# Talk:Pruitt–Igoe

It would be nice to have some pictures of just how vile this place was on the page. Kevo00 20:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've just added external links to three pictures of Pruitt-Igoe, including two that illustrate the vandalism of buildings in the complex. These come from a fascinating book that I just found online, available in its entirety as a PDF or partially as HTML. I've linked to a page that allows a reader to download the PDF, buy a copy from HUD, or read the first chapter as HTML. I left the images as external links for now. They look like government images and hence public domain, but I wanted to look into it further before adding them to Wikipedia directly. Anybody who feels surer of their copyright status should go ahead and add them. -- Officiallyover 01:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just finished uploading and describing seven good images I found on the Creating Defensible Space website. I added two images to the article itself, but I think it needs more text before anybody adds more images. I'll include on this talk page the five images currently not in use, as described in the "Image queuing" section of the image use policy.

--Officiallyover 09:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to add them to the gallery section. They might as well be used for something... 68.39.174.238 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide the actual street address where this complex was located?
--unsigned by 68.6.184.19, 16 April 2006

There were 33 buildings in all, all of which had different street addresses.  To roughly answer your question, though, the complex was near a major intersection in St. Louis, Missouri, at approximately the 2300 block of Cass Avenue and the 1400 block of N. Jefferson Avenue (Google Maps link), though the buildings themselves were addressed to these, and a few other streets. Cadastral (Talk) 06:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Might be more (or "more specific") information than you wanted, but I'll present this here just for the edification of any academic or researcher who may need this at some point.  Here are the addresses that I've come across that have been linked to Pruitt-Igoe.  You'll note that there are many, many more than 33 addresses here; this may be because of reassignment of building numbers, or more likely, it may be because of something as trivial as clerical error.  I suspect that at least one of the listings (3251 O'Fallon) is entirely in error.  This is presented without warranty of any kind and was compiled from journalistic sources (primarily the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and St. Louis Globe-Democrat).  Addresses ending in a double-zero were from reports listing the location as the "2100 (or 2200, 2300, or 2400) block of XXXX", and may not have represented an actual building.  I have not heard of a single building number ending in "00", but this does not mean that one did not exist at some time.  Hope it's useful to someone.
Addresses associated with Pruitt-Igoe:BIDDLE STREET: 2200, 2210, 2211, 2230, 2231, 2300, 2311, 2328, 2350, 2351, 2400, 2401, 2410, 2429CARR STREET: 2100, 2114, 2120, 2200, 2230, 2300, 2328, 2350CASS AVENUE: 2100, 2120, 2140, 2200, 2210, 2230, 2241, 2250, 2300, 2310, 2330, 2400, 2420, 2430DICKSON STREET: 2100, 2121, 2141, 2200, 2211, 2231, 2241, 2251, 2300, 2311, 2400, 2401, 2411, 2431DIVISION STREET: 2100, 2121, 2141, 2200, 2209, 2233, 2300, 2309, 2349, 2400, 2409, 2431O'FALLON STREET: 2100, 2123, 2134, 2143, 2200, 2207, 2229, 2300, 2307, 2347, 2400, 2407, 2433, 3251Cadastral (Talk) 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally it was believed that the design was dehumanizing and this caused the failure of the building.  Current thinking has changed to focus more on the quality of construction which was so low that the buildings were falling apart from the first day and essentially unmaintainable at any cost. -- M0llusk 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
During the late 50's and on St. Louis was going through a huge population decline as well.  They had expected to have a steady tenant base and it wasnt there.  Without having the facility fully occupied there was no way the tenants could afford the skilled maintenance workers needed to keep the buildings in a proper state.  Spiciernoodles (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This building type originated with Le Corbusier, a very influential modernist architect, it seems the page should be linked to his. it is frequently cited in arguements about his work.
Possibly Jane Jacobs/Robert Moses as well? this complex is the poster child for the failures of massive government planning & urban renewal.
--unsigned by 71.232.58.118, 24 March 2007

