The Pruitt-Igoe housing projects are currently remembered as one of the worst disasters in federal housing history. There has been ample debate among academics as to why, ranging from architectural problems to poor planning to demographic shifts in the city of St. Louis. This new documentary mostly looks at the latter two ideas and does not interview architects but rather former residents of the projects. Their stories vary from uplifting to tragic and detail the many problems with Pruitt-Igoe. Mostly the film suggests that the depopulation of the city following the explosion of suburban society in the 1950s is to blame for the project's failure. With fewer people there was less of a need for the massive buildings and with a smaller tax base it was impossible to maintain the expensive structures. What the film does show is that most of the people who lived there were decent folks hoping to make a new life, and that it was mostly the outside world that undermined the projects. The director uses several excellent shots including the image of the collapsing towers (they were demolished in the 1970s). Overall he does a superb job of telling a very intriguing and moving story while stimulating a debate on the future of federal housing.
15 Reviews
Almost too human...
Chaseism9 June 2012
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth is a documentary that tries to zero in on just why the massive public project went so quickly from being an modern masterpiece to an absolute hell in such a short amount of time. Architects, urban planers, sociologist, and politicians have all weighed in on why the housing project failed, but no one can pin point the exact problem. This documentary aims to step back from the project and look at the city of St. Louis as a whole. Urban Flight and the lack of jobs and support from the city are pointed to instead.
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth means well. All too often, the reason for the project's demise is pointed to the poor that lived that. That they couldn't have nice things and keep up with them. The documentary, however, gives those people a voice. Throughout the film, people who lived in the community speak highly of their time there during what seemed to be golden years. Stories of love, union, and community run rampant. But that almost comes to the film's fault. We know whose side the film makers are on. And we only get the human story and not the other things that lead to the end. We aren't told about the skip-stop elevators, the condensing of physical space, or the fight for mixed housing. We hear a majority of human stories.
Luckily, the interviewees paint a terrific and chilling picture of their experiences in the community. Even years later, a woman is brought to tears recounting how the people of the projects were viewed. Also a bonus are the massive amounts of pictures and videos looking back to a time we've all forgotten.
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth is a great documentary that feels incomplete. Like having pancakes without bacon and eggs, what you get out of the movie is delicious...but you feel like you're missing something.
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth means well. All too often, the reason for the project's demise is pointed to the poor that lived that. That they couldn't have nice things and keep up with them. The documentary, however, gives those people a voice. Throughout the film, people who lived in the community speak highly of their time there during what seemed to be golden years. Stories of love, union, and community run rampant. But that almost comes to the film's fault. We know whose side the film makers are on. And we only get the human story and not the other things that lead to the end. We aren't told about the skip-stop elevators, the condensing of physical space, or the fight for mixed housing. We hear a majority of human stories.
Luckily, the interviewees paint a terrific and chilling picture of their experiences in the community. Even years later, a woman is brought to tears recounting how the people of the projects were viewed. Also a bonus are the massive amounts of pictures and videos looking back to a time we've all forgotten.
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth is a great documentary that feels incomplete. Like having pancakes without bacon and eggs, what you get out of the movie is delicious...but you feel like you're missing something.
Amazing Archival Footage, Interesting Interviews
ems9717 March 2012
The movie includes fascinating archival footage and interviews with five former residents of the public housing development. Some of these residents talked about the joyful experiences they had there, while others told harrowing stories. One of the most interesting things was listening to why they moved to the project initially. They told of how exciting it was to get into a modern development.
The movie also suggests some causes for the decline of the project, such as population loss in St. Louis, lack of funding for maintenance, and the loss of manufacturing jobs to the suburbs. When I discussed the movie with friends afterwards, we remained unsure in our speculation about the true causes.
The movie also suggests some causes for the decline of the project, such as population loss in St. Louis, lack of funding for maintenance, and the loss of manufacturing jobs to the suburbs. When I discussed the movie with friends afterwards, we remained unsure in our speculation about the true causes.
What Pruitt-Igoe should have told us
mattjj1330 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Pruitt Igoe myth reveals a saddening chapter in this nation's urban history. It covers what could have been the rise of a real housing solution for the urban poor but what ended up being a lesson for urban planners everywhere and the talking. For those who want to end government subsidized programs like public housing. The film covers many issues concerning the urban environment like the housing problem urban poverty and segregation. These are problems that plagued every major city in the United States but the film of course focuses on the Pruitt Igoe housing complex and the city of st. Louis. St Louis continues to this day to be one of the most segregated cities in America. Using a map you can drop a line down Delmar boulevard, one of the main thoroughfares of the city, and separate the majority of the black population from the white population. The divide becomes even worse when you leave the city and go into St Louis County, where all of North County is poor African American communities while West and South County are more affluent white suburbs. I would even argue that this film provides insight into many of the problems the st. Louis sees today including gang violence in the Michael Brown killing that happened in Ferguson Missouri one of the North County suburbs. If you don't understand urban poverty as a whole, and especially why these issues occur in St Louis, the Pruitt Igoe myth reveals the very beginning of the story.
The original idea behind the construction of Pruitt Igoe is that the public sector could offer a better solution to housing the urban poor than the private sector could. After World War Two, many African American families from the south migrated north to urban centers in search of work and often found themselves living dilapidated, unsanitary slums. The slumlords who owned these properties refused to do anything about it because they were making so much money by taking advantage of these people. As one interviewee described Pruitt Igoe, what began as almost literally a glimmering hope for poor and working class families to have a housing option close to where they worked, soon turned into a crumbling shell of what could've been. Lack of proper funding to maintain the buildings soon left elevators inoperable, lights broken, and windows shattered. Originally the plan was to use the tenants rent to pay for upkeep and maintenance, however it soon became very evident that this would not cover the entire cost, and the funding that was cut by politicians for public housing was sorely missed.
So why wasn't the rent enough? Part of this had to do with the poor planning that took place by the planners, business leaders, and politicians foresaw huge growth in the future of st. Louis and jobs a plenty for everyone. The girls of course never came, and St.Louis fell into a downward spiral as industrial jobs left the city. New jobs were being created, but only out in the suburbs are African American families were not allowed who own property either through redlining or racist practices by real estate brokers and the surrounding communities. So the number of people renting in Pruitt Igoe dwindled and the forecasted money to be used for maintenance never materialized.
We know now that the racially charged practice of keeping African-American families centered in the inner cities while white family's moved away was a very real phenomenon that was influenced by politicians and lawmakers at the time. Looking back, we are also aware of the imminent crumbling economies of the inner cities. However I would argue that it is not necessarily wrong of the planners of St. Louis to have approached Pruitt Igoe as they did. They filled a need that would be very helpful to the poor families living in the slums, quality housing. It was of course a very short sighted plan and perhaps some of the issues of Pruitt Igoe could have been avoided with just a little more funding to help keep the buildings well maintained and a desirable place to live for families who did not have many other options.
However there has been no response to the obvious racial and class divide that this project helped to create and there can be no tonight that I go helped mold the city into what it is today. The racial boundary lines drawn by by the planners at this time continue to be the racial boundary lines we see in modern St Louis and that continued segregation and concentration of poverty has been the downfall of St. Louis in the 21st century. As much press the Chicago gets about being the murder capital of the US in 2011 the murder rate per 100,000 in St Louis was nearly twice that of Chicago's at 35. 3 according to the Federal Bureau Investigations Another possible explanation for this that was mentioned in the documentary was that since the city of St Louis boundaries are very rigid and constricted, that there is no the city except for the impoverished, crime ridden neighborhoods. But these neighborhoods formed in the city for a reason, and that's because post World War Two, this is the only place where poor families could live. The decades-long struggle that has been brewing in these neighborhoods between police and the citizens of these areas of the city should unfortunately leave little surprise in many St.Louisans minds that the Michael Brown tragedy would occur in the north side of the city. The racial tensions here are nothing new and has been brewing since the days of Pruitt Igoe. We may not be able to change what has happened in the past, but we certainly do know what has become of it and urban planners must take this into consideration for any future endeavors in the inner cities of America.
The original idea behind the construction of Pruitt Igoe is that the public sector could offer a better solution to housing the urban poor than the private sector could. After World War Two, many African American families from the south migrated north to urban centers in search of work and often found themselves living dilapidated, unsanitary slums. The slumlords who owned these properties refused to do anything about it because they were making so much money by taking advantage of these people. As one interviewee described Pruitt Igoe, what began as almost literally a glimmering hope for poor and working class families to have a housing option close to where they worked, soon turned into a crumbling shell of what could've been. Lack of proper funding to maintain the buildings soon left elevators inoperable, lights broken, and windows shattered. Originally the plan was to use the tenants rent to pay for upkeep and maintenance, however it soon became very evident that this would not cover the entire cost, and the funding that was cut by politicians for public housing was sorely missed.
So why wasn't the rent enough? Part of this had to do with the poor planning that took place by the planners, business leaders, and politicians foresaw huge growth in the future of st. Louis and jobs a plenty for everyone. The girls of course never came, and St.Louis fell into a downward spiral as industrial jobs left the city. New jobs were being created, but only out in the suburbs are African American families were not allowed who own property either through redlining or racist practices by real estate brokers and the surrounding communities. So the number of people renting in Pruitt Igoe dwindled and the forecasted money to be used for maintenance never materialized.
We know now that the racially charged practice of keeping African-American families centered in the inner cities while white family's moved away was a very real phenomenon that was influenced by politicians and lawmakers at the time. Looking back, we are also aware of the imminent crumbling economies of the inner cities. However I would argue that it is not necessarily wrong of the planners of St. Louis to have approached Pruitt Igoe as they did. They filled a need that would be very helpful to the poor families living in the slums, quality housing. It was of course a very short sighted plan and perhaps some of the issues of Pruitt Igoe could have been avoided with just a little more funding to help keep the buildings well maintained and a desirable place to live for families who did not have many other options.
However there has been no response to the obvious racial and class divide that this project helped to create and there can be no tonight that I go helped mold the city into what it is today. The racial boundary lines drawn by by the planners at this time continue to be the racial boundary lines we see in modern St Louis and that continued segregation and concentration of poverty has been the downfall of St. Louis in the 21st century. As much press the Chicago gets about being the murder capital of the US in 2011 the murder rate per 100,000 in St Louis was nearly twice that of Chicago's at 35. 3 according to the Federal Bureau Investigations Another possible explanation for this that was mentioned in the documentary was that since the city of St Louis boundaries are very rigid and constricted, that there is no the city except for the impoverished, crime ridden neighborhoods. But these neighborhoods formed in the city for a reason, and that's because post World War Two, this is the only place where poor families could live. The decades-long struggle that has been brewing in these neighborhoods between police and the citizens of these areas of the city should unfortunately leave little surprise in many St.Louisans minds that the Michael Brown tragedy would occur in the north side of the city. The racial tensions here are nothing new and has been brewing since the days of Pruitt Igoe. We may not be able to change what has happened in the past, but we certainly do know what has become of it and urban planners must take this into consideration for any future endeavors in the inner cities of America.
Excellent yet sad historical account
jbarnes-1020 April 2015
I watched this last night for the first time and afterwords I just wanted to find a government employee and slap them. I have always been of the opinion that the government has no business in the business of housing. The tragic story of Pruitt Igoe proves that our government at every level is unable to manage housing and needs to get out of it. This documentary focuses on actual residents of the projects who tell the most interesting stories of the years they spent living there. Many of their memories are happy ones of when the project was brand new and that the residents did appreciate the modern apartments they had. The problem was the completely stupid welfare policies, funding policies and many structural features of the buildings themselves. Had the government kept families together instead of ripping them apart and kept up on the maintenance and security budgets these apartments might still be there today providing much needed housing. The vintage file footage of the projects, especially the interiors was very cool and interesting. I came away with a much better understanding of what the issues were contributing to the failure of the projects. This is a must see for anyone interested in the history of public housing in America.
urban revitalization gone terribly wrong
montalvo_marcial27 October 2014
Pruitt-Igoe was among the largest projects of urban revitalization during its time. It was designed to be a cure for the disease of poverty and slums, in which the city and community alike would thrive. The Pruitt-Igoe myth documentary does an outstanding job of painting a vivid picture for one to visualize, the many hardships the residents faced. It concentrated on the issues that lead to the demise, the suffering and segregation but also the positive effects that it had on many people's lives.
Initially the residents were extremely excited to move into the community. They described it as a utopia and safe haven as well as a resort. People that lived in the Pruit-Igoe community claim that there was once a sense of community and that at a certain time period "it was full of electric engaging life". However, the green grass and playgrounds didn't last, and soon later the deterioration of the buildings became significantly of concern. Matters were so terrible that people would actually defecate in the elevator and stairs, and burn neighboring apartments. However, professionals claim that this was their unique cry for help. What was the causation of these failures you may ask yourself? Much blame the architect; others blame the welfare state, while others put to blame the people that resided there.
The city of St. Louis was expected to grow exponentially during this time frame that the project was being innovated. However, plans didn't go as expected. The city shrunk by 20%, which lead to homes being vacant causing a cascade effect full of negative impacts for the city to endure. Whites moved to the suburbs, and took the jobs with them; this became an even bigger problem because now not only were there vacant homes and apartments but also no jobs to pay for rent. This is one of the main issues to the demise of Pruitt and Igoe. The main idea was that the maintenance would be funded by rent paid by the tenants. It seems like an ingenious plan, where the buildings were basically going to maintain themselves without the input of state or government funding. Nevertheless, no one expected the city to decline greatly and for jobs to move out of reach. This predicament made it nearly impossible for residents to establish a secure form of employment. Thus no employment meant that rent met would not be met, therefore causing a deficit in resources for the maintenance department. After the buildings resort type facade diminished, tenants that had the means to escape left while persons with little to no resources stayed behind. This created segregation within the community, because as suburbs were being built and desirable areas within the city suffered from gentrification, low income individuals were essentially forced to move into Pruitt and Igoe.
Another important aspect that the film focuses on is the terrible violence and crime that the community underwent. It became a safe haven for drug dealers and murderers since the buildings were extremely vacant, criminals could easily handle their unlawful activities while remaining under the radar. Pruit-Igoe became representative of black; poverty, crime, and drug abuse. Community activists actively spoke to city officials in an effort to deal with the wrongdoings that the neighborhood was actively facing daily. However, the police blamed the mayor, while the mayor, blamed the state and Washington. It was a cycle of pointing fingers where the people left to suffer without remorse were the residents. Matters became so terrible that police and firemen stopped showing up to the area. Not only is the city to blame but also the tenants, because they would throw fire bombs at the same people that are supposed to protect them. It's extremely counter intuitive from their part. However as before mentioned this was a way of the tenants of demonstrating that they didn't like the conditions in which they were living. An important point made by the film was the many strict laws that the tenants had to abide by in order to have a roof over their head. If the government was going to support them and give them a few extra dollars, they then had to abide by the cruel rules. Residents were not allowed to own a television, or telephone. They felt segregated and isolated; many claim that it felt like a prison environment. Wouldn't you agree? It almost seems to me in my personal opinion as though the government was attempting to keep blacks dependent on the system, virtually modern day slavery where they control their every action and future as well as their children's future-one vicious cycle it all adds to urban issues that we still face to date. However the most absurd rule of all was the fact that men couldn't live in the projects, what's the rationale behind this concept? Splitting of families, kids growing up without father figures, leaving women vulnerable to criminals is what the foolish regulation caused. There was no morality being presented to these helpless individuals, they were treated inhumane and split of their naturalistic rights.
