Home > Urban Planning > The Candyman (Can’t) Cabrini Green and “Architecture of Difficult Beauty”

The Candyman (Can’t) Cabrini Green and “Architecture of Difficult Beauty”

Cabrini Green, an infamous public housing project (made notorious and immortalized in the horror film The Candyman), is nearly entirely demolished. As Great Society projects continually fall down around us I can’t help but wonder why so much built in this era of idealism proved to be so ephemeral when contrasted to great undertakings of previous generations. Even in this government preservation document concerning buildings from the Great Society era, there is little reverence expressed for the architecture and even an open call to rehabilitate as much as possible. The overall sentiment and tone, as contrasted to other eras, seems to me one that does not so strongly fear the wrecking ball.

One quote from that document I find particularly rich is This era can be characterized as an architecture of difficult beauty…We must separate the bad from the good–and there are plenty of bad buildings–but we must make these distinctions with subtlety and scholarship” from Robert Stern, Dean of Yale School of Architecture. I find these words richly ironic, not because they are attributed to Mr. Stern, but because they come from a Dean of the Yale School of Architecture. Any Nutmegger whose walked the streets of the old Elm City, or knows their local history, is acutely and painfully aware of the difficulty of the beauty inflicted on the city at this time–most of it originating from Yale architects. New Haven today is a fine place to revisit the pleasures of the “Brutalist” style thanks to Yale School of Architecture. (I am also astounded by his contribution of such a brilliantly nuanced and open standard for preservation as “subtlety and scholarship”).

Our social needs, of course, have not diminished since the Great Society projects. I’m not an apologist for the large warehousing of America’s poor that took place during the excesses of our welfare state, but I’m equally distressed that we as a country seem allergic to discussing or advancing solutions to the same problems we felt so urgent then. They have not gone away, our poverty problems have metastasized.

Although I believe giving people vouchers and subsidies is empowering and a far preferable way of spreading opportunity in poor communities, and that it is far better to diffuse poverty than to segregate and concentrate impoverished people for a host of social and economic reasons, the danger is now that we are not adequately providing in levels to the need. This will only bring us back to the Dickensian conditions that began the first progressive movement nearly a century ago.

I am not saying there is an architectural design solution to the rampant poverty in America, but to posit that the shortcomings in both the quality of this era’s construction and design have inhibited our abilities to think ambitiously. The crumbling architecture of the Great Society era are ever present symbols and advertisements of the failure of our most recent, large scale projects. Even worse, many inspirational architecture of a preceding era have been demolished. The landscapes of today often serve to deaden the political will and stiffens the conventional wisdom that success cannot come in big packages.

  1. kristenej
    March 2, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    I think it’s sad not that there’s a lot of preservation of these buildings, but that they were built in the first place. With the exception of Greenbelt, MD, most mid-20th century public housing projects were built cheaply and to almost coral others it seems. We went from Victorian relishes, to build cheap and they will come. Now as many buildings fall apart, people are looking back to older, more sustainable ways of building. If this building had been built as a shiny jewel, we might still have it standing today.

  2. March 2, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    One of the funny things is, if you watch the movie Candyman for instance, is that many identical buildings were made that weren’t intended as public housing, and are today very expensive Gold Coast luxury residences. In my old part of the world, there are plenty of 1910 housing for factory families that are in very bad condition because they still are slums, one hundred years after their designation as slums with very little done to improve them. Their continuing functioning is both a mark of shame that we cannot do better, and a mark of pride at how sound their construction was in the first place (although if you read newspapers from that time, people thought they were dreadful. If the neighborhood ever gentrified, people probably would fight with their fortunes to occupy them). So, I think a society’s attitudes, needs, desires have as much to do with how sustainable something is than how they were actually designed and constructed.

  3. kristenej
    March 2, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    True, perception and marketing are key. Also, is there something that can be done to encourage people to take pride in homes, no matter what designation is given to them?

    • March 2, 2010 at 7:32 pm

      The answer has traditionally been “yes, make them homeowners”, as if property/financial interest is enough. I don’t think this is the only thing or enough. I think we also have to link them aesthetically and symbolically into a longer tradition that presents people’s homes as something more meaningful and important than their individual use. I think people’s homes, rental or ownership, need to be reassuring and communicative of a person’s worth to the community and society. They cannot just be private boxes with windows that you use to spy outside. Although there is certainly much more to it than just the physical arrangement of things, I believe it matters.

  4. March 2, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    “The look is important,” says Lerner. We used glass to reduce graffiti, but also to make it pleasing. Because the more people like something, the more they take care of it.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: