So do you think urban blight can't be turned around?

[Seir]

Before the mid-90's, New York City used to have a very bad reputation in the United States. For a very long time you wouldn't even think of taking a vacation over there. Some of you who've visited Manhattan and Times Square in recent years might be surprised to hear that 42nd street used to be known for it's porno shops, prostitutes, and cheap motels rather than Disney, MTV, and mega-stores. I just felt like creating this thread to show that with the right people you can turn around the effects of urban blight.

To compare and contrast you here's a thread with photos of NYC (Harlem especially) from 1965 to 1995.

Graffiti, Crack, and Despair.

Now compare this to Harlem as you'd see it today.

Part 1

and

Part 2

Quite the contrast, isn't it?

Although I think the infamous Summer humidity is going to be a problem for awhile.

[NotQuiteDead]

I don't think that the core problem is with urban blight from a physical/architectural sense. Urban blight is a state of mind, a state of being. Until people (and I'm talking about black, white, yellow, brown, purple, ad nauseam) DECIDE to improve what goes on around them--and more importantly, buck up and do for themselves instead of relying on an increasingly broken government--then we can polish the turd all we want. It's still going to be a turd.

Harlem is a great example of this--it wasn't just slapping fresh paint on an old wall. The residents of that borough decided that enough was enough and changed along with the structures for the better. I like what I see and I hope I can visit it someday!

[Gowerlypuff]

It also cost a ridiculous amount of money to acheive and, in this day and age, it will be hard to convince a population that it's a worthwhile spend. The minute you talk about spending zillions on improving ways of life, people are going to ask where you'll get it from and it won't be that population that will want to pay for it, no matter how bad things are.