Purlieu vs. The Unpolished

In "Little Boxes: High Tech and the Silicon Valley," Margaret Crawford argues how the flexible, and network based structure of Silicon Valley was woven through the the use of adaptable buildings. Who knew these buildings, thought of by Malvina Reynolds, would bring in residents of identical backgrounds and purposes through the years. These homes morphed for families including "engineers with their families, working class homeowners, low-wage production workers, groups of unrelated high-tech employees, and Chinese and Indian immigrant families."

 Crawford goes on to say that affordable, easily available workspaces easily allowed new entrepreneurs to start up new businesses with minimal risk. This relationship between adaptable buildings, and diverse people groups, a dependency on cars, and "haphazard planning" allowed for new solutions, products, and start ups. Through these adaptable buildings, could a formula for encouraging a change in social housing be in play? I agree with Crawford that the use of building types such as these that are easily changeable encourage an environment that can continuously change. 

I do not know where I stand in terms of Crawford's final statement to "defer judgement." She believes that to have a critical eye can be seen as a negative assessment. This shows that she truly does not understand the purpose of an academic approach. We need to look at examples like Daly City to be learned from for suburbia development and improvement.