THE filmmakers behind “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” confronted a formidable task: to strip away the layers of a narrative so familiar that even they themselves believed it when they first set out to make their documentary. Erected in St Louis, Missouri, in the early 1950s, at a time of postwar prosperity and optimism, the massive Pruitt-Igoe housing project soon became a notorious symbol of failed public policy and architectural hubris, its 33 towers razed a mere two decades later. Such symbolism found its most immediate expression in the iconic image of an imploding building, the first of Pruitt-Igoe's towers to be demolished in 1972 (it was featured in the cult film Koyaanisqatsi, with Philip Glass's score murmuring in the background). The spectacle was as powerful politically as it was visually, locating the failure of Pruitt-Igoe within the buildings themselves—in their design and in their mission.
The scale of the project made it conspicuous from the get-go: 33 buildings, 11-storeys each, arranged across a sprawling, 57 acres in the poor DeSoto-Carr neighbourhood on the north side of St Louis. The complex was supposed to put the modernist ideals of Le Corbusier into action; at the time, Architectural Forum ran a story praising the plan to replace “ramshackle houses jammed with people—and rats” in the city's downtown with “vertical neighbourhoods for poor people.” The main architect was Minoru Yamasaki, who would go on to design another monument to modernism that would also be destroyed, but for very different reasons, and under very different circumstances: his World Trade Centre went up in the early 1970s, right around the time that Pruitt-Igoe was pulled down.
The promise of Pruitt-Igoe's early years was swiftly overtaken by a grim reality. Occupancy peaked at 91% in 1957, and from there began its precipitous decline. By the late 1960s the buildings had been denuded of its residents, the number of windows broken to the point where it was possible to see straight through to the other side. The residents that remained had to act tough for the chance to come and go unmolested. Critics of modernist architecture were quick to seize on the design of the buildings, arguing that such forward-thinking features as skip-stop elevators, which stopped only at the first, fourth, seventh and tenth floors, were wholly unsuitable and ultimately dangerous. Designed to encourage residents to mingle in the long galleries and staircases, the elevators instead created perfect opportunities for muggings. Charles Jencks, an architectural theorist, declared July 15th 1972, when Pruitt-Igoe was “given the final coup de grâce by dynamite”, the day that “Modern Architecture died”.
Directed by Chad Freidrichs and currently travelling the American film-festival circuit, “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” complicates that picture by considering the larger context. The city of St Louis was undergoing its own postwar transformations, to which a project such as Pruitt-Igoe was particularly vulnerable. The city's industrial base was moving elsewhere, as were its residents: over a short period of 30 years, the population of St Louis had shrivelled to a mere 50% of its postwar highs. The Housing Act of 1949 encouraged contradictory policies, offering incentives for urban renewal projects as well as subsidies for moving to the suburbs. Federal money flowed into the construction of the projects, but the maintenance fees were to come from the tenants' rents; the declining occupancy rate set off a vicious circle, and money that was dearly needed for safety and upkeep simply wasn't there.
Abstract policy decisions and large-scale economic changes are difficult to render compelling, no matter the medium, but this documentary succeeds in finding the drama. Original footage from Pruitt-Igoe's early days, including a promotional reel replete with a buoyant, 1950s-era voiceover and cheerful primary colours, runs up against desolate photographs of the project's decline. The film also features interviews with several former residents of Pruitt-Igoe, who convey their hopefulness when they first moved in, as well as an affection for the buildings that for many of them persists to this day.
In their eagerness to challenge the Pruitt-Igoe myth, the filmmakers verge on suggesting that the design of the buildings had nothing at all to do with the failure that ensued. But critics of High Modernism can point to the counter-example of Carr Square Village, a low-rise housing project built in 1942 across the street, which didn't suffer from Pruitt-Igoe's escalating rates of vacancy and crime. Clearly many factors—economic, demographic, political and, arguably, architectural—converged on Pruitt-Igoe.
“The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” owes much to earlier academic work that exposed the seams in the dominant consensus. This eight-page paper by Katharine Bristol, published in the Journal of Architectural Education in 1991, offers more analytical rigour than could be captured in an 84-minute film. The difference, of course, is that the documentary carries a more visceral punch, which gives it the potential to reach the kind of wider audience that Ms Bristol's 20-year-old scholarly paper never had. In order to unseat a powerful narrative about the failure of modern architecture and public housing, the filmmakers have offered a powerful narrative of their own.



Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Based on a few of the comments below, I think some people are misunderstanding what is meant by the "design" being flawed. It wasn't just the poorly designed buildings themselves, but the architecture of the ENTIRE project. Two or three poorly constructed 11 story buildings may have been sustainable, but 33 of them on 57 acres is massive! The amount of maintenance and security required for something like that is huge, and it just wasn't available. Combine that with despondent tenants who are spending the majority of their income on rent to live in a poorly maintained, unsafe place - and the fact that able-bodied males/fathers weren't allowed to live there, you have a recipe for disaster.
