Maybe the metaphor is a stretch, but wouldn’t it have been nice if the same care taken in protecting these tress from the looming destruction of the C.J. Peete Projects (formerly The Magnolia) had also been extended to the former residents? Not to slight the trees …

The destruction of these buildings seems careless and seriously lacking in creative thinking. It’s not the buildings’ fault. I agree with a point made by editor b:

But I have a hard time with any plan that calls for tearing down sturdy building built in the 1930s. We just don’t build to the same quality today. But we seem to have developed a spatial fetish about those buildings.

We have some friends who live in Fort Sheridan north of Chicago. Fort Sheridan used to be a military base (built in reaction to the Haymarket Riot), but it was closed during the first round of base closings in 1990 (it fully ceased official operations in 1993). Granted, Fort Sheridan is near some of the wealthiest communities in the country, so it was clearly poised for a glitzy rebound, but take a look at the building below. I’m no architect and I don’t play one on TV, but this building looks not that different from project buildings around here.

(photo credit: abbyworld)

I can see knocking down a few, or even most of the buildings–more green space, make way for neighborhood-friendly commercial development, maybe some less dense housing–but is it really necessary to get rid of all of them?

Update: At my flickr page for the first picture above there’s a series of comments theorizing how extensive the “droplines” are for these trees and whether or not they are being protected sufficiently. The metaphor stretches further.

Derek Bridges, New Orleans