With accordance to the film, many people have very good memories of living in Pruitt and Igoe. The nostalgia of dancing in the halls and playground during Christmas brings nothing but tears of joy to their eyes, and the smell of baked goods coming from their neighbors windows brought the simplest of happiness. And although there were many negative phases that were lived many rather looks at the positive memories. It's extremely difficult to figure the source of the demise to this day, as we still face a huge dilemma with public housing. Nevertheless it's safe to say that everyone was at fault; the architect, government, and residents. Not for the source of the problem, since cities change with regards to population and capital, rather for allowing the predicament to reach such a cruel and inhumane way of living.
Initially the residents were extremely excited to move into the community. They described it as a utopia and safe haven as well as a resort. People that lived in the Pruit-Igoe community claim that there was once a sense of community and that at a certain time period "it was full of electric engaging life". However, the green grass and playgrounds didn't last, and soon later the deterioration of the buildings became significantly of concern. Matters were so terrible that people would actually defecate in the elevator and stairs, and burn neighboring apartments. However, professionals claim that this was their unique cry for help. What was the causation of these failures you may ask yourself? Much blame the architect; others blame the welfare state, while others put to blame the people that resided there.
The city of St. Louis was expected to grow exponentially during this time frame that the project was being innovated. However, plans didn't go as expected. The city shrunk by 20%, which lead to homes being vacant causing a cascade effect full of negative impacts for the city to endure. Whites moved to the suburbs, and took the jobs with them; this became an even bigger problem because now not only were there vacant homes and apartments but also no jobs to pay for rent. This is one of the main issues to the demise of Pruitt and Igoe. The main idea was that the maintenance would be funded by rent paid by the tenants. It seems like an ingenious plan, where the buildings were basically going to maintain themselves without the input of state or government funding. Nevertheless, no one expected the city to decline greatly and for jobs to move out of reach. This predicament made it nearly impossible for residents to establish a secure form of employment. Thus no employment meant that rent met would not be met, therefore causing a deficit in resources for the maintenance department. After the buildings resort type facade diminished, tenants that had the means to escape left while persons with little to no resources stayed behind. This created segregation within the community, because as suburbs were being built and desirable areas within the city suffered from gentrification, low income individuals were essentially forced to move into Pruitt and Igoe.
Another important aspect that the film focuses on is the terrible violence and crime that the community underwent. It became a safe haven for drug dealers and murderers since the buildings were extremely vacant, criminals could easily handle their unlawful activities while remaining under the radar. Pruit-Igoe became representative of black; poverty, crime, and drug abuse. Community activists actively spoke to city officials in an effort to deal with the wrongdoings that the neighborhood was actively facing daily. However, the police blamed the mayor, while the mayor, blamed the state and Washington. It was a cycle of pointing fingers where the people left to suffer without remorse were the residents. Matters became so terrible that police and firemen stopped showing up to the area. Not only is the city to blame but also the tenants, because they would throw fire bombs at the same people that are supposed to protect them. It's extremely counter intuitive from their part. However as before mentioned this was a way of the tenants of demonstrating that they didn't like the conditions in which they were living. An important point made by the film was the many strict laws that the tenants had to abide by in order to have a roof over their head. If the government was going to support them and give them a few extra dollars, they then had to abide by the cruel rules. Residents were not allowed to own a television, or telephone. They felt segregated and isolated; many claim that it felt like a prison environment. Wouldn't you agree? It almost seems to me in my personal opinion as though the government was attempting to keep blacks dependent on the system, virtually modern day slavery where they control their every action and future as well as their children's future-one vicious cycle it all adds to urban issues that we still face to date. However the most absurd rule of all was the fact that men couldn't live in the projects, what's the rationale behind this concept? Splitting of families, kids growing up without father figures, leaving women vulnerable to criminals is what the foolish regulation caused. There was no morality being presented to these helpless individuals, they were treated inhumane and split of their naturalistic rights.
With accordance to the film, many people have very good memories of living in Pruitt and Igoe. The nostalgia of dancing in the halls and playground during Christmas brings nothing but tears of joy to their eyes, and the smell of baked goods coming from their neighbors windows brought the simplest of happiness. And although there were many negative phases that were lived many rather looks at the positive memories. It's extremely difficult to figure the source of the demise to this day, as we still face a huge dilemma with public housing. Nevertheless it's safe to say that everyone was at fault; the architect, government, and residents. Not for the source of the problem, since cities change with regards to population and capital, rather for allowing the predicament to reach such a cruel and inhumane way of living.
Its too easy
eliaselmet25 October 2013
The Pruitt-Igoe Myth attempts to dispel some of the myths about that infamous housing complex in St. Louis. In particular it targets the inaccurate public perception of why government housing projects fail, while at the same time taking into account how the residents themselves felt about what they called home. In order to tackle the complexity of the issue, the documentary is structured in a chronological way, starting in the 1940's and concluding at the destruction of the complex in the 1970's.
Pruitt-Igoe was commissioned to battle the lack of competent housing in St. Louis. To give a bit of background, St. Louis was a bustling industrial city for the first half of the 20th century. After a slump during the Great Depression, expectations were high for the growth of the city. The documentary emphasizes this idea of growth. It claims there was a culture of growth in St. Louis, with huge expectations of economic activity and population increases. Pruitt-Igoe was commissioned and built within this culture of growth. It was envisioned to replace the tenements that housed tens of thousands of poor residents throughout the city, and concentrate them within 33 high-rises on a large piece of urban land.
There was great faith in Pruitt-Igoe. It was essentially supposed to be a solve-all. By adding competent housing into the equation, planners thought that these poor people would have a solid base to move up the socio-economic ladder, since the expectation was that jobs would be available. However, no one was able to envision the terror that was to strike St. Louis; the growth that was expected within the city did not happen.
What occurred instead was the de-industrialization of the city. Though the causes of this de-industrialization are debatable, the documentary attributes it to a phenomenon called suburban sprawl. This storyline is not particular to St. Louis however, and similar effects were seen across the nation.
