These three case studies portray housing projects influenced by modernist city planning, to varying degrees, and that  resulted in starkly different outcomes. From the comparative analysis of these exemplars arise three key factors:

First, architectural dynamism, not ornament, is necessary. All three exemplars employ minimal ornamentation or frivolous features – a clear rejection by modernist thinkers. But where they deviate is the level of visual and experiential dynamism they introduce: Pruitt-Igoe’s grey, uniform towers, Singapore’s lightly colored and highly ventilated housing complexes, and the playful and richly colored structures in Comfort Town. It is clear that architecturally intriguing designs greatly shape our experiences – and therefore our perceptions of – our built form.

Second, governance and equity in design decisions play a critical role in ensuring each project’s viability. Pruitt-Igoe’s decisions were made by government housing officials, as part of the United State’s slum clearance program. This top-down approach involved the complete erasure of the settlements that came before it – what the program deemed as “slums” – as well as the design of spaces with minimal input from its future inhabitants. This disconnect continued through the decades of its operation all the way to its demolition. One of the most important factors leading to its decline is that it failed to reflect and support the evolving needs of its residents. Similarly, Singapore’s HDBs were designed with minimal public engagement. But its leaders thought more comprehensively about the viability of these projects, ensuring that these not only satisfied the need for housing, but for a holistic living experience. In stark contrast, Comfort Town was a genuine reflection of its community. Co-designed by residents, the neighborhoods in Comfort Town thrive in their diversity and community. It is clear that engaging the future residents of a housing development is integral to promoting positive housing outcomes.

Third, the intent behind the designs provide insight that can greatly impact the longevity and success of a housing development. Pruitt-Igoe was response to the exorbitant demand for housing in the post-war inner cities. A modernist framework accommodated for these factors because it allowed for the fast and cheap construction of ample housing units. While this approach isn’t inherently flawed, planning processes as part of developments must be multi-layered and multi-faceted. With housing as the primary, and only, consideration, the structures of Pruitt-Igoe were quickly bombarded by the social, political, and operational roadblocks that were not conceived of in the pre-design phase. This points to haphazard urban design as one of the critical factors for its decline. Singapore’s widespread HDBs were also a response to a pursuit for comfortable housing for all. This was key to the Singaporean housing experiment: comfortable housing. This meant that neighborhoods were designed to offer more than just housing but the full range of urban experience. Singapore’s decision-makers took careful thought of the longevity of these spaces, amidst a mass mobilization of housing. While most HDBs borne out of this period have been demolished or conserved, they successfully, at a pivotal time, provided critical housing while ensuring a holistic living experience for their residents. Comfort Town had the privilege of not being built primarily as a response to housing demand. While still offering ample housing, the complex was designed to provide an alternative to traditional Ukrainian living – proposing an urban experience that bolsters community connections (rejecting corruption) and celebrates the vibrancy of human life.

It is true that the modernist city planning framework is prone to misuse and exploitation by their decision-makers, resulting in disorganized and chaotic places that fail to meet the basic standard of human living. These have been misused to exert power, silence voices, and perpetuate negligence. It is clear that modernism – and other architectural movements – are wholly dependent on the political, cultural, and social contexts in which they are realized.

Despite this, one cannot label modernism and its figureheads as invalid. These principles were a product of their time and reflected society’s pursuit for improved human existence. All three case studies were borne out of critical needs being met and represent our search for truth.  The architects of the 20^th century, amidst global conflicts and paradigm shifts, lay the groundwork for the development of our modern-day urban centres. We, as architects and planners of today, have the privilege – and responsibility – of developing urban outcomes that look beyond basic housing but engage the wide spectrum of urban elements. We have the freedom to deconstruct and reorganize our built forms to better and more sustainably meet our needs.