Talk:Pruitt–Igoe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Failure due to lack of maintenace? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New construction? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Social Problems 

message: "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)
thread_title:  some kudos implied 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good article but needs reworking and purging 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Max. Occupancy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Experiments on the population 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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 .   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)
replies: text: Would it be acceptable to add it as an external link? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube excerpt of Koyaanisqatsi 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notification: [[Housing in Missouri]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: * "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)
thread_title:  More sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC comments