Overall I would say in this article I knew most of these problems existed just due to my prior knowledge from Perspectives in the city of Atlanta. I did learn many things as far as transportation with the building of highways and bridges. Where minorities aware of this problem when it was actually happening?

This honestly comes at no surprise to me especially since minorities main way to get around was public transportation due to not being able to get a job because of race and also not having opportunities to get their own transportation.

libertarian paternalism is the idea that is it both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice, as well as the implementation of that idea according to Wikipedia.

How would constraint functions shape behavior or a particular built environment?

I feel as if this is what's happening with a current situation at our school, Georgia State University. The Turner Field coalition group. The designers or buyers are not really taking into consideration the feelings of the citizens.

the definition of ubiquitous would be existing everywhere or at the same time according to dictionary.com

When it comes to the city of Detroit, I expect it considering how the city is today. When you build certain neighborhoods in order to keep a certain race from moving to a wealthy neighborhood it never ends up good or how it is supposed to.

When not talking about segregation, I always thought the reasoning of highways were built to better suit the city of Atlanta in order to get to and from work not steer traffic from wealthy neighborhoods.

I usually take the MARTA a lot and it never occurred to me that the buses never go to the more wealthy neighborhoods even though the trains do get pretty but it is not as convenient as the actual bus for the MARTA bus stops.

I experience this built environment everyday and its crazy that you never know until someone brings up the specific topic.

When I looked at the title of this article I realized that we had talked about this particular topic in Perspectives but only in Atlanta specifically.

Summary : This article informs on the history and background of segregation while also describing how physical design causes segregation.

In this sense architecture is easily comparable to the cultural history that art and painting styles have created a story for us. Both change in traceable trends which reflect the culture and people creating them. Art history may focus on an even more abstract concept than vernacular architecture does by analyzing the highs and lows of an era based upon what their art depicted.

Buildings and structures have an incredible longevity about them, that in an academic perspective, allows researchers to avoid possible biases and second hand records left by authors or records of the path. Buildings are the most honest of story tellers.

Quality over quantity is more important when drawing from and citing sources.The best solution to a problem is often the simplest one in similar philosophical terms

This is applicable in a sense to science as a whole. No one different subject holds more significant weight over another in the end because they all must interact to expand their own personal fields. Intellect breeds and thrives from similar intellect

Building types indicate trends within society. Changing ideals are reflected within what we build; minimalism for example is a rising trend both artistically and architecturally currently.

Due to vernacular architectures lack of being a "library" science, it is largely based on an observer utilizing their deduction skills to piece together a much larger picture of how a building fit in and told it's own story. The only truth is the one you establish about it

Vernacular Architecture focuses on a much more abstract and larger question than the typical elements that seem to make it up. The studied buildings are meant to speak for themselves rather than be given relevance based upon other events, people, or things attributed to them.

What is the difference in physical and material presences? Physical existence is an obvious concept, but material existence may refer in this case to the value and relevance we assign to objects we surround ourselves with.

This section implies a generally repeating theme for the tools of survival, or artifacts, found throughout different cultures

What does this represent or look like? Material culture outlines the larger picture of the world in detail; the differences between Roman and Modern architecture for example, due to two entirely different value systems.

This concern presents the aforementioned idea that classism is attributed to race in American society. Stigmas surrounding the black community may stem from their oppression on a socio-economic scale.

This argument presents the idea of a slippery slope, that one issue inevitably leads to another, more pressing matter. However, I believe this contributes the reputation of the city of Atlanta as mentioned above; the mere presence of homelessness alludes to issues of poverty, addiction, and crime in the city, and contributes to the negative perspective of the city maintained by many visitors and outsiders.

The efforts of positive integration mandate an intermingling of races and classes, although this statement poses the idea that isolation might better allow for the progression of lower-class individuals and families. In fact, the idea of relocation to public housing mandates the removal of these groups from their current locale.

Recent actions by local police reveal that city monitoring and control often discriminates against the poor and homeless. A recent law allowed for cops to disperse loiterers in areas such as parking garages, to contribute to the feeling of safety in the city. Suits have been filed against the city, claiming that such legislation targets homeless individuals who seek refuge in these spaces.

Many of my annotated bibliography articles addressed the presence of homelessness in the city, and its contribution to Atlanta's reputation for crime and danger. Unlike other cities, downtown Atlanta is not bustling with locals at night. Visitors and tourists are then confronted by the presence of homelessness and poverty in the city, which is associated with crime. Many of the articles I have studied propose solutions that deal with the expansion of shelters and resources available to the homeless and poverty-stricken, to keep these individuals off the streets and decrease their proximity to the reputation of the city. This essay proposes similar solutions through the process of positive gentrification.

