Comments on: Ramot Polin: Crazy Israeli Architecture Gone Terribly Wrong

By: xoussef

xoussef — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:10:17 +0000

Maybe just a tad hastily written Tafline?

I think the key word here, and what Tafline probably meant, is “isolation”. Other than the salubrity, sustainability and aesthetics of the architecture, which are open to debate of course, there is this mono-cultural community, issued from a minority, economically disadvantaged, literally physically isolated from the rest of society. That, everyone will agree, is a recipe for disaster, as many many *projects* and *cités* dotting Europe and the US demonstrates, if historical examples weren’t enough to teach us. On top, the combination of apparently ill thought architecture and rigid religious beliefs is worrying.

By: Melinda

Melinda — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 15:36:27 +0000

I am distraught by your article- Would the buildings make any more sense if they were currently occupied by the secular population that they were built for? “but now it has evolved into a bizarre eyesore and a sanctuary for the country’s Orthodox Jews”- really? isn’t most of northern jerusalem occupied by orthodox jews? and a sanctuary from what? i’m pretty sure it was the cheap rent that brought them. and the “bizarreness” of the “eyesore” really stems from families trying to make the rather challenging architecture useful to live in, a natural evolution of an originally very impractical building (your article doesn’t include pictures of unchanged interiors- crazy angled walls that challenge our usual use of walls, corners, rooms and furniture)

By: Barry Fadams

Barry Fadams — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:11:02 +0000

You wrote: “supposed to encourage middle-income Orthodox families to settle.”

I don’t know where you got that information. It was Teddy Kollek’s great idea that it be sold to secular families, in order to create a secular stronghold.

You wrote: “newly appropriated land”.

This is based on a travesty. The land was owned by Kollel Polin, an Orthodox group, before 1948. When the land was regained in 1967, instead of giving the jews back their land, the State kept it and sold it. Since no secularist was willing to live in such a mostrosity, the price hit rock bottom due to zero demand. Kollel Polin, the original owners, bought it back from the State and sold it to Orthodox families. Hence its name, Ramot Polin.

By: Tafline Laylin

Tafline Laylin — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:23:52 +0000

Rochelle, apologies for not responding sooner. I have been out of town. I understand your concerns; it definitely was not my intention to disparage the lower income group. I only stated that originally the government hoped to encourage a certain demographic but was not successful at doing so.

By: Rochelle

Rochelle — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:36:03 +0000

You write: “the 720 unit complex…was an architectural experiment…supposed to encourage middle-income Orthodox families to settle. Instead, the crumbling Ramot Polin complex now provides sanctuary to low income religious groups.”
Do you realize your language expresses disrespect for 1 group while approving another? Using “groups” for the low income people you don’t like dehumanizes them vs “families” for your preferred people – cheap & unworthy of journalism. I live near this architectural monstrosity, and I know residents there who are “modern orthodox” – it is inhabited by a more diverse population than you claim. No one there wants it or likes it but it is affordable for them. It is very hard for middle class people as well as poorer people to find any affordable housing in Jerusalem. If this were torn down, it would take at least 5 to 10 years to get through the bureaucratic morass needed before something else could be built to replace it.