Walt just chanced to hear an interview with a community planner who works for a city on the shore of one of the Great Lakes. She was talking about an "at-risk" neighbourhood in that city, which its residents call "the Jungle". It's a 65-acre slum, near an expressway, where for some reason there is a concentration of gang activity, drugs and gun crime.
One might ask why this is so. One might think that the type of housing -- social or "low-income housing" -- might have something to do with it. One would be wrong, or so this enlightened planner thinks. The problem, dear readers, is the architecture and design of the "community"!
There are too many alleys and dark corners. That's why people deal drugs there. The school playgrounds don't have jungle gyms [Did she really say that? ed.] or other equipment. That's why kids are afraid to go there. Many of the buildings are high-rises. That's why people pee in the elevators.
Now that we know the cause of the hooliganism and crime that besets the neighbourhood -- race has nothing to do with it, of course -- the solution is obvious. Tear down the buildings and start over!
Plant some trees. Cover the expressway. Encourage people to get out and walk more, especially after dark. Gentle reader, I kid you not. That's the plan to put an end to the perpetual rumble in the jungle.
But please tell me. Am I the only one experiencing cognitive dissonance here? Am I the only one who thinks something is outta whack? Can it be true that the residents of the Jungle have nothing to do with its problems?
No comments:
Post a Comment