Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Reflection
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
profile
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
History
Over the years, gang violence and the city's neglect created terrible conditions for the residents, and the name "Cabrini-Green" became symbolic of the problems associated with public housing in the United States. In 2005, only about 5000 residents remain. Several of the buildings have been razed and the whole neighborhood is being redeveloped into a combination of high-rise buildings and row houses, with the stated goal of creating a mixed income neighborhood with some units reserved for public housing tenants. The plan, and the way it is being implemented, has proven to be controversial.
The Ida B. Wells Homes Housing Project was built in 1941 as a PWA (Public Works Administration) project. It included a city park and was a segregated development for African Americans. In 1961 the Clarence Darrow Home Project was built adjacent to the site, and it was demolished in 2000. In 1970 the Madden Park Homes Project, the last of the large CHA public housing projects, was built on another side of the Ida B. Wells Homes. Today, Ida B. Wells is mostly vacant and awaiting demolition.
Ida B. Wells Homes consists of 2 and 3-story brick apartment buildings which are not necessarily bad in and of themselves. However, they were arranged in a configuration that created numerous hidden spaces and pockets between buildings where drug dealing and violence could occur. The site features vast internal spaces which are hidden from view and isolated from the city streets.
CREDIBLE vs. NON-CREDIBLE SOURCES
My first credible source is http://www.uic.edu/orgs/kbc/ganghistory/UrbanCrisis/Blackstone/BRindex.html
This is source is credible because:
It has very few ads on the site page.
It focus is on my topic and other related issues.
The author is clearly stated he is Timmel Black.
The page also gives sources on where he received his information from.
Lastly its credible because it ends in edu.
My second credible source is
This is a credible source because:
This website has NO ads at all.
It also ends in org.
There is no author given The site is geared toward my topic
There are no sources given.
My Third credible source is
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/index.cfm
This source is credible because:
The site has gov.
It focuses on my topic.
There is a author.
Some sources are given.
There are no ads.
My understanding on credible sources didn't come easy. What I learned was that in order to have a credible source it has to be basically strictly about your topic straight to the point.
My First Non-Credible source is
http://http//barelybad.com/cl_theprojects.htm
This is a non-credible source because:
It has the .com at the end.
There is no author.
Its not mainly focusing on my topic.
There is also no source information.
My second non-credible source is
http://http//www.eclipse.org/projects/
This is a non-credible source because:
It doesn’t give a exact author.
There are many different ads.
No source information given.
This site doesn't have anything to do with my topic.
It also has a .com.
My Third non-credible source is
http://http//www.theprojects.com/
This site is non-credible because:
It really doesn't focus on my topic.
This is a .com site.
There is no other.
No sources were given.
There are a few ads.
Learning about the non- credible sites was fun. I learned that all the sites that i go to on the regular are non-credible.