How do you pronounce Pruitt-Igoe? Maybe that information could be added by someone who knows. --128.176.231.100 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The project is pronounced "Prew-it Eye-go", for those whe were not there. --unsigned by 68.94.33.19, 29 July 2007
I've heard the name spoken many, many times by both academics and former residents, and the only pronunciation that is ever used by these folks (who it's safe to assume are "in the know") is:  Pruitt (rhymes with the English words "flew it") EYE-go (like the English words "I go" with the "I" emphasized).  You can hear Robert Hughes pronounce it in his thick English accent at 0:20 of this YouTube clip.  There is no doubt in my mind that this is the canonical pronunciation... but wouldn't add it to the article until someone can source it better.  Until then, you can bet your life on it.  An internetperson told you so.
Another very interesting thing I've noticed regarding pronunciation is that while ALL academics and architecture-types call the place "Pruitt-Igoe", only a slight majority of the former residents I've met will use that terminology.  Former residents will often call it "Pruitt and Igoe" (they were, after all, nominally two different sections of the large complex that is now known by the hyphenated name) or instead use names more specific to the development they lived in ("I lived in Pruitt Homes...") or neglecting to use either word, and instead giving the street address of their specific building ("I lived in 2340 Cass [Avenue]").  These are, of course, only my own (faulty) observations and are non-encyclopedic.  They are presented in this instance only as a curiosity.Cadastral (Talk) 06:19/22/43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone can enlighten us which section was called "Pruitt" and which section was "Igoe"? --BjKa (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The intro paragraph needs to be edited. It is argumentative and un-encyclopedic. Arnob 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Similar projects in other cities, however, were quite successful in terms of increasing quality of life for residents, and reducing racial tensions." is noted as needing citations;  without them, this should prolly be removed. --unsigned by 68.94.33.19, 29 July 2007
Looking up some of the Googlebooks, the pages used for citations are not available for preview. It is my understanding that these must be available for their use as wikicitations. Namely, Ramroth; pages 164. It there some way to physically verify these citations and then include them?--Richard W. Pointer (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at satellite photos of the cite, it seems to be not empty.  Is there a big-box built on the site? DarwinPeacock 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is basically empty. Much of the site is grass or plant vegetation. The building to the south is Gateway.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&q=Cass+Ave+%26+N+Jefferson+Ave,+St+Louis,+St+Louis+City,+Missouri+63106&ie=UTF8&cd=4&geocode=FV2tTQIdEnaf-g&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ll=38.645635,-90.205865&spn=0.015351,0.038624&t=h&z=15  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenin333 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC) 

By "is Gateway" I guess you are trying to say "is Gateway Elementary School". Looks like the School now has a newer large complex covering the south-west of the former housing area. Are they moving out of the old Building? --BjKa (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is little evidence presented here on the causal connection between Brown V Board 1954 and the failure to have whites move into Pruitt-Igoe. From the article cited in the footnotes, it seems that whites refused to move in from the very beginning. And since the buildings were completed in 1956, Brown V Board would not have been an explanatory variable when explaining why whites moved out. They never moved in, so they could not have moved out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.100.90 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC) 

Section edited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenin333 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1968 photo shows four V- and X-shaped structures south-west from Pruitt-Igoe; they have been replaced with lowrise since. What was there and when were they demolished? NVO (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant Southeast.  That's the George L. Vaughn Public Housing Complex.  It stuck around until at least 1981, according to this link [1]. (quoting:)
"...the old Vaughn housing project, a complex which had a long and troubled history. Built in the 1950s, Vaughn experienced maintenance problems in the 1970s which forced the SLHA to relocate some families. Like the infamous Pruitt-Igoe development a few blocks away (demolished 1973-75), Vaughn was built with "skip-stop" elevators, set up to stop only at the 1st, 3rd, 7th and 10th floors. This resulted in great inconvenience and dangerous conditions in the stairwells and corridors of the large high-rise multi-family buildings. Public housing officials closed buildings in the 1970s after gangs set up house. Drug wars left 13 people dead at Vaughn in the summer of 1981. Before the demolition, residents complained of squalid living conditions, with drug crimes and putrid odors."
The last tower (converted to house senior citizens) didn't come down until fairly recently (after 2000?).  It was in a similar situation to the current state of the lone remaining building from Cochran Gardens, also housing seniors, and slated for demolition in 2011.  Only this building and Blumeyer remain in St. Louis of that building style. Cadastral (Talk) 07:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion is very poorly done. Emphasis mine:
Charles Jencks, one of the critics who referred to non-existent awards issued by AIA,[24] used Pruitt-Igoe as an example of modernists' hazardous intentions running contrary to real-world social development.[24] This concept disregards the fact that location, population density, cost constraints, and even specific number of floors was imposed by the federal and state authorities.[25]
This concept does nothing of the sort. Modernist architecture theory INFORMED the very federal and state policies on how to construct these buildings in the first place. If anything, the last sentence should read:
Charles Jencks, one of the critics who referred to non-existent awards issued by AIA,[24] used Pruitt-Igoe as an example of modernists' hazardous intentions running contrary to real-world social development,[24] with the results that important issues of location, population density, cost constraints, and even specific number of floors were not adapted to local needs, constraints of human sociality, or material sustainability. These issues were constrained and imposed by the federal and state authorities,[25] and these authorities were influenced by the theories and ideological framings of Modernist architecture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwarwick (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 

