>>1554946
Come on now, let's have a real discussion. It's a subject that greatly interests me, and the "niggers" narrative is not particularly convincing.

File: 35a62a2170ffb7af55f8bdc5fc84b272.png (316KB, 1902x610px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1902x610px

>>1554946

not an argument.

>>1554956
Scum can rise up and form their own communities and have respect for eachother, and eventually earn the respect of the country of which they are at the bottom of. The Irish did it. The Chinese did it. The Scottish did it. The Germans did it. The Sikhs did it.

But when 50% of the country's politicians spend half their time destroying any opportunity for economic advancement for your people and the other half of the time making sure crime and drugs stay rampant, it's hard to rise above that sea floor.

"Niggers" is not the sole reason for the failure of urban renewal, but any theory that blames architects and bureaucrats instead of Niggers is completely and utterly wrong.

>>1554938
>Tha Big O
Season 2 ruined it.

>>1554970
I'm not putting the blame only on the bureaucrats and engineers, but a large portion of the blame goes to them, because they simply threw money at the problem of homelessness, not even expecting unintended consequences. For one, they destroyed established neighborhoods and what is termed 'social capital', then moved in disparate groups of people that had never known each other into what was essentially sardine cans.

Of course it was going to go badly. A better way to do it would have been a more gradual transition from old neighborhoods to housing complexes; other steps should have included NOT making these buildings high-rises, so as to reduce the ratio of residents per cubic public space and actually allow people to feel ownership for spaces -, as well as not displacing entire neighborhoods, but rather, incorporating these into the complexes.

File: c03ad6152ef3373b8b857901816cc4a5.png (132KB, 600x841px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 600x841px

>>1554956
Urban regeneration projects have failed in roughly similar ways in (what were at least) white areas in the inner city UK so plainly there is an underlying issue with the implementation.

But's lets not pretend that these issues wouldn't be worse in black communities.

>>1555008
Eh, if you need an example of white people failing hard with this, this sounds a lot like gopniki blocks.

File: 1411930453479.jpg (6KB, 250x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x168px

>>1554995
>I'm not putting the blame only on the bureaucrats and engineers, but a large portion of the blame goes to them

Do I detect a hint of white guilt?

>>1554938

There's a lot of reasons:

1. high concentrations of impoverished people
2. the move-ins were voluntary. Nobody wants to live in a giant tower when they already have their own shitbox
3. bad transit accessibility (which is another entire twentieth century problem), which means workers have a harder time getting to jobs
4. not located within walking distance of stores, especially compared to older slums
5. welfare programs of the early twentieth century straight up rewarded mothers for not marrying (ie single mothers could get welfare, but not wedded ones), among other things. This made the situation with the tenants go from bad to worse
6. high maintenance costs, which led to deferred maintenance. Nobody cares if the water or power doesn't work in a 2-3 story house, but are when they do in a big tower
7. the buildings were closed off to rentals and as such only poor people could live in them
8. even if they were rented out, the vast majority of the people in them were black and gentrified types don't want to reside around them

There's a reason why cities go for mixing social housing in normal developments now: it causes wealthy tenants to subsidize the poor.

>>1556175
>movement was voluntary

Not really, urban renewal programs were notorious for destroying old neighborhoods and displacing people, particularly blacks, and forcing them to go into government housing.

>>1554938
>The most reasonable hypothesis I heard is that the engineers and bureaucrats of the time did not design the complexes (those constructed in the name of "urban renewal", such as infamous Cabrini and Pruitt) in a way to foster a sense of community (i.e., they did not create smaller spaces that gave the illusion of ownership), opting for large communal spaces. However, this resulted in creating large communal spaces that no one felt particularly attached to, leading to their neglect and vandalism that caused everything to spiral downwards.

Yeah. The theory was that everything would be better if only people were close to huge empty spaces. Turns out that just trades claustrophobia for isolation.

Jane Jacobs
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
>Mixed-use Neighborhoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development

>Traditionally, human settlements have developed in mixed-use patterns. However, with industrialisation as well as the invention of the skyscraper, governmental zoning regulations were introduced to separate different functions, such as manufacturing, from residential areas. In the United States, the heyday of separate-use zoning in the U.S. was after World War II, but since the 1990s, mixed-use zoning has once again become desirable as the benefits are recognized. These benefits include:[3]

>greater housing variety and density
>reduced distances between housing, workplaces, retail businesses, and other destinations
>more compact development
>stronger neighborhood character
>pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environments

>>1556858
tl;dr version
Neighborhoods with nothing but crappy tenements for poor people built by rich slumlords in the 1960s make shitty fucking neighborhoods.

>>1556727

in many times, people would just move into other slums. The state can evict you, but they can't force you to live somewhere against your will (unless you're a convicted felon)

Oh yeah, and one more thing.

I'm whiter than a fucking sheet and if you made me live in one of these nightmare residential prions from the 1960s I'd turn into a nigger too.

>>1556865
Can you be my bf, Anon?

It's Candyman's fault

>>1554938
It was overcentralized.

The slums have inefficient infrastructure, but people can customize their homes, they can start little shops and businesses, it is easier for the very poor to lodge somewhere and adapt things to their needs, every property is a little castle that opens up onto the street.

The projects only had better infrastructure in theory and everyone's apartment opened up into a corridor with poor lighting. You could be knifed in a stairwell in the middle of the day and no one would notice for hours.