The new level of post-war prosperity allowed millions of whites across the nation to afford green lawns and quiet communities in newly built sub-divisions. Industries followed these blue-collar workers, and cities were devastated. St. Louis lost 20% of its population by 1970. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland lost closer to a third. The tax bases of these cities were destroyed. Pruitt-Igoe was built with federal funds but maintained by rent income and local taxes. When the money dried up, which it did right away, the complex was left on its own. The residents blamed the Housing Authority, the Housing Authority blamed the city of St. Louis, St. Louis blamed the federal government, and the documentary blames white-flight. So why exactly did whites move? Some, including myself, would argue it was simple economics, because cheaper land was available outside city limits and the automobile made it possible to live in the suburbs and commute to work. The emerging middle class no longer had to live near industrial zones. However, the documentary contends that it was racially based. One white middle aged woman, when asked why she moved to the suburbs, replied "because I wanted to live in a white community." She went on to say that though she did not believe blacks should be oppressed, she could not live next to them. Another white woman interviewed expressed her fear of plummeting property values and crime when blacks moved into adjacent neighborhoods. No doubt the makers of The Pruitt-Igoe Myth included these interviews to advance the claim that Pruitt-Igoe failed due to racism. Yet this opinion seems to be on the fringe of moderate consensus, because where one chooses to live does not directly affect the life of another. Blacks were just as poor when whites lived in the city. The only difference was that in the case of Pruitt-Igoe, they were living in un-maintained high-rises built by whites. The failure of Pruitt-Igoe actually resulted from the ignorance of planners who did not consider the longevity of a place filled with the poorest of the poor. There was no way that these people would be able to maintain the buildings without federal aid. The city of St. Louis, faced with a plummeting population and tax base, could not do so either. The thesis of the documentary is that the failure of Pruitt-Igoe, though a disaster in itself, does not reflect disaster in every federally funded housing project. Though the cause of defending federal housing projects is admirable, the documentary makes the too-obvious argument that Pruitt-Igoe failed due to white-negligence. This sort of finger pointing does nothing to advance the situation of blacks. Nor does it take into account the very racist and segregationist nature of America in the first place. The majority of white Americans, both before and after Pruitt-Igoe, preferred to live in white communities. This is a trend that we still see to this day. So as long as planners huddle poor people into certain areas and expect something magical to happen, basic economics will reign supreme and these people will remain poor.
Pruitt-Igoe was commissioned to battle the lack of competent housing in St. Louis. To give a bit of background, St. Louis was a bustling industrial city for the first half of the 20th century. After a slump during the Great Depression, expectations were high for the growth of the city. The documentary emphasizes this idea of growth. It claims there was a culture of growth in St. Louis, with huge expectations of economic activity and population increases. Pruitt-Igoe was commissioned and built within this culture of growth. It was envisioned to replace the tenements that housed tens of thousands of poor residents throughout the city, and concentrate them within 33 high-rises on a large piece of urban land.
There was great faith in Pruitt-Igoe. It was essentially supposed to be a solve-all. By adding competent housing into the equation, planners thought that these poor people would have a solid base to move up the socio-economic ladder, since the expectation was that jobs would be available. However, no one was able to envision the terror that was to strike St. Louis; the growth that was expected within the city did not happen.
What occurred instead was the de-industrialization of the city. Though the causes of this de-industrialization are debatable, the documentary attributes it to a phenomenon called suburban sprawl. This storyline is not particular to St. Louis however, and similar effects were seen across the nation.
The new level of post-war prosperity allowed millions of whites across the nation to afford green lawns and quiet communities in newly built sub-divisions. Industries followed these blue-collar workers, and cities were devastated. St. Louis lost 20% of its population by 1970. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland lost closer to a third. The tax bases of these cities were destroyed. Pruitt-Igoe was built with federal funds but maintained by rent income and local taxes. When the money dried up, which it did right away, the complex was left on its own. The residents blamed the Housing Authority, the Housing Authority blamed the city of St. Louis, St. Louis blamed the federal government, and the documentary blames white-flight. So why exactly did whites move? Some, including myself, would argue it was simple economics, because cheaper land was available outside city limits and the automobile made it possible to live in the suburbs and commute to work. The emerging middle class no longer had to live near industrial zones. However, the documentary contends that it was racially based. One white middle aged woman, when asked why she moved to the suburbs, replied "because I wanted to live in a white community." She went on to say that though she did not believe blacks should be oppressed, she could not live next to them. Another white woman interviewed expressed her fear of plummeting property values and crime when blacks moved into adjacent neighborhoods. No doubt the makers of The Pruitt-Igoe Myth included these interviews to advance the claim that Pruitt-Igoe failed due to racism. Yet this opinion seems to be on the fringe of moderate consensus, because where one chooses to live does not directly affect the life of another. Blacks were just as poor when whites lived in the city. The only difference was that in the case of Pruitt-Igoe, they were living in un-maintained high-rises built by whites. The failure of Pruitt-Igoe actually resulted from the ignorance of planners who did not consider the longevity of a place filled with the poorest of the poor. There was no way that these people would be able to maintain the buildings without federal aid. The city of St. Louis, faced with a plummeting population and tax base, could not do so either. The thesis of the documentary is that the failure of Pruitt-Igoe, though a disaster in itself, does not reflect disaster in every federally funded housing project. Though the cause of defending federal housing projects is admirable, the documentary makes the too-obvious argument that Pruitt-Igoe failed due to white-negligence. This sort of finger pointing does nothing to advance the situation of blacks. Nor does it take into account the very racist and segregationist nature of America in the first place. The majority of white Americans, both before and after Pruitt-Igoe, preferred to live in white communities. This is a trend that we still see to this day. So as long as planners huddle poor people into certain areas and expect something magical to happen, basic economics will reign supreme and these people will remain poor.
A Valuable Failure
ndelat328 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*
Urban planning is never static; things are constantly changing. It is the appreciation of why certain projects lead to complete failure and some succeed. The cliché "We learn about the past in order to learn about the future" is a very prominent theme embedded within this documentary. In some aspects, the Pruitt-Igoe Myth is more lament than examination. Through the survivors' tales of death both literal and figurative, Benjamin Balcom's dismal score portrays everything as it is out to be. Directed by Chad Freidrichs, this grim but powerful documentary covers the domestic turmoil by punitive public welfare policies and the processes of mass suburbanization that emptied American cities. The Pruitt-Igoe housing had high hopes but empty promises. This housing project created the dream of a wonderful life. Although it did assert the importance of community, it backfired in vandalism, vacancy, and crime.
The film starts off with Solvester Brown, a former resident of Igoe-Pruitt, revisiting the area for the first time in over 30 years. The plot he went to was almost unrecognizable; it consisted of a vacant "mini-forest" surrounded by piles upon piles of junk and mounds of concrete. The movie then cuts to a housing project video advertising the project, promising indoor plumbing, electric lights and other things expected in the 20th century. The sight that Brown witnessed did not match the promise that the planners put forth. Post WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, the Pruitt-Igoe housing project was created in response to the national urban renewal process of the 50's/60's. St. Louis's urban renewal plan was one of the most ambitious. Having major influence for coalition due to their wealth and power, civic leaders and politicians viewed the slums as eyesores and the downtown area was of their full interest. Urban reformers pressed lawmakers to input new clean modern homes to re-energize depression-era housing projects installed by war. The 1949 Housing Act was installed to bulldoze the slums and incorporated 800,000 homes within the United States that were supposed to ensure safe and affordable mortgages to low-income communities. The federal government funded the production of the project but didn't put money into the maintenance. So slumlords took advantage of the distressed residents and played a part with the worsening conditions of the apartments. Slumlords would pack as many people as they could within these buildings because they knew these people were desperate. World War II took a toll on St. Louis's economy. From 1970 to 1980, the population had decreased by 28 percent, beating Cleveland's and Detroit's downfall. Post war, urban growth reversed. The cities were losing the working middle class, their industrial base, and overall investment. National suburbanization policies, or urban flight, was made possible by the same housing act for Pruitt-Igoe. The appeal of the suburbs became the mainstream, and many families sprawled to the newly developed areas outside the city in hopes for more opportunities and overall a better life. Due to the disinvestment to the city and increase demand for the suburbs, land tax decreased in urban areas and thus leading to less money for maintenance. The unfortunate lower class that was left behind within the slowly rotting public housing. As if it couldn't get worse, the welfare department mandated that families living within the housing project qualify for aid only if there is not an able bodied male present. Women and children were the only residents allowed to reside. Families had to sacrifice a father figure in order for everyone to have somewhere to sleep. Televisions and phones were also violations of receiving aid. These harsh regulations created even more isolation than the community of Pruitt-Igoe was already in. This sense of hopelessness and alienation created a sense of imprisonment that further made people products of their environment, consisting of vandalism and no sense of safety. In short, this figurative prison is the effects of the welfare The residents of Pruitt Igoe found themselves in a prison they could not escape because of their income restraints.