Agreed.  This entire section sounds like it was written by an apologist for architectural disasters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.72.234 (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of similar houses in the post communist countries, but there is/was no such association with crime. (Search for "panel house" or "Panelák"). --Zslevi (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pruitt–Igoe evolves as a self-sustaining myth shrouded in misconceptions."
Wow, actual thoughtful commentary in a Wikipedia article! (OK, so it's from a source, but hey original research isn't supposed to be here, anyway.) This deserves a gold star!drone5 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To me this is a good example of an article which simply needs to be shorter. It reads well, but more like a journalistic feature than a concise encyclopedia entry. There simple are not enough facts to fill the paragraphs, which inevitably means subtle POV and editorializing. A good example is the phrase about corridors attracting muggers. They do? In my corridor there are none. A citation is simply not enough here. The sentence should probably just have been left out. Other than these quibbles, nice work. I learned stuff.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollo (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 

"A 1956 Missouri court decision desegregated public housing in the state.[citation needed] The following year, occupancy peaked at 91%.[14]"
Very next sentence:
The buildings remained largely vacant for years, although sources on exact depopulation rate differ: according to Newman, occupancy never rose above 60%;[13].
Fantastic work guys!
68.188.90.70 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Matt

Obviously corrected now. But still: Citing conflicting sources is a lot better than squabbling over one true(TM) fact. Nothing to complain about, IP. --BjKa (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The source (or rather, the editor of the source) Lawrence Larsen says on pg 60 "There was so much decay that neighborhood gentrification never received serious consideration."  Gentrification is the result of evolving historical and social processes which are considerable only during, or after the fact. So the question remains... Consideration from whom? Consideration asks "Can something occur?" because an act to consider implies that the thoughts and ruminations of the one who is considering will, in some way, place impact upon that which is considered, and thus, weights its possibilities in light of whomever is doing the considering. The implication is that their consideration can and might affect the standing of whatever is being considered--its 'raison d'etre.' Any question over gentrification removes the inputs and opinions of the person doing the considering; rather, they are a bystander, only observing events as they occur--for there is nothing for an observer to consider except the outcome. Larsen's placing of consideration before an outcome has occurred is spurious, at best.  Spintendo (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You're being totally ridiculous, the meaning of the statement is abundantly clear, despite your lame attempt at obfuscation, and is properly represented in the article.  Stop mucking about and wasting other people's time. BMK (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Proper representation is not the problem here. Despite minimalizing the work made by contributers, and a generally (but not surprisingly) closed approach taken by some in reviewing and interpreting information brought by contributers to the table -- this disputed sentence, nonetheless, raises important issues which deserve to be addressed and heard equally.
I. The Suspect Sentence - What Does it Say?
"Decay was so profound that gentrification of the existing real estate was never seriously considered as a possibilty."
In the light of day, the suspect sentence above appears to make what is quite certainly a strange claim: That a consideration was made by a group of people I will call here the Considerees. Included in their consideration was (A.) that an observation of "decay" was or had occurred at Pruitt-Igoe. This decay was "profound." This observation, after appearant consideration. then (B.) ultimately instills in the Considerees a belief that any future gentrification ought "never be seriously considered as a possibility."  
II. The Suspect Sentence - Is It Misinterpreted? or Does It Misinterpret??
The sentinal problem with this sentence is that the cited source, Lawrence Larsen as editor, fails to include evidence supporting how the Considerees arrived at these beliefs; specifically, what was it about thier knowledge / lack of knowledge which led them to assume that an observation of profound decay is indicative of a state where gentrification ought never be considered as a possibilty. Without direct linkage from the "issue under consideration" and the Considerees claim statement regarding gentrification liklihood, the disputed sentence becomes a subjective value statement devoid of qualifying reasons for arriving at its conclusion -- that gentrification cannot exist in the same time and space as profound decay. Rather, it assumes that decay and gentrification exist as opposite poles of two magnets, pushing each other away. Any challenge to this statement's logic is halted, as Larsen provides no immediate evidence for that particular claim. Indeed, the sentence just hangs there, defying both contemplation and interrogation. In any event, the exigent claim made in the disputed sentence by the Considerees fails to comprehend what was, at that time, a barely emerging discipline of gentrification. 
III. Does the Suspect Sentence Allow for Traditional Challenges to its Claim?
