-Igoe as an example of modernists' hazardous intentions running contrary to real-world social development.[24] This concept disregards the fact that location, population density, cost constraints, and even specific number of floors was imposed by the federal and state authorities.[25]
This concept does nothing of the sort. Modernist architecture theory INFORMED the very federal and state policies on how to construct these buildings in the first place. If anything, the last sentence should read:
Charles Jencks, one of the critics who referred to non-existent awards issued by AIA,[24] used Pruitt-Igoe as an example of modernists' hazardous intentions running contrary to real-world social development,[24] with the results that important issues of location, population density, cost constraints, and even specific number of floors were not adapted to local needs, constraints of human sociality, or material sustainability. These issues were constrained and imposed by the federal and state authorities,[25] and these authorities were influenced by the theories and ideological framings of Modernist architecture. 鈥擯receding
unsigned comment added by
Hwarwick (
talk 鈥
contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of similar houses in the post communist countries, but there is/was no such association with crime. (Search for "panel house" or "Panel谩k"). -- Zslevi ( talk) 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"Pruitt鈥揑goe evolves as a self-sustaining myth shrouded in misconceptions." Wow, actual thoughtful commentary in a Wikipedia article! (OK, so it's from a source, but hey original research isn't supposed to be here, anyway.) This deserves a gold star! drone5 ( talk) 14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
To me this is a good example of an article which simply needs to be shorter. It reads well, but more like a journalistic feature than a concise encyclopedia entry. There simple are not enough facts to fill the paragraphs, which inevitably means subtle POV and editorializing. A good example is the phrase about corridors attracting muggers. They do? In my corridor there are none. A citation is simply not enough here. The sentence should probably just have been left out. Other than these quibbles, nice work. I learned stuff. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo ( talk 鈥 contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
"A 1956 Missouri court decision desegregated public housing in the state.[citation needed] The following year, occupancy peaked at 91%.[14]"
Very next sentence:
The buildings remained largely vacant for years, although sources on exact depopulation rate differ: according to Newman, occupancy never rose above 60%;[13].
Fantastic work guys!
68.188.90.70 (
talk) 20:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Matt
The source (or rather, the editor of the source) Lawrence Larsen says on pg 60 "There was so much decay that neighborhood gentrification never received serious consideration." [1] Gentrification is the result of evolving historical and social processes which are considerable only during, or after the fact. So the question remains... Consideration from whom? Consideration asks "Can something occur?" because an act to consider implies that the thoughts and ruminations of the one who is considering will, in some way, place impact upon that which is considered, and thus, weights its possibilities in light of whomever is doing the considering. The implication is that their consideration can and might affect the standing of whatever is being considered--its 'raison d'etre.' Any question over gentrification removes the inputs and opinions of the person doing the considering; rather, they are a bystander, only observing events as they occur--for there is nothing for an observer to consider except the outcome. Larsen's placing of consideration before an outcome has occurred is spurious, at best. Spintendo ( talk) 02:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Proper representation is not the problem here. Despite minimalizing the work made by contributers, and a generally (but not surprisingly) closed approach taken by some in reviewing and interpreting information brought by contributers to the table -- this disputed sentence, nonetheless, raises important issues which deserve to be addressed and heard equally.
I. The Suspect Sentence - What Does it Say?
"Decay was so profound that gentrification of the existing real estate was never seriously considered as a possibilty."
In the light of day, the suspect sentence above appears to make what is quite certainly a strange claim: That a consideration was made by a group of people I will call here the Considerees. Included in their consideration was (A.) that an observation of "decay" was or had occurred at Pruitt-Igoe. This decay was "profound." This observation, after appearant consideration. then (B.) ultimately instills in the Considerees a belief that any future gentrification ought "never be seriously considered as a possibility."
II. The Suspect Sentence - Is It Misinterpreted? or Does It Misinterpret??
The sentinal problem with this sentence is that the cited source, Lawrence Larsen as editor, fails to include evidence supporting how the Considerees arrived at these beliefs; specifically, what was it about thier knowledge / lack of knowledge which led them to assume that an observation of profound decay is indicative of a state where gentrification ought never be considered as a possibilty. Without direct linkage from the "issue under consideration" and the Considerees claim statement regarding gentrification liklihood, the disputed sentence becomes a subjective value statement devoid of qualifying reasons for arriving at its conclusion -- that gentrification cannot exist in the same time and space as profound decay. Rather, it assumes that decay and gentrification exist as opposite poles of two magnets, pushing each other away. Any challenge to this statement's logic is halted, as Larsen provides no immediate evidence for that particular claim. Indeed, the sentence just hangs there, defying both contemplation and interrogation. In any event, the exigent claim made in the disputed sentence by the Considerees fails to comprehend what was, at that time, a barely emerging discipline of gentrification.
