It is certainly the case that large public housing estates are being associated with poverty and crime. This is not necessarily due to the architecture—though t

It is certainly the case that large public housing estates are being associated with poverty and crime. This is not necessarily due to the architecture—though there's plenty of bad architecture that makes people's lives more difficult and drab to go around. It is also the social policies and attitudes that came along with it. Compare for example the image of big, poverty-ridden Thatcherite public housing in the UK with similar-era public housing in Hong Kong. The utilitarian architecture is similar, and in some ways less aesthetically pleasing in Hong Kong (with external pipes for easier repair). There were cramped conditions and scarce amenities. The initial focus was to quickly settle a mass of people victims of a big fire in a squatter settlement. http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/about-us/publications-and-statistics/housing-dimensions/article/20110902/fun-deck-public-housing-blocks-design-in-evolution.html http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/about-us/publications-... But I think the difference is that the government in Hong Kong quickly listened to the wants and needs of the population, and designs very rapidly changed as more public housing was being built. The prevalent philosophy quickly became for the estates to be a self-contained community. So ground-level space was allocated to small businesses, and shared courtyards facilitated small scale enterprise. At the same time most of these these estates were quickly connected to the extensive rail network and thus to the rest of the city. The vast majority of inhabitants did not own a car, and did not need to. While Hong Kong was by no means crime-free, I think these inclusive policies that took into account the need for small scale enterprise, industry, connectivity, etc., managed to stave off many of the problems that emerged in similar public housing estates elsewhere. My point is that large-scale, top-down development on its own isn't bad if the project takes into account some of the lessons we've learned by, among other, Jane Jacobs. Le Corbusier and his type should not be seen as villains, they just suffered from some misconceptions. We don't have to make the same mistakes. So to frame it as an either/or issue is the wrong approach