By presenting a statement that, coupled with faulty logic (the front door) and a dearth of evidence provided for its claims (the back door), it would seem that the sentence presents as a riddle, leaving questioners unable to enter it through the front or back, in order to challenge its claims--in other words, its reason for being there in the article. 
IV. Does the Suspect Sentence Remaining in the Article Advance or Hinder Our Understanding of Pruitt-Igoe?
The gentrification discipline as it stands currently was unknowable to the Considerees and thus from their viewpoint, immaterial. Acting then as Uninformed Considerees, their hypothesis regarding the liklihood of gentrification can not stand. Resting on an outdated understanding of the discipline, the sentence makes a claim statement regarding a supposed 'consideration' upon gentrifying forces at work on Pruitt-Igoe. As Ive just specified, this view of "decay" as it was understood by the Uninformed Considerees, fails then and now to comprehend the complex character of change in an urban environment.
If the Uninformed Considerees had access to current views on gentrification, they might have noticed the new direction which highlights "causal mechanisms and processes of socio-spatial change." They might also note the conspicuous absence from the newer models of much of the urban research conducted from 1920-1965, research which was, to them, current and unimpeachable. We know now that gentrification exists as a confluence of cyclical, natural processes, hypothesized to affect how a site is ultimately changed and used, via redevelopment opportunities provided by local, federal, and private sector agents, incentivized to steward a property in a direction towards betterment. 
V. If Not Here, Then Where? Where Does the Suspect Sentence Belong, in Order to Better Our Understanding of Urban Planning? 
Offering non-descript "decay" as the only variable worth considering in any forcast of gentrification goes beyond the scope of the article. As this "decay" and what it represented in 1971 is not a valid harbinger of gentrification, the suspect sentence would be better placed in an article discussing societal forces upon the gentry and the poor, rather than within this article. Spintendo (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make new sections for a continuation of the same discussion.
Please do as advised and read WP:BRD.  Articles under discussion stay in the status quo ante until a consensus is reached.  There is no consensus here yet, simply a disagreement between two editors. BMK (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Understanding how much of a non-sequitur the suspect sentence is may be gleaned from a scene in Stanley Kubricks Dr Strangelove. Ambassador de Sadesky, speaking in the War Room with President Merkin Muffley, tells how the Russian Doomsday Device is armed to detonate in case of an American missle attack. At the same time, he explains, the device could never be disarmed, because it would detonate if anyone tried to untrigger it. Confused at this contradiction, the President asks his science advisor to clarify:
President Muffley: "But how is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically -- and at the same time --  impossible to untrigger it?"
Dr. Strangelove: "Mr. President, it is not only possible -- it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, is deterrence."
The suspect sentence would have us believe that because an area has such profound decay, gentrification would be thought of as impossible to occur. And yet, not only is it possible for gentrification to occur amidst profound decay -- it is, in fact, essential. A property must undergo profound changes to its appearance and character, with severe and long-term neglect of the property happening to a point where its abandoned by its people-- for that gentrification process to even begin. In spite of what the suspect sentence tries to tell you, decay --  no matter how profound it is -- is a necessary and unavoidable requirement for the gentrification process. These two terms are not mutually exclusive
The suspect sentence reads "Decay was so profound that gentrification of the existing real estate was never seriously considered as a possibilty." The only reason for the suspect sentence's inclusion is for what it implies -- which is to draw a not-so-subtle inference that Pruitt-Igoe, inhabited by African Americans, had somehow been allowed by them to decay to such an awful state that even the white people and their processes of reinvention (gentrification) couldn't save it. There is in this characterization a hint of schadenfreude --  if not outright racism --  in its wording and its tone. Wikipedia is no place for this type of illogical claim statement, a statement which originated from the Larsen text but was itself, unsourced. Also, I'm not seeing any claims for its inclusion coming from the editor opposite. Even mere considerations of tact would seem to show the irrelevance of a situation whereby an editor defends the status quo ante from a position of silence. Spintendo (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The fact remains that the source is solid, and the information accurately presents what the source says.  You can waste your time proving that the earth is flat, but those remain the salient points. BMK (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Let me also point you to WP:Talk page guidelines, where you will find the following:
Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion...
Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.
You should also take a look at WP:Wall of text. BMK (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this should appear in the article as well. Experimentation on the people there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-0b-wH_kY?t=96
and and 29:48min mark 
https://www.amazon.com/Obsolete-Aaron-Dykes/dp/B01MDQIAPA/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1480531239&sr=1-1&keywords=obsolete+movie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.158.73 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 