Pruitt was essentially clean at first, but maintenance declined shortly. There was never an adequate provision for maintenance. Solvester Brown recalled scratch-proof elevators evolving into urine-smelling that did not operate. Brown and his brother would be stuck in an elevator all day and would eventually have to pry the doors open and climb rope from floor to floor. The slumlords did not have sufficient amount of money to fund the operations nor did the state of Missouri. A representative from the St. Louis Housing Authority was interviewed in regards to the lack of federal investment of operations within the housing and he claimed that they "simply do not have enough money to operate as well as we should". He in front of a poor incinerator with mounds of garbage piling up as he was making this statement. Although the Pruitt-Igoe had the stereotype of a bad, unsafe place, the adversities that the residents dealt with created a strong sense of community. Everyone knew everyone, they were never alone. The implosion was devastating because the project was the solution, and it was very painful moment of trust to see that failure. This documentary portrayed the Pruitt-Igoe housing project well in the aspect of that it was a symbol for failed public housing as well as the proceed failure of well intentioned government policies in general. This shines a light on the responsibility for not for just the urban planners but for the country to learn from those failures and do better.
Urban planning is never static; things are constantly changing. It is the appreciation of why certain projects lead to complete failure and some succeed. The cliché "We learn about the past in order to learn about the future" is a very prominent theme embedded within this documentary. In some aspects, the Pruitt-Igoe Myth is more lament than examination. Through the survivors' tales of death both literal and figurative, Benjamin Balcom's dismal score portrays everything as it is out to be. Directed by Chad Freidrichs, this grim but powerful documentary covers the domestic turmoil by punitive public welfare policies and the processes of mass suburbanization that emptied American cities. The Pruitt-Igoe housing had high hopes but empty promises. This housing project created the dream of a wonderful life. Although it did assert the importance of community, it backfired in vandalism, vacancy, and crime.
The film starts off with Solvester Brown, a former resident of Igoe-Pruitt, revisiting the area for the first time in over 30 years. The plot he went to was almost unrecognizable; it consisted of a vacant "mini-forest" surrounded by piles upon piles of junk and mounds of concrete. The movie then cuts to a housing project video advertising the project, promising indoor plumbing, electric lights and other things expected in the 20th century. The sight that Brown witnessed did not match the promise that the planners put forth. Post WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, the Pruitt-Igoe housing project was created in response to the national urban renewal process of the 50's/60's. St. Louis's urban renewal plan was one of the most ambitious. Having major influence for coalition due to their wealth and power, civic leaders and politicians viewed the slums as eyesores and the downtown area was of their full interest. Urban reformers pressed lawmakers to input new clean modern homes to re-energize depression-era housing projects installed by war. The 1949 Housing Act was installed to bulldoze the slums and incorporated 800,000 homes within the United States that were supposed to ensure safe and affordable mortgages to low-income communities. The federal government funded the production of the project but didn't put money into the maintenance. So slumlords took advantage of the distressed residents and played a part with the worsening conditions of the apartments. Slumlords would pack as many people as they could within these buildings because they knew these people were desperate. World War II took a toll on St. Louis's economy. From 1970 to 1980, the population had decreased by 28 percent, beating Cleveland's and Detroit's downfall. Post war, urban growth reversed. The cities were losing the working middle class, their industrial base, and overall investment. National suburbanization policies, or urban flight, was made possible by the same housing act for Pruitt-Igoe. The appeal of the suburbs became the mainstream, and many families sprawled to the newly developed areas outside the city in hopes for more opportunities and overall a better life. Due to the disinvestment to the city and increase demand for the suburbs, land tax decreased in urban areas and thus leading to less money for maintenance. The unfortunate lower class that was left behind within the slowly rotting public housing. As if it couldn't get worse, the welfare department mandated that families living within the housing project qualify for aid only if there is not an able bodied male present. Women and children were the only residents allowed to reside. Families had to sacrifice a father figure in order for everyone to have somewhere to sleep. Televisions and phones were also violations of receiving aid. These harsh regulations created even more isolation than the community of Pruitt-Igoe was already in. This sense of hopelessness and alienation created a sense of imprisonment that further made people products of their environment, consisting of vandalism and no sense of safety. In short, this figurative prison is the effects of the welfare The residents of Pruitt Igoe found themselves in a prison they could not escape because of their income restraints.
Pruitt was essentially clean at first, but maintenance declined shortly. There was never an adequate provision for maintenance. Solvester Brown recalled scratch-proof elevators evolving into urine-smelling that did not operate. Brown and his brother would be stuck in an elevator all day and would eventually have to pry the doors open and climb rope from floor to floor. The slumlords did not have sufficient amount of money to fund the operations nor did the state of Missouri. A representative from the St. Louis Housing Authority was interviewed in regards to the lack of federal investment of operations within the housing and he claimed that they "simply do not have enough money to operate as well as we should". He in front of a poor incinerator with mounds of garbage piling up as he was making this statement. Although the Pruitt-Igoe had the stereotype of a bad, unsafe place, the adversities that the residents dealt with created a strong sense of community. Everyone knew everyone, they were never alone. The implosion was devastating because the project was the solution, and it was very painful moment of trust to see that failure. This documentary portrayed the Pruitt-Igoe housing project well in the aspect of that it was a symbol for failed public housing as well as the proceed failure of well intentioned government policies in general. This shines a light on the responsibility for not for just the urban planners but for the country to learn from those failures and do better.
An Interesting Documentary.
missismiggins13 July 2012
This has to be a valuable insight into how certain people expect everything handed to them on a plate.
The documentary tries to blame the government and various social services for the failure of the project - In my opinion it fails! The blame for the failure lies squarely with the people who lived in the project.
Everyone of them interviewed tries to lay the blame on the government, did the government urinate in the lifts? Did the government burn their refuse in the corridors, did the government break all of the windows and light fittings? No one involved seems to even begin to think that it is themselves to blame for all of this.
Take a look at the project when it first opened, affordable clean housing, people wanted to live there.
Give them a few years and they completely destroyed it.
A very interesting insight into social behaviour.
The documentary tries to blame the government and various social services for the failure of the project - In my opinion it fails! The blame for the failure lies squarely with the people who lived in the project.
Everyone of them interviewed tries to lay the blame on the government, did the government urinate in the lifts? Did the government burn their refuse in the corridors, did the government break all of the windows and light fittings? No one involved seems to even begin to think that it is themselves to blame for all of this.
Take a look at the project when it first opened, affordable clean housing, people wanted to live there.
Give them a few years and they completely destroyed it.
A very interesting insight into social behaviour.
The Road to Hell
celr10 July 2012
This is a fascinating and excellent documentary about the collapse of a public housing high-rise project in St. Louis, MO. Pruitt-Igo, a massive block of high-rise apartments was supposed to offer hope to the poor living in dismal slums. It was typical of similar disasters in other cities, for example Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor in Chicago and ones in the Bronx.