I lived in St. Louis during the creation and subsequent destruction of Pruitt-Igoe. You will never convince me, nor most of the citizens of the city, that the project failed because of its design or architecture or its skip-stop elevators. It failed because the folks who lived there shouldn't have been allowed to live there. Maybe they were more comfortable with the rats. By the way, P-I paved the way for the destruction of the city's entire north side.
The problem with the “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” is that they never put any blame on people. They find comfort in identifying bureaucracy but not in the actual residents. Some of the interviewees think it's okay to do whatever you want as a guest in someone else's house (the taxpayers), such as blast your record player in the doorway for the entire for to hear. Really, is that what we do in as a guest, well I guess you got your answer, and that is NO. The Lord of the Flies mentality may work in fiction to some extent, but not in reality. Pruitt-Igoe was a beautiful place when built, but in less than 10 years, those who needed shelter destroyed it. Yes, there was a lot of bad planning on the city level, but that doesn't excuse the behavior of the animals who lived there.
you try living there for a year and see how the built environment changes you
you try living there for a year and see how the built environment changes you
From an architectural standpoint, when looking at creating public housing you want to look at what the needs are for the residents that will live there and look at the overall urban architecture of the surrounding area. The Pruitt-Igoe housing failed at both. The housing while providing shelter did not provide safety for its residents. Instead it was a perfect opportunity for muggings. When you look at this project from a bird’s eye view it overpowers the surrounding areas. Really they set themselves up to fail. There was no way to sustain the number of people to upkeep these building because of the large scale and government encouragement to move towards the suburbs. If they wanted to express modern architecture in this particular city they could have done it at a smaller scale or they could have moved this project to a different city with a similar urban feel.
As others have noted, high-rises of this kind are almost the norm throughout much of Asia, such as Singapore and Japan, but the crime rates are practically non-existent.
I'm intrigued by this notion that the architecture has some kind of subliminal effect, as it were, on people's behaviors and attitudes but ultimately it would seem more a case of "taking the person out of the ghetto but being unable to take the ghetto out of the person," so to speak....
I'm glad that a documentary was created with the subject of architecture being the focus. And failed architecture too; quite a gutsy move in today's movie industry. I live near St. Louis, and I have never heard of any of these destroyed representations of failed architecture. I wonder if it is a wide known subject of discussion, in which case I would have failed as a local, or if it is an underground subject. Either way, a documentary about failure sounds extremely interesting.
I'm glad that a documentary was created with the subject of architecture being the focus. And failed architecture too; quite a gutsy move in today's movie industry. I live near St. Louis, and I have never heard of any of these destroyed representations of failed architecture. I wonder if it is a wide known subject of discussion, in which case I would have failed as a local, or if it is an underground subject. Either way, a documentary about failure sounds extremely interesting.
jennb924 said, "This story could have been more informative by giving examples of modern architecture that were similar to this project which did not fail."
I don't think it's modernism's fault that this project failed here's a housing project in detroit called Lafayette Park designed by an architect named Mies van der Rohe. Apart from the design some reasons why Lafayette is was more successful is diversity of residents (in terms of a variety of units attracting a variety of incomes) The way these buildings are placed on the site is quite beautiful. You never feel like there's a large skyscraper looming over you because of the way he plays with perspectives and interstitial landscapes spaces. (Unlike Pruitt-Igoe which appears to be thoughtlessly placed in a grid.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_Park,_Detroit
Perhaps it wasn't modernism's fault (considering the entirety of the movement), but Corbusian point block housing (which seems to have almost universally failed in the US). Mies integrated low-rise buildings as well, and along streets. Pruitt-Igoe came out of a different, more terrifying, modernist idea about eradicating the traditional city (see the Plan Voisin, and what it would have done to Paris).
This story could have been more informative by giving examples of modern architecture that were similar to this project which did not fail. This was just one project out of many which failed at some point, because at some point the buildings either did not work anymore or just became outdated. It seems it failed incredibly fast in this project, and I personally would like to learn more about the infrastructure of the building to understand why exactly it was the architecture that made this building a flop.
Having studied in St. Louis and lived there for a while, I was surprised to learn about this. St. Louis has many ailments, and to me it seems that adequate housing is one of them. Going north three blocks past the St. Louis University campus the area changes from affluent high-rises and graceful buildings (ex: The Masonic Temple, the Fox Theater) to squalid, dirty, and overgrown homes. One of my Bosnian friends told me quite bluntly while driving by that neighborhood, "I lived in better housing during the war" and I believe him. There are houses with no windows or roofs, and there are people living there (squatting or otherwise). Living north of the SLU campus, it was not uncommon to hear sirens and gunshots nearly every other night. During my time there, it seemed that blocks and blocks of these sort of homes in conjunction with empty factories and dilapidated infrastructure cloaked much of St. Louis. I like to compare this to the much more affluent neighborhoods around Washington University and The Loop, where it is much safer to walk around at night and there are plenty of thriving businesses.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the article was talking about how the lack of meaningful employment and an evaporating local economy contributed to the eventual downfall (literally and figuratively) of Pruitt-Igoe, moreso than the design and quality of the housing complexes themselves. Right, or wrong? Because to my unfortunately uneducated background in architecture and sociology, these would not have been atrocious places to live otherwise.