Agreed. Now declassified documents admit to testing on the human population in Pruitt–Igoe. I will try and add this info. Saboteurest (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
(8 years later) Why hasn't this information been added? That's not very encyclopedic!
The Pruitt-Igoe experiments refer to a series of secretive Cold War-era testing programs conducted by the U.S. Army in and around the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex in St. Louis, Missouri, during the 1950s and 1960s. The Army sprayed a potential carcinogen, zinc cadmium sulfide, into the air, simulating a biological weapons attack.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/15/us/pruitt-igoe-cold-war-testing-reaj 98.123.38.211 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pruitt–Igoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051208090741/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/pd125.nsf/0/AB4B1191EB6948C186256E04006BBBCD?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/pd125.nsf/0/AB4B1191EB6948C186256E04006BBBCD?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should add more material on the documentary The Pruitt-Igoe Myth.
Plenty of RS such as this [2]
--David Tornheim (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be a way to show readers this relevant excerpt from Koyaanisqatsi that shows the demolition using Philip Glass's excellent music, which I added here.  I wasn't sure if that would create a copyright problem, so I immediately asked at the relevant notice board [3].  JJMC89 did consider it a problem and quickly removed it.  I am adding this note to document that I had taken the precaution of asking about it right after I had added it.  --David Tornheim (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89 Would it be acceptable to add it as an external link? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll repeat part of my reply from ELN. No, it is not permissible to link to link to copyright violations (WP:COPYLINK). — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks sorry, on first reading, I misread the portion of WP:COPYLINK that says "it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site."  I had thought that it was talking about the "External Links" section.  On second more careful reading, it's clear that putting the link in the external link section is not better. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A request has been submitted to WikiProject Missouri for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in Missouri. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been expanding and revising the article in preparation for GA and possibly FA in the future, and I thought I'd leave a note summarizing the main sources used in case it is helpful for anyone in the future.