At first the residents were happy to be able to move out of the slums which were being torn down and into the modern, clear, cheerful apartments of Pruitt-Igoe. Former residents who were there at the beginning in the 1950's remember with nostalgia being able to live for the first time in a clean, bright apartments. Evidently at the beginning the residents got along splendidly. The architecture of these high-rises has been criticized for being inhuman and blamed for causing the monstrous social problems which ensued, but evidently at first the architecture didn't effect people that way. Children played safely in the halls and moms communicated freely between apartments.
There were from the beginning some rather annoying glitches, the biggest of which was a rule that men couldn't live in the apartments. This meant that husbands had to either live apart from their wives and children or stow away in their wives' apartments. It's hard to see why rules like this were created, but easy to see what the ultimate effect would be. Poor families would be split up and an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births would follow. But that would be farther down the road and there are numerous other forces contributing to the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births.
Another short-sighted rule was a law that forbid increases in rent. Since rent went to maintenance there wasn't enough money to maintain those huge high-rises. Elevators jammed, the stairwells became toilets. Jobs left the city and population left at the same time. Whites fled to the suburbs leaving Pruitt-Igoe almost entirely black. The towers became shabby and dilapidated. Vandals and criminals moved in and in a couple of decades what started out as a bright and noble crusade to help the needy crashed to the ground in flames.
The film wants to blame the particular conditions of St. Louis at the time for the destruction of Pruitt-Igoe, but although those conditions were the proximate cause of the catastrophe, the entire plan was built on quicksand from the beginning. Because it was a huge government project which required huge amounts of money to maintain there was no way that such a project could be successfully centrally planned and still function. It was just too big, there were just to many false assumptions, and just too many political considerations at work.
This is true for public housing everywhere. Almost anywhere you go you'll find that public housing, whereas it might not be as bad as Pruitt-Igoe, is still a breeding ground for crime and social dysfunction. Though the film makers try to deny the obvious, government attempts at social engineering are doomed to fail by their very nature. Lumbering government bureaucracies can't adapt to changing conditions. Rules and regulations created by bureaucrats look good in theory but are unworkable in practice. The idea that an entire dependent class might be created as a result of the best of intentions was never considered by the planners.
In some cities, like Chicago, the black out-of-wedlock birthrate is now approaching 85%. Some could argue, with just cause, that it is the nanny state programs of the Great Society that are directly responsible. Only a liberal big-government project could fail in such a spectacular way.
At first the residents were happy to be able to move out of the slums which were being torn down and into the modern, clear, cheerful apartments of Pruitt-Igoe. Former residents who were there at the beginning in the 1950's remember with nostalgia being able to live for the first time in a clean, bright apartments. Evidently at the beginning the residents got along splendidly. The architecture of these high-rises has been criticized for being inhuman and blamed for causing the monstrous social problems which ensued, but evidently at first the architecture didn't effect people that way. Children played safely in the halls and moms communicated freely between apartments.
There were from the beginning some rather annoying glitches, the biggest of which was a rule that men couldn't live in the apartments. This meant that husbands had to either live apart from their wives and children or stow away in their wives' apartments. It's hard to see why rules like this were created, but easy to see what the ultimate effect would be. Poor families would be split up and an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births would follow. But that would be farther down the road and there are numerous other forces contributing to the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births.
Another short-sighted rule was a law that forbid increases in rent. Since rent went to maintenance there wasn't enough money to maintain those huge high-rises. Elevators jammed, the stairwells became toilets. Jobs left the city and population left at the same time. Whites fled to the suburbs leaving Pruitt-Igoe almost entirely black. The towers became shabby and dilapidated. Vandals and criminals moved in and in a couple of decades what started out as a bright and noble crusade to help the needy crashed to the ground in flames.
The film wants to blame the particular conditions of St. Louis at the time for the destruction of Pruitt-Igoe, but although those conditions were the proximate cause of the catastrophe, the entire plan was built on quicksand from the beginning. Because it was a huge government project which required huge amounts of money to maintain there was no way that such a project could be successfully centrally planned and still function. It was just too big, there were just to many false assumptions, and just too many political considerations at work.
This is true for public housing everywhere. Almost anywhere you go you'll find that public housing, whereas it might not be as bad as Pruitt-Igoe, is still a breeding ground for crime and social dysfunction. Though the film makers try to deny the obvious, government attempts at social engineering are doomed to fail by their very nature. Lumbering government bureaucracies can't adapt to changing conditions. Rules and regulations created by bureaucrats look good in theory but are unworkable in practice. The idea that an entire dependent class might be created as a result of the best of intentions was never considered by the planners.
In some cities, like Chicago, the black out-of-wedlock birthrate is now approaching 85%. Some could argue, with just cause, that it is the nanny state programs of the Great Society that are directly responsible. Only a liberal big-government project could fail in such a spectacular way.
Pruitt Igoe Myth Review. UPP 101
kia-hutchens27 October 2014
Prof. Cordova UPP 101 October 24, 2014
In The Pruitt-Igoe Myth, director Chad Freidrichs, gives viewers an in-depth look at the Pruitt-Igoe project, one of St. Louis' failed attempts to urbanize the city. In this documentary, Freidrichs focuses on dispelling the myths that surround the project by interviewing past residents and establishing the real cause of why projects Pruitt-Igoe failed. In addition, this documentary sheds light on the bigger issue, of why housing projects in general fail in America.
The main argument of the film is built to dispel the myths about housing projects, that Pruitt-Igoe fueled. When most people think about housing project and why they fail, they blame violence, crime, drugs, and poverty. While these things are commonly found in housing projects, they are not to blame. To prove this, Friedrichs starts by discussing the beginning of urban renewal. In 1949 the Housing Act was passed. Legalized and funded, St. Louis started urban renewal by clearing the slums and building new public housing units, Pruitt Igoe. Pruitt-Igoe was conceived to replace the tenement homes of poor residents throughout the St. Louis. The idea was to replace the slums with new high-rises, and this would solve the issue of poor neighborhoods. However this would not work out in the end. As I previously mentioned when people think of housing projects they think of crime as the root of their problem. This was not the case for Pruitt Igoe. Friedrichs points to a lack of funding as the cause of Pruitt Igoes failure in the documentary. The documentary looks in-depth at how a lack of funding led to the deterioration of Pruitt Igoe. They say the project was doomed from the beginning because the city did not have a solid plan on how to continue to fund Pruitt Igoe. When the planning for the building started, the city wrote in the plans that the rent residents would pay would never increase. As the years went on funding dwindled and the buildings deteriorated. The documentary interviewed some past residents and they told stories of how the grounds keepers stopped taking care of the building, no repairs or updates were made to the buildings, and how basically their was no one to take care of Pruitt Igoe. Another argument the documentary made was that people who live in housing projects have a community there. Many of the interviews shown in the documentary support this. Everyone they interviewed had positive happy memories of living in Pruitt Igoe despite poor conditions toward the end. They boasted of growing up there as children and always having someone to play with. The apartment styled building made it so everyone knew each other. Friedrichs use of interviews took the focus off of Pruitt Igoe being a failure and focused on the community aspect.
Overall, this documentary dispels a lot of myths that surround housing projects. The documentary takes a look at a controversial aspect of urban planning over a course of decades in Pruitt Igoe. Many people put housing projects to the back of their mind or look at them as negatives blaming their problems on the residents that inhabit them. As a person who was grown and raised in St. Louis, I didn't even know that Pruitt Igoe existed as it has since been torn down. I would recommend this documentary, as I think it shows an important part of our history and portraits Pruitt Igoe in a positive light which it and its' residents deserve.