This is an issue addressed in many of my annotated bibliographies, as poverty becomes cyclical and seemingly inescapable for so many Americans. Lower-class individuals do not have the resources necessary to procure better employment and living conditions; this is evident in our discussion on the expansion of Marta in class, and the importance of cheaper public transportation to lower classes.

This idea supports the argument made in our perspectives course that race and class are closely tied. As discussed through our study of the graphic novel Blacksad, prejudice in many places abroad is derived from class. In the United States, we have masked class with discrimination targeted at race.

As detailed in the Atlanta Business article, this is a course of action that will be utilized by the city of Atlanta once the Peachtree-Pine shelter is closed. In order to support the individuals and families displaced by its closure, the city is negotiating the purchase of low-income housing options nearby.

This descriptions of efforts by cities to diminish poverty is the same as gentrification, which has both positive and negative impacts on lower-income individuals and families. As presented by Max in class, the introduction of Krog Street Market to a certain community increased the cost of living in that neighborhood, driving out this populace.

The Atlanta Business article by Dave Williams details city plans to close the Peachtree-Pine homeless shelter, and convert the space to a police and fire facility. City officials met to vote on the action, but the council was delayed by complaints and protests from members of the community. The article catalogues continued efforts of the city to terminate the shelter’s operation, accused of “‘warehousing’ the homeless.” The shelter has in turn accused Atlanta officials to maintain agenda of negative gentrification. Ultimately, the city continues with its plans to transition the shelter, while seeking low-housing opportunities for individuals and families displaced by its closure.

The author presents an objective chronicle of the council meeting, and the members’ idiosyncratic perspectives on the shelter. However, I have read numerous articles on the closure of the shelter, and most are devoted to the perspectives of Anita Beaty and other members of the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless. This Atlanta Business article does not consider the concerns and arguments of this group, or the effects of the closure on the homeless population. The perspectives presented are mostly biased to positively portray the city and its council members, although the article deals with a controversial issue in Atlanta.

From what I've learned this semester, this is the question at the root of urban planning and development: how will this effect the upper and lower classes respectively? To what extent are these projects meant to integrate these two vastly different groups of people? At what point do they just become money-making schemes? In the case of the BeltLine, the original intent of the project was to create a space accessible to and affordable for all. The popularity of and the potential profitability of the project has cause priorities to shift in favor of the upper class.

The issues surrounding integrative mixed-income neighborhoods are understandably complex and often call into question the rights of existing residents while facing considerable backlash from both income groups. The term "positive gentrification" seems almost an oxymoron these days, at least for current residents. Gentrification is more or less synonymous with whitewashing in the sense that poorer minorities are forced out of the neighborhood after it is revitalized. This often discourages gentrification. At the same time, the higher class is concerned with the the safety and upkeep of their neighborhoods, which may encourage plans to oust the lower class.

After searching for mixed income developments in the United States and coming up with results that more or less discussed how much of a failure they have been, I decided to search for public housing successes in other countries. The best examples were by far Vienna and Singapore, which both maximize urban space and succeed in integrating income groups. They offer residences for people of all classes, and there is a noticable difference between housing developments in the United States and these two countries.

Singapore

Vienna

New York City

Image credits: http://www.shareable.net/blog/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore

http://archpaper.com/2013/07/five-nyc-mayoral-candidates-camp-out-in-public-housing-for-one-night/

This reminds me of Sara Schindler's article about discrimination and segregation through the physical design of the built environment. In contrast to what Schindler address in her article, middle income housing seeks to eliminate segregation by physically integrating communities through middle income housing. As the article says, however, this is easier said than done. In order to enfranchise (if you will), members of the community must feel that they have a right to where they live and connect to their community.

This is an issue that seems to come up fairly frequently in our discussions of Atlanta and the built environment, although it's generally a fear that seems relatively unfounded. Superblocks are generally unappealing and unwalkable because they create areas that lack interaction and economic activity. That sort of desolation in a city environment generally means that gangs and undesirables are more likely to congregate in these areas, and therefore people are afraid to walk there. Here we see that fear validated--most of the crime in Westhaven Park originates from the Superblock. Areas like these can be improved dramatically by doing things like adding trees and narrowing the streets to encourage foot traffic.

I think it's interesting to note the dynamic between community members. While the physical community exists and includes everyone who lives in the mixed income housing neighborhoods, the black community exists separately from that. The renter's attempt to separate herself from the "negative ways" of her neighbors raises a couple of questions in my mind. Why should her neighbors' behavior be considered negative? This question is similar to one the article poses: what's wrong with hanging out? This "othering" and separation between races and classes is at the root of segregation, and while we tend to believe that there is only response on the part of the "superior" residents, it is clear that the their counterparts react negatively to the separation and othering as well.

