i dont have any answers for your questions. but here is my take: with so much of NO terminally damaged by katrinas flooding why choose for additional loss. my stance on preservation is not to mandate it through legislation but build a dialog and hope for a more informed public who would resist and resent more loss through the rebuild. i would imagine that it was a bankrupt and broken welfare system would allow all these projects to become so run down. that becomes a downward spiral when no proper respectable place is there when respect of place (home) is a necessary component of keeping a place respectable. rehabbing and repopulating these empty brick building would go a long way in rebuilding a broken system. its quite possible that nicely rehabbed projects would be trashed in short order. a nice rehab however could make them very desirable to deserving families and individuals. call it a renaissance or a metamorphosis transformation program. take the necessary actions to insure it doesnt slide into the previous decline. it could be a symbolic turning of a corner for the city. offer respect and it will (should/could) be returned. i think your saying that a return to squalor is inevitable or still endemic. if it is endemic then it will happen where ever and in what ever you rebuild. i dont think the problem is the buildings them selves so why punish the buildings?
i think they could find (and should find) devastated (unsalvageable) lots to develop for low income-mixed income, welfare (section 8 ?) peoples. my point is keep and rehab what is salvageable. try to salvage and rehab as much as possible. shed a tear for that which cant be salvaged, rebuild and develop there. and thanks for the input jl.
|
- bill 1-03-2008 10:34 pm