In The Pruitt-Igoe Myth, director Chad Freidrichs, gives viewers an in-depth look at the Pruitt-Igoe project, one of St. Louis' failed attempts to urbanize the city. In this documentary, Freidrichs focuses on dispelling the myths that surround the project by interviewing past residents and establishing the real cause of why projects Pruitt-Igoe failed. In addition, this documentary sheds light on the bigger issue, of why housing projects in general fail in America.
The main argument of the film is built to dispel the myths about housing projects, that Pruitt-Igoe fueled. When most people think about housing project and why they fail, they blame violence, crime, drugs, and poverty. While these things are commonly found in housing projects, they are not to blame. To prove this, Friedrichs starts by discussing the beginning of urban renewal. In 1949 the Housing Act was passed. Legalized and funded, St. Louis started urban renewal by clearing the slums and building new public housing units, Pruitt Igoe. Pruitt-Igoe was conceived to replace the tenement homes of poor residents throughout the St. Louis. The idea was to replace the slums with new high-rises, and this would solve the issue of poor neighborhoods. However this would not work out in the end. As I previously mentioned when people think of housing projects they think of crime as the root of their problem. This was not the case for Pruitt Igoe. Friedrichs points to a lack of funding as the cause of Pruitt Igoes failure in the documentary. The documentary looks in-depth at how a lack of funding led to the deterioration of Pruitt Igoe. They say the project was doomed from the beginning because the city did not have a solid plan on how to continue to fund Pruitt Igoe. When the planning for the building started, the city wrote in the plans that the rent residents would pay would never increase. As the years went on funding dwindled and the buildings deteriorated. The documentary interviewed some past residents and they told stories of how the grounds keepers stopped taking care of the building, no repairs or updates were made to the buildings, and how basically their was no one to take care of Pruitt Igoe. Another argument the documentary made was that people who live in housing projects have a community there. Many of the interviews shown in the documentary support this. Everyone they interviewed had positive happy memories of living in Pruitt Igoe despite poor conditions toward the end. They boasted of growing up there as children and always having someone to play with. The apartment styled building made it so everyone knew each other. Friedrichs use of interviews took the focus off of Pruitt Igoe being a failure and focused on the community aspect.
Overall, this documentary dispels a lot of myths that surround housing projects. The documentary takes a look at a controversial aspect of urban planning over a course of decades in Pruitt Igoe. Many people put housing projects to the back of their mind or look at them as negatives blaming their problems on the residents that inhabit them. As a person who was grown and raised in St. Louis, I didn't even know that Pruitt Igoe existed as it has since been torn down. I would recommend this documentary, as I think it shows an important part of our history and portraits Pruitt Igoe in a positive light which it and its' residents deserve.
It plays more like a documentary for social workers, public planners and sociologists.
planktonrules1 December 2015
The Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis is the focus of this film, but it could have just as soon been Cabrini-Green in Chicago or any one of a number of similar projects across the American big cities. It's an exploration as to why these huge public housing projects became hellish instead of the paradises they were originally envisioned. Fortunately, the filmmakers don't pick any one or two simple answers but talk about the multitude of issues that led to the projects failing...and ultimately being demolished. Among the problems discussed in the film were the lack of jobs as businesses and middle classes migrated to the suburbs, the increase of violence and vandalism, lack of maintenance, segregation as well as the insane notion that in order to get public assistance that fathers could not remain in the home!
This documentary is depressing and few folks would enjoy watching it. Now I am NOT saying it's bad and it's good for folks to become familiar with the issues that come up in the film. But it's just not the sort of thing most people would choose to watch and is probably more a film that educators might show to sociology or other such classes in order to explain the failures of these programs. Interesting and well made...despite it being such a terrible story.
This documentary is depressing and few folks would enjoy watching it. Now I am NOT saying it's bad and it's good for folks to become familiar with the issues that come up in the film. But it's just not the sort of thing most people would choose to watch and is probably more a film that educators might show to sociology or other such classes in order to explain the failures of these programs. Interesting and well made...despite it being such a terrible story.
Informative but not effective and asks wrong questions
amanz0520 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Like most documentaries that come out today, this asks the wrong questions and places blame in the wrong areas. I could go on forever but choose not to.
I don't exactly know what the "myth" is in the documentary. Most of the blame looks like it is trying to be aimed at government, which is mostly wrong. This documentary is also dangerous (like most are) because it chooses only the information it wants to present. And I'm not saying that I know all of the facts, because I don't. But what people never do is look things up for themselves. they just take the information that is given to them on a platter and say , "oh, that's horrible. How can people do that?" etc...
The real problems are never solved, and real questions are never asked. How did all of the windows break? Did the government do it? Why were things set on fire? Why did people urinate everywhere? Did the government come in and do that? Did the government come in and throw bottles at the policemen and firemen when they tried to put the fires out? I'm sure things were not like the grand ballroom at the housing complex, but who said it had to be? Tenants got mad when rent went up because people were leaving. Why did they leave? Not a hard question to answer. They should be going around yelling and protesting at each other for the rent going up because tenant's behavior caused people to leave which made rent rise. But lets blame society for poor planning and support.
This needs to focus on one of the biggest problems facing society today, which is entitlement. It was bad then and it's only getting worse every day.
I don't exactly know what the "myth" is in the documentary. Most of the blame looks like it is trying to be aimed at government, which is mostly wrong. This documentary is also dangerous (like most are) because it chooses only the information it wants to present. And I'm not saying that I know all of the facts, because I don't. But what people never do is look things up for themselves. they just take the information that is given to them on a platter and say , "oh, that's horrible. How can people do that?" etc...
The real problems are never solved, and real questions are never asked. How did all of the windows break? Did the government do it? Why were things set on fire? Why did people urinate everywhere? Did the government come in and do that? Did the government come in and throw bottles at the policemen and firemen when they tried to put the fires out? I'm sure things were not like the grand ballroom at the housing complex, but who said it had to be? Tenants got mad when rent went up because people were leaving. Why did they leave? Not a hard question to answer. They should be going around yelling and protesting at each other for the rent going up because tenant's behavior caused people to leave which made rent rise. But lets blame society for poor planning and support.
This needs to focus on one of the biggest problems facing society today, which is entitlement. It was bad then and it's only getting worse every day.
The Pruitt Igoe Myth Scholarly Review
jasonmcce27 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Pruitt Igoe Myth What was meant to be an innovative solution to St. Louis's low class housing woes turned into a disaster of unimaginable heights. The St. Louis Pruitt Igoe housing project has been widely unrecognized as an issue of such devastating proportions. The significance of this disaster was portrayed through The Pruitt Igo Myth, which finally brought attention to this controversial issue regarding public housing. The documentary argued that the housing project was founded on the government's good intentions to help the city, yet was bound to fail from the beginning. Further, the documentary argued that the project failed in large part due to the economic downturn in St. Louis and the change in the structuring of city housing. Although the public housing system had its downfalls, such as breaking up the family structure, the interviews with previous Pruitt Igoe residents showed there was a community feeling to Pruitt Igoe that many will never forget. Through original research and interviews with those involved, The Pruitt Igoe Myth served to enlighten viewers regarding issues of urban renewal and the restructuring of St. Louis to benefit those in positions of power.