The conclusion of the experiment was surprising and unexpected to me. I sincerely believed that the physical integration of the community would allow the residents to overcome the social challenges outlined in the article. It also makes me what the extent to which same income neighborhoods are successful in terms of overcoming social issues like race, or even general differences between neighbors. Are the problems surrounding the gentrification of neighborhoods rooted in class, or are they rooted in other issues, like race or the appropriation of space? I think it would be interesting to conduct studies that would serve as a standard of comparison for the Chicago mixed income housing units.

Another reason why mixed-income development face particular backlash is stigma surrounding public housing. As Blumgart says in his article, "Public housing in the United States is associated with failure and misery," and I would agree. Most, if not all, of the "projects" in Atlanta have been demolished. A good number of them lack public funding and fall into states of disrepair while people are still living there. They are breeding grounds for poverty, crime, and troubled children. The public housing policies in the United States are terrible, but, as the author states, "there is nothing inherently doomed in the concept of public housing."

Blumgart, Jake. "4 Public Housing Lessons the U.S. Could Learn From the Rest of the World." Equity Factor. Next City, 26 Aug. 2014. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

This is one of the most frustrating aspects of urban development in my opinion, and it's completely at odds with Lefebvre's right to the city, which is rooted, as the article says, in value and habitation. The city is more or less meant to be public space, funded for the people and by the people. Unfortunately, the neo-liberal values of American culture come creeping in and private companies feel the need to swoop in and make a profit with no interest in the public good. In the case of real estate, they tend to gentrify struggling areas and effectively eliminate any possibility of the original residents living there by installing more expensive housing and businesses. Once established, these neighborhoods and businesses exclude the original residents from the community and the private companies profit off an area that wasn't really theirs to begin with.

In her article, Maria Saporta explains the reported reason behind Atlanta BeltLine founder Ryan Gravel's departure from the BeltLine board of directors. Joined by fellow board member Nathaniel Smith, Gravel resigned in order to draw attention to the lack of attention the Atlanta BeltLine Partnership has given to "issues of equity and affordability." According to the article, the Atlanta Beltline Partnership is the private sector organization responsible for fundraising, advocacy, and affordability along the BeltLine.

In the full story, which is published on the SaportaReport and includes the full resignation letter signed by Gravel and Smith, the two former board members express concern over the ABP's emphasis on fundraising above affordability. In their letter, they also expressed concerns and regrets over the loss of community input in the project, saying they believe that "who the Atlanta BeltLine is built for is just as important as whether it is built at all." Despite the increase in funding, the ABP has ignored its obligation to create affordable housing along the BeltLine. According to the letter, recently acquired funds will support fewer than 200 affordable units out of the required 5,600. Their resignation will, hopefully, result in "elevated concern" for the affordability and equal access of the BeltLine.

Saporta, Maria. "Beltline Founder Gravel Resigns from Board." Atlanta Business Chronicle, 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 05 Nov. 2016.

Saporta, Maria. "Ryan Gravel and Nathaniel Smith Resign from BeltLine Partnership Board over Equity Concerns." SaportaReport, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 05 Nov. 2016.

Potential conflict is very easy to see from this table. There are way too many variances in income, education level, and family style. The notion of positive gentrification aims to create an environment where people of different ages, classes, and races can not only coexist but thrive as well. However, people naturally segregate themselves for reasons. They like to be around other people in the same conditions as themselves. It is not for lack of opportunity necessarily that people choose to live in certain areas. A lot of the reason people choose to move to an area is because they feel comfortable their due to the presence of people much like themselves. For example, when searching for my apartment, my roommates and I looked for places that were not only affordable and close to campus but also for places with a high student population.

In theory gentrification always sounds like a positive change. This article as a whole desribes how the wealthier residents could help the less-fortunate residents, but it is never discussed what benefts the former would receive from the latter. If there are no benefits, then what incentive do the wealthy people have to live in these mxed-income communities? And on what grounds do these planners determine that the residents living in "social isolation" dislike their condition?

This proposal brings up the idea of changing the behavior of people to mimic a high-income neighborhood. People are unable to stand on their own porches or walk around their own neighborhood because of the social implications such harmless actions have on the identity of a neighborhood. Residents are being reprimanded for such trivial things. This causes me to question, then, if there even is such thing as "positive gentrification"? Who exactly does it benefit if the residents themselves can't even sit on their own porch?