III. Does the Suspect Sentence Allow for Traditional Challenges to its Claim?
By presenting a statement that, coupled with faulty logic (the front door) and a dearth of evidence provided for its claims (the back door), it would seem that the sentence presents as a riddle, leaving questioners unable to enter it through the front or back, in order to challenge its claims--in other words, its reason for being there in the article.
IV. Does the Suspect Sentence Remaining in the Article Advance or Hinder Our Understanding of Pruitt-Igoe?
The gentrification discipline as it stands currently was unknowable to the Considerees and thus from their viewpoint, immaterial. Acting then as Uninformed Considerees, their hypothesis regarding the liklihood of gentrification can not stand. Resting on an outdated understanding of the discipline, the sentence makes a claim statement regarding a supposed 'consideration' upon gentrifying forces at work on Pruitt-Igoe. As Ive just specified, this view of "decay" as it was understood by the Uninformed Considerees, fails then and now to comprehend the complex character of change in an urban environment. [1]
If the Uninformed Considerees had access to current views on gentrification, they might have noticed the new direction which highlights "causal mechanisms and processes of socio-spatial change." [2] They might also note the conspicuous absence from the newer models of much of the urban research conducted from 1920-1965, research which was, to them, current and unimpeachable. We know now that gentrification exists as a confluence of cyclical, natural processes, hypothesized to affect how a site is ultimately changed and used, via redevelopment opportunities provided by local, federal, and private sector agents, incentivized to steward a property in a direction towards betterment. [3]
V. If Not Here, Then Where? Where Does the Suspect Sentence Belong, in Order to Better Our Understanding of Urban Planning?
Offering non-descript "decay" as the only variable worth considering in any forcast of gentrification goes beyond the scope of the article. As this "decay" and what it represented in 1971 is not a valid harbinger of gentrification, the suspect sentence would be better placed in an article discussing societal forces upon the gentry and the poor, rather than within this article. Spintendo ( talk) 21:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
I think this should appear in the article as well. Experimentation on the people there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-0b-wH_kY?t=96 and and 29:48min mark https://www.amazon.com/Obsolete-Aaron-Dykes/dp/B01MDQIAPA/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1480531239&sr=1-1&keywords=obsolete+movie 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 72.94.158.73 ( talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pruitt鈥揑goe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we should add more material on the documentary The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Plenty of RS such as this [2] -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping there would be a way to show readers this relevant excerpt from Koyaanisqatsi that shows the demolition using Philip Glass's excellent music, which I added here. I wasn't sure if that would create a copyright problem, so I immediately asked at the relevant notice board [3]. JJMC89 did consider it a problem and quickly removed it. I am adding this note to document that I had taken the precaution of asking about it right after I had added it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
A request has been submitted to WikiProject Missouri for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in Missouri. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 ( talk) 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I have been expanding and revising the article in preparation for GA and possibly FA in the future, and I thought I'd leave a note summarizing the main sources used in case it is helpful for anyone in the future.
Rainwater and Meehan are the best sources for factual information about Pruitt-Igoe. Bristol and Ramroth also have some useful details specifically about the project's design. Newman should be avoided for factual claims as he makes a couple of basic errors (he says that Pruitt-Igoe was "torn down about 10 years after its construction", but actually the first building was torn down after 18 years; he claims that "the project never achieved more than 60 percent occupancy", but Meehan shows that occupancy remained above 65% for most of the sixties), however he is still useful for architectural criticism. Larsen & Kirkendall are used for background about St. Louis in the 1940s and 1950s, but where possible specific claims about Pruitt-Igoe are cited to better sources; Larsen & Kirkendall themselves seem to have used Meehan. Ru斜lov ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I may get around to incorporating these sources myself, but if not, anyone else is welcome to. rblv ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Rublov has asked me to mentor them through the process of potentially nominating this article as an FAC. Here are some of my preliminary observations and suggestions:
鈥 Epicgenius ( talk) 15:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)