‘Wipe out the entire slum area’: university-led urban renewal in Columbia, South Carolina, 1950–1985

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
Sophie Kahler ◽  
Conor Harrison
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Urban Renewal ◽  
Slum Area

The Rise and Fall of St. Thomas

2018 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Vale
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
New Orleans ◽  
Urban Renewal ◽  
Community Organizing ◽  
Mixed Race ◽  
The State ◽  
Hope Vi ◽  
Housing Authority ◽  
Slum Area ◽  
The 1960S

Chapters 3–5 focus on New Orleans to illustrate one dominant strand of HOPE VI practice—the confluence of a weak housing authority and a Big Developer governance constellation in a city without a robust tradition of coordinated tenant empowerment. Chapter 3 traces the rise and fall of the St. Thomas development, completed in 1941 and later extended in 1952. This replaced a mixed-race “slum” area with public housing for white tenants, an act entailing a substantial neighborhood purge. The fifteen-hundred-unit development shifted to primarily black occupancy following desegregation in the 1960s and subsequently underwent disinvestment that led to a protracted decline. Meanwhile, the Louisiana legislature rescinded the state enabling legislation for urban renewal, thereby limiting its impact on both slum clearance while also curtailing the rise of community organizing. White preservationists stopped the Riverfront Expressway, but no one stopped Interstate 10 from devastating a black neighborhood.

Textured Cuts: The Demolition Cinema of Pedro Costa and José Luis Guerín

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-138
Author(s):  
Anna White-Nockleby
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Urban Renewal ◽  
Urban Landscape ◽  
Slum Area ◽  
Global Crisis ◽  
Work In Progress ◽  
Looking Back

This article reexamines the aesthetics of the cut through cinema that challenges the possibility of totality. Looking back at films of demolitions in two Iberian cities, the author considers how cuts – both architectural and cinematic – reveal fissures created by urban renewal projects that preceded global crisis. En construcción ( Work in Progress, 2001) by the Catalan filmmaker José Luis Guerín follows the reconstruction of Barcelona’s neighborhood ‘El Raval’, while Portuguese director Pedro Costa’s No Quarto da Vanda ( In Vanda’s Room, 2000) films residents in a slum area of Lisbon as their houses are slowly demolished. By attending to neighborhoods that were ‘cut out of’ the urban landscape, these films contest the representation of unified cityscapes, exposing the fractures underlying economic development. The films also provide new ways to understand the ambivalent aesthetics of the cut, which both violently wounds the surface and exposes what lies behind. I will argue that ultimately thresholds produced by the cut speak to the ethical ambiguities of filmmaking, in which the camera inevitably alters whatever it views, thus exposing the textured incompleteness of the image.

An Ultrastructural Comparison of Hepatocytes from ADH+ and ADH−Peromyscus Maniculatus

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Adult Male ◽  
Uranyl Acetate ◽  
Model System ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Genetic Stock ◽  
Hepes Buffer ◽  
Transmission Electron ◽  
Color Scanner

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document