This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Objectively, this article uses a small sample set to criticize an urban planning concept. I live in Radburn NJ and I have lived in an urban development consisting of large apartment blocks arranged around a superblock and adjacent to public housing arranged in a similar fashion. You cannot distinguish the social failures simply by blaming the housing design; rather it is the placement of transient residents alongside "needy" residents such as elderly who have nowhere else to go and cannot defend themselves or stand up for others against criminal activity. Transient residents have no stake in the community, thus they either ignore or are intimidated by destructive forces and have little incentive to become involved. It is easier to pick up and leave when you don't have a mortgage or a bank account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
This is an interesting topic, but I still can't see just why they failed?
Can anyone expand on this? Are there any good sources?
I can understand why some locations fail as housing, mostly owing to social factors outside the house design. But as houses, these look like an attractive proposition to live in - and they were adopted as EPCOT. Is it really their housing layout that caused problems? Which aspect, the front or the back? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)