Concept

Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing

Résumé
Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing is a history of the public housing program in Chicago. This book seeks to explain what went wrong with Chicago public housing through a detailed history. The reasons offered for the "disaster" include high youth-to-adult ratios, the loss of working-class families as more private sector housing became available, and high-rise design at Cabrini–Green and other infamous projects. Federal public housing administrators emphasized cost cutting in construction, which appeased Congressional critics of the program but led to a miserable quality of life for generations who had to live in high-rise towers. According to Hunt, high youth-to-adult ratios caused chaos in the high-rise towers. In most Chicago neighborhoods, two adults supervise one child. In many public housing sites in Chicago, the ratio is one adult supervising two children. In one of the most crime-ridden, Robert Taylor Homes, the ratio was almost three children for every adult. More than 70% of the apartments built by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) from 1954 to 1964 had three or more bedrooms. Did high youth-to-adult ratio lead to crime? Elizabeth Taylor, reviewing the book for the Chicago Tribune, seems skeptical but finds that the book is still an important contribution to the literature. The loss of the working class is another important theme. Prior to 1967, more than half of the residents of Chicago public housing worked. After 1967, the percentage steadily dropped until it reached approximately 10% in the 1980s. In an important observation, Mr. Hunt explains that when Chicago had a shortage of private sector housing (the 1940s and 1950), public housing was desirable. When private housing became readily available starting in the 1960s, the working class left public housing. Design is a third theme. Many have written about high-rise design as a contributor to the decline of public housing, so there was a risk that the book would retread familiar ground here. Instead, Mr.
À propos de ce résultat
Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.