Rainwater (1970) is a sociological study of Pruitt-Igoe based on extensive field work.
Meehan (1979) is a book-length study of St. Louis public housing.
Ramroth (2007) is a book about architectural disasters with a section about Pruitt-Igoe.
Bristol (1991) is a short but influential paper on the "Pruitt-Igoe myth".
Newman (1996) is a treatise on architectural theory in which Pruitt-Igoe is briefly presented as a motivating example.
Larsen & Kirkendall (2004) is a general history of Missouri.
Montgomery (1985) is a short chapter about the legacy of Pruitt-Igoe. A couple of other chapters in the same anthology touch on the subject.
Rainwater and Meehan are the best sources for factual information about Pruitt-Igoe. Bristol and Ramroth also have some useful details specifically about the project's design. Newman should be avoided for factual claims as he makes a couple of basic errors (he says that Pruitt-Igoe was "torn down about 10 years after its construction", but actually the first building was torn down after 18 years; he claims that "the project never achieved more than 60 percent occupancy", but Meehan shows that occupancy remained above 65% for most of the sixties), however he is still useful for architectural criticism. Larsen & Kirkendall are used for background about St. Louis in the 1940s and 1950s, but where possible specific claims about Pruitt-Igoe are cited to better sources; Larsen & Kirkendall themselves seem to have used Meehan. Ruбlov (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Case history of a failure" from Architectural Forum (1965)
Form follows fiasco from Peter Blake (pp. 154–155)
Article in 1956 Architectural Record
Another article mentioned in the 1973 issue of AF
Another article mentioned in the 1951 issue of AF
"Urban Renewal in DeSoto-Carr: Citizen Participation Comes of Age" by Jeffrey D. Buchanan
"Doomed building is seismic test bed" in vol. 196, no. 26 of Engineering-News Record (1976, pp. 42–43)
"Architecture: Pruitt-Igoe project" in Nation 217 (1973): pp. 284–286 by Jane Holtz Kay
I may get around to incorporating these sources myself, but if not, anyone else is welcome to. rblv (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Rublov has asked me to mentor them through the process of potentially nominating this article as an FAC. Here are some of my preliminary observations and suggestions:

Some of the sources mentioned immediately above, in Talk:Pruitt–Igoe#More sources, could probably be incorporated into the article. These sources should be added if they contain any relevant details that aren't already in the article. I would recommend checking other databases like The Wikipedia Library, ProQuest, newspapers.com, USModernist's magazine library, and HathiTrust to see if there are any other sources that talk about Pruitt-Igoe at length. This would help the article meet WP:FACR criterion 1c, the "well-researched" criterion.
With regards to WP:FACR criterion 1b ("comprehensiveness"), an FAC reviewer might ask why some sections, like the Early years and Description sections, are so short. In particular, one might ask whether the Early years section could be merged or expanded. They might also ask whether the Development section could be fleshed out a bit more (for example, did the buildings have any commercial tenants, amenities, schools, etc.; are there details about the typical apartments, such as number of bedrooms, square footage, etc.).
As for WP:FACR criteria 1a/d, I see that there is an ongoing peer-review request, which is good. If you had not already opened a PR, I would've also suggested asking for a copyedit; although I've definitely seen you do some copyedits for others before, it helps to have a second or third pair of eyes. (I could look more into the prose later if you want, but this is a general observation.)
A reviewer might recommend splitting up the Legacy section with two or more subheaders, per WP:FACR criterion 2b ("appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings"). That section has seven full-length paragraphs, and there are a few themes that I can see here - contemporary commentary, weaknesses in the design, retrospective commentary, impacts on Yamasaki's reputation and public housing. On a similar note, newer FAs tend to avoid single-sentence paragraphs, like the final paragraph of the Legacy section.
To ensure text-source integrity, I would recommend spot checking 20 to 25 percent of the sources in the article before it's nominated. First-time FAC nominators are always spotchecked, so it would be good to get that out of the way before an FAC nomination. I notice that the first GA reviewer found issues in their spot checks and that the second GA reviewer only spot checked a few sources before deeming the article as okay. FA spot checks are much more comprehensive, though.
Finally, I would double-check the copyright statuses of the images and look for any potential close paraphrasing. I didn't see any copyright violations, but close paraphrasing is something best avoided at all costs. Looks like I typed "licenses" instead of "images", my bad. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
– Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, much appreciated. Close paraphrasing is something I'm a little worried about. After the first review I became paranoid about text-source integrity, perhaps to the point of hewing too closely to the source's wording. I'll go through the sources and see if I can dig up any examples for you to look at. rblv (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)