I don't think that anybody is questioning that there were some really bad buildings for which the only reasonable outcome was to demolish them, nor do I think anybody is questioning whether the general intention of the activity was to improve the city.
However, anybody with even a remote sliver of objectivity in their being has to realize that when there is a mass demolition that takes place in a location for which a large redevelopment is proposed, there is a strong likelihood that 'good' buildings will be demolished in order to facilitate the project. Whether those owners were properly compensated for their loss is not common knowledge. Indications are that it didn't happen in all cases.
I was too young to remember it clearly nor to be privy to the processes involved, and thus have only the physical evidence presented in the form of photographs and existing buildings in nearby neighborhoods which managed to survive the 'urban renewal' fad. Perhaps some of our more senior members can relate their personal experiences and enlighten us to a greater extent.
20/20 hindsight tells many of us that perhaps we would have been better off if those projects hadn't been initiated in the first place, given the current state of affairs with Cogswell, etc., but we can't possibly know the outcome had it not occurred, since it is not our reality. We can discuss it, though.
My hope here is for an informative and objective discussion about it, without the injection of statements bordering on derision from some posters of other posters' opinions. It does nothing to advance the discussion.
IMHO, civil conversation without the 'barbs' is preferable, but not required, I suppose... The differing opinions are interesting, and perhaps informative in some cases. It's been good read, regardless...
