Does anyone else see irony in the fact that the neighborhoods that were rejected for less than wholesome reasons (mostly race) in the past are now the most often sites of new developement that is sustainable and healthy and will most liekly live longer than the 'good neighborhoods'?
I'll use Chicago as an example because I've witnessed this all first hand. On the South East side, the area around Calumet Park to say, Gary Indiana, there are 25 EPA Superfund sites. Areas so toxic that they must be constantly monitored by the EPA. What this does mean, however, is land is extrememly cheap and underdeveloped (most of the manufacturing companies moved or closed). So now large swaths of it are being converted into Eco-preserves and one, in Slag Valley, is being converted into an alphalpha farm, what will be the largest urban farm in America. (alphalpha's deep roots will help break down the pollutants faster and make it useable soil again). Or in the former "Rust Belt" or "Color Belt" where the cities large African American populations have lived for the last 50-75 years and were more or less passed over by the post war boom that gave us wasteful sprawl-like building and tract housing. Here the old ways of Urban Design still reign as an example for redevelopement, but there is still a low enough median income to need large amounts of Public Space and small business developement is an extremely functional way to raise median income.
So basically, when the industrialists and land owners of the past thought they were screwing over the blacks, hispanics, jews, asians and whoever else, they were just handicapping them for a generation or two while they[the developers] cut thier own legs off with plastic knives.