CynicalOftenRight wrote: "rather than hunting them down and shooting them, which sadly is what will probably happen at some point. "Can't happen here [in USA]?" Ah, how little you know of history."
I guess I'll bite. Provide a historical example of this occurring in the USofA, professor.
One old example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots
Blaming the design is a convenient way to avoid blaming the management or the system which creates these crime parks. It's all part of the bureaucratic cycle of shifting blame and getting funding for the same thing all over again.
A lot of Federal money flowed into public housing. But that was untenable - socially and economically. A highly centralized and visible mistake.
But there is another "invisible" problem, which is socially different, yet economically the same. A lot of Federal, state and local money flowed into suburban development (tax incentives for developers, roads, schools, utilities). Untenable, but highly popular. The commercial and residential development sector of the US will not spring back to even 70% of its pre-2007 levels without these government supports (or subsidies). Yet many people continue to pretend that the real-estate development sector of the economy will spring back, ignoring the "necessity" of the governmental contribution - a contribution which may no longer be made.
When will there be a solution to this issue? It wasn't the architecture, it was the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings themselves. When will nicer housing be available to poverty stricken residents? If something is not nice, you will not have a sense of importance to keep it that way, you will feel fine if something gets broken etc. It is a cycle. If the building was nicer, the residents would take damages much more seriously.
I'm not surprised that no one would want to live there. From the looks of them they seem like a pretty shitty place to live, especially if they were designed for poor people (let's be honest, no one wants to live in a poor, crime riddled neighborhood). I bet they could be a success if we gave subsidies to those who moved to apartments instead of those who moved to suburbs and they were built with practicality in mind rather than attempting a modernist style. Personally I hope that urban sprawl meets it untimely demise.
Why not work to limit the number of poor, uneducated, rather than provide bread and circuses (and public housing)? I envision mandatory birth control, cash reward for NOT breeding and completing education milestones, etc. rather than hunting them down and shooting them, which sadly is what will probably happen at some point. "Can't happen here [in USA]?" Ah, how little you know of history.
I am trying to understand this article… wills there be, always, a problem if we put ‘not so nice people’ in public housing projects?
In Singapore, 80% of its citizens and residents live in government-provided apartments, either bought or rented from the authorities. Singapore’s high-raised government-provided flats has been the norm for the last 46 years. Do have a look-see, judge and see what decent humans can do for each other.
Frankly, I am not gobsmacked, when a tiny minority can not performed to expectation if the majority does not show leadership or even worse there is no leadership or commitment among/from this initially privileged minority.
@SaskatoonMark
Another possibility:
Residential high-rise concept works if the residents are all Japanese: Look at Tokyo.
Minoru Yamasaki failed to realize the fundamental difference in
psychological outlook of the Japanese and American residents; there
are many high-rise apartments fow low income residents in Japan that
are designed almost identically (with 4th and 7th floor elevator
stops), and are now coming to their natural age.
"I would agree that architecture can affect the way these activities occur, but surely the fact that they are large problems at all has much more to do with the society around them?"
I echo these words. The idea that any architectural design, however brilliant, can stand alone without consideration of the context in which the finished structures are erected is unrealistic at best. The hope is a lesson is taught and a lesson will be learned.
@SaskatoonMark
But why then, do the narrow alleys of a traditional British or American industrial neighbourhood present the same opportunities? The back alleys of traditional British industrial workers housing in cities like Birmingham, Coventry and Liverpool might have been the centre of communal interaction between neighbours in halcyon days past (or this glorious past might never have existed), but now in some areas they are notorious for the abilities they afford loitering, drinking, drug-taking and mugging.
I would agree that architecture can affect the way these activities occur, but surely the fact that they are large problems at all has much more to do with the society around them?
I lived in St. Louis most of my life. I can remember the day a school mate, in this case a Caucasian girl from a large family, told me she lived at Pruitt-Igoe and the chill it gave me to imagine her life in this hellish setting. Some decades later a mall in downtown St. Louis, a glass-roofed charmer, became, not as horrifically as PI, but similarly, a victim. Architecture certainly can influence attitudes and behavior, but it's very, very important to understand this relationship better and to think through how architecture can be projected to sustain itself over decades. Focus on glorious openings that are expected to contribute to reputations might be looked at more closely as a factor.