In the 1940's, the slums of St. Louis were a significant problem for the low-class communities in the city and needed to be dealt with in a way that would not leave the cities residents abandoned. Slumlords let conditions worsen to the point of no return. They used this issue to their advantage as they made a profit from the residents. The government and city officials agreed that the slums were an eye-sore that was detrimental to the city and this issue needed to be dealt with in a productive way. The government had an idea of urban renewal and came up with the 1949 Housing Act that funded slum clearance, FHA insured mortgage programs, as well as funded the construction of over 800,000 public housing units across the U.S. Pruitt Igoe consisted of 33 high-rise buildings that were supposed to provide safe and affordable homes for the low-class community to live comfortably. The issue that this documentary made apparent is that the Housing Act provided the funds to build these projects but did not provide funding to maintain them.
During the post war times, St. Louis's economy was at a terribly, steady downfall. The population drastically declined between the 1930's and the 1940's. The film described the upward growth that allowed people to leave the harsh urban areas and spread out to the newly developed suburban areas on the outskirts of town. Many middle class families left the cities in hopes of better communities and properties. This led to less property and city taxes in the urban areas, ultimately resulting in less city maintenance. Abandoned lower class individuals were stuck with deteriorating public housing and had to deal with vandals and increasing crime. The welfare department also began setting rules and regulations for the people who were receiving aid; these rules led to the creation of more issues. The department made the rule that any family having an able bodied adult male present was not allowed to receive aid and live in the housing projects. Only single women with children and no spouse were aloud to reside there. Too many children were raised without a fatherly figure so that the rest of the family could have a roof over their heads. The welfare department also said that they were not allowed to have televisions or phones in their homes either. This was a way for the government to further isolate the people they had already isolated from the rest of the community. Social conflict theory, based on Marxist thinking, can be applied to this situation. It seems as though this housing project was a way to keep the poor in poverty, while benefiting the interests of the wealthy and those in control of the system. This sense of hopelessness and isolation led to a prison like environment that only further hampered the sense of family ties that were so desired. The residents of Pruitt Igoe found themselves in a prison they could not escape because of their income restraints.
The documentary did a good job of covering every side of the story when it comes to interviews with residents that once lived there and people of power that were involved in making decisions about the housing unit. The interviews throughout the documentary gave viewers first hand accounts of the stories of the residents at Pruitt Igoe. Contrasting interviews from residents with that of the public housing officers, showed that although the conditions were not optimal, residents saw Pruitt Igoe as their home where they created lifelong memories, especially the female resident interviewees. It is important to hear the residents' perspective because they were the ones that were first hand living in the conditions that were seen as awful to the outside eye. Regardless of this, many of the interviewed residents saw Pruitt Igoe as a home, where they had their own rooms and had a bed to sleep on at night. These children made memories just as other neighborhood children did. They made friends, got into fights occasionally, but in the end they made lasting memories with other children in the same situation as themselves. The male and female interviewees had slightly different views on the housing units, as it seems the males felt more pressure to take on the father figure role of the family, which sometimes led to violent interactions between residents. One of the male interviewees showed that Pruitt Igoe was more of a nightmare to him because he lost his brother to violence within the community there. This showed how unstable the environment really was, and how much pressure the males felt to put on a display of extreme masculinity in order to survive.
The Pruitt Igoe Myth shed a painfully real incident to light that could have ultimately been avoided but ended up only being a learning experience.
In the 1940's, the slums of St. Louis were a significant problem for the low-class communities in the city and needed to be dealt with in a way that would not leave the cities residents abandoned. Slumlords let conditions worsen to the point of no return. They used this issue to their advantage as they made a profit from the residents. The government and city officials agreed that the slums were an eye-sore that was detrimental to the city and this issue needed to be dealt with in a productive way. The government had an idea of urban renewal and came up with the 1949 Housing Act that funded slum clearance, FHA insured mortgage programs, as well as funded the construction of over 800,000 public housing units across the U.S. Pruitt Igoe consisted of 33 high-rise buildings that were supposed to provide safe and affordable homes for the low-class community to live comfortably. The issue that this documentary made apparent is that the Housing Act provided the funds to build these projects but did not provide funding to maintain them.
During the post war times, St. Louis's economy was at a terribly, steady downfall. The population drastically declined between the 1930's and the 1940's. The film described the upward growth that allowed people to leave the harsh urban areas and spread out to the newly developed suburban areas on the outskirts of town. Many middle class families left the cities in hopes of better communities and properties. This led to less property and city taxes in the urban areas, ultimately resulting in less city maintenance. Abandoned lower class individuals were stuck with deteriorating public housing and had to deal with vandals and increasing crime. The welfare department also began setting rules and regulations for the people who were receiving aid; these rules led to the creation of more issues. The department made the rule that any family having an able bodied adult male present was not allowed to receive aid and live in the housing projects. Only single women with children and no spouse were aloud to reside there. Too many children were raised without a fatherly figure so that the rest of the family could have a roof over their heads. The welfare department also said that they were not allowed to have televisions or phones in their homes either. This was a way for the government to further isolate the people they had already isolated from the rest of the community. Social conflict theory, based on Marxist thinking, can be applied to this situation. It seems as though this housing project was a way to keep the poor in poverty, while benefiting the interests of the wealthy and those in control of the system. This sense of hopelessness and isolation led to a prison like environment that only further hampered the sense of family ties that were so desired. The residents of Pruitt Igoe found themselves in a prison they could not escape because of their income restraints.
The documentary did a good job of covering every side of the story when it comes to interviews with residents that once lived there and people of power that were involved in making decisions about the housing unit. The interviews throughout the documentary gave viewers first hand accounts of the stories of the residents at Pruitt Igoe. Contrasting interviews from residents with that of the public housing officers, showed that although the conditions were not optimal, residents saw Pruitt Igoe as their home where they created lifelong memories, especially the female resident interviewees. It is important to hear the residents' perspective because they were the ones that were first hand living in the conditions that were seen as awful to the outside eye. Regardless of this, many of the interviewed residents saw Pruitt Igoe as a home, where they had their own rooms and had a bed to sleep on at night. These children made memories just as other neighborhood children did. They made friends, got into fights occasionally, but in the end they made lasting memories with other children in the same situation as themselves. The male and female interviewees had slightly different views on the housing units, as it seems the males felt more pressure to take on the father figure role of the family, which sometimes led to violent interactions between residents. One of the male interviewees showed that Pruitt Igoe was more of a nightmare to him because he lost his brother to violence within the community there. This showed how unstable the environment really was, and how much pressure the males felt to put on a display of extreme masculinity in order to survive.
The Pruitt Igoe Myth shed a painfully real incident to light that could have ultimately been avoided but ended up only being a learning experience.
Shallow
nlasser17 October 2015
The subject matter is interesting but the execution of the film is incredibly shallow. It's only redeeming point are a few of the interviews which transcend the discussion and manage to bring out some human feeling into is what basically a town-planning policy and execution story.
But as a film, it suffers greatly from the small number of people interviewed - I counted eight, of which only four or five are actual former residents. Much historical footage is used and some of it feels tacked on as a way of adding volume to what would have otherwise turned it be a documentary short. At some point you get a feeling of material being reused in order to fill the time. And that's a shame, as this is both interesting and relevant to much of our society. This case-study deserves a better retelling.
But as a film, it suffers greatly from the small number of people interviewed - I counted eight, of which only four or five are actual former residents. Much historical footage is used and some of it feels tacked on as a way of adding volume to what would have otherwise turned it be a documentary short. At some point you get a feeling of material being reused in order to fill the time. And that's a shame, as this is both interesting and relevant to much of our society. This case-study deserves a better retelling.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
