Viewing page 24 of 25

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

meaningful activities at bothlocal and public levels. AS it was, an opportunity was lost to use the residents for the benefit of themselves and of the City, too.

If, finally, Resurrection City did not show how people should live, it did show the problems too many have in how they do live. For too many people there is a lack of response in services and security needs. For too may, there is a lack of rewarding chance for involvement, locally (as the two boys making a shelter with windows and bunks) or publicly (as the young Marshal from Chicago who was calming people). What Resurrection City was able to give its people is what, too often, other cities and towns do not. And, for some, for a while, it did give not only food and shelter and medical attention, but challenge and involvement, as well.

^[[CONCLUSIONS ARE WEAK. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE OF CITY PLANNING IN GENERAL?]]


^[[R.C. 
ALLOWED
DIRECT INVOLVEMENT & "[[ditto for DIRECT]] RESPONSE TO NEED.
AT OTHER END OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM, COORDINATION END, THERE WAS FAILURE.]]


22