In mixed-income areas like the one proposed, there are many different kinds of people interacting with one another. While diversity is a positive thing, there is potential for a lot of conflict surrounding differences in culture across the income levels. As mentioned in my comment above, class plays a large role in this proposal, and it plays a large role in the way communities function. What is deemed acceptable in one community is not acceptable in another. With such a diverse place, it would be hard for people to feel a sense of community amongst one another. Community is one of the things humans strive for most as a sense of comfort. Without that shared sense of community, these mixed-income homes will ultimately fail.

As discussed in previous articles we've read, city planners often use design to make certain areas unavailable to certain people. In this example, the area has no benches, tables, etc. in the area, and that is why people "hang out" in the streets or near doorways. The absence of places to sit and gather is most likely intentional. The planners for this area knew that if there were places for people to leisurely sit or gather, there would be an issue regarding loitering and possibly illegal group activities. The result was one that was not intended; people chose to gather around doorways and in the streets instead, which ultimately made for this unwelcome feeling as mentioned in a previous annotation.

This quote from the Asian American woman is a perfect example of how certain factors can affect the built environment of a location. The woman has difficulty explaining why the loitering, swearing, and fighting contributes to an overall uneasy feeling in the area. One thing the built environment descriptions we do focus on these small details that alter the feeling of a space. While there are no illegal actions occurring, the presence of certain individuals within a public space can make it seem scary or unwelcoming.

If someone were to study the architecture of the houses in southern Louisiana that Ben Brown talks about in "Unpredictable, High Risk, High Cost: Planning for the Worst is the Worst", they would find no substance most likely, only content, which could actually lead them in some interesting directions with their research.

In "Unpredictable, High Risk, High Cost: Planning for the Worst is the Worst", Ben Brown argues that natural disasters are going to start occurring more frequently, which means we'll need to start designing our buildings to protect ourselves, so how will a change in design reveal what our cultural values were to the people of the future? Perhaps, it will reveal that our own safety was most valued by us. Maybe we'll start to see more buildings being destroyed by natural disasters like in the case of Louisiana. In which case, the people of the future may not be as tied to history as we are now.

I would think that this makes culture extremely hard to study. It must be really hard to find hard, aboluste cultural evidence to use for research. All you can really do is observe people and read things that they've written, which would make your evidence really subjective to whoever made it.

In "Unpredictable, High Rise, High Cost...", Ben Brown argues that not only can we not simply live in nature, but we can't live beside it either. It attacks us, so we need to find ways to get around it. Could the study of vernacular architecture lead to any improvements in how we design buildings to withstand natural disasters?

Vernacular researchers are kind of half archeologists too.

I was part of a very small percentage of students who supported the transgender students that attended my High School, so it's not hard for me to believe that these prejudices will be passed down for many generations to come.

I don't think people will ever really reach a truce on anything. As Tick says in "His & Hers", we are on the move towards a time where post-gender will affect our designs, but I think that some people themselves will never truly be able to give up their natural hatreds. In fact, it may also be that we never reach an ethnical truce, a racial truce, a religions truce, or any kind of truce. Not until our history is able to vanish or our minds augmented and uploaded will we be able to drop our biases.

I've personally never really understood this argument. If a man really wanted to go into a woman's bathroom to sexually assault them, he'd just do it anyway.

There were only two transgender people in my graduating class, and they both had to go talk to the principle because of people complaining about them using the bathroom. After a month or two of parents constantly calling in to the school, complaining about the transgender students, and begging for them to be kicked out, things finally cooled down. However, the transgender students had to use the single stall bathrooms that were reserved for teachers for the rest of the year against their will. I've always thought that was extremely sad, and looking back "His & Hers", I'd argue that schools (at least in the south) still haven't caught up to the races in gender identities. They haven't even caught up to the workplace in my opinion.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that marriage has a biblical connotation.

With regards to race, there still isn't really absolute equality, so will gender equality take as long as racial equality has to come about.

It's really hard for me to grasp the notion that this legislation is like the Jim Crowe laws. I'm not saying that they aren't the same, but it's just really scary and sad to think that laws like that are still in place.

In "His & Hers", Tick argues that the spacial design of the workplace will change very soon to fit different peoples sexual and gender related identities, and she says that it all starts with the bathrooms. I person is very vulnerable in a bathroom, and unless they can feel comfortable, they won't be able to work at that place.

I think that the term "marriage" has a really religious connotation to it, which is maybe why its taken so long for same sex marriage to become a reality. In Christianity, homosexuality is considered absolute evil, and I think that the American definition of marriage is mostly associated with the Christian definition of marriage.

I've definitely heard this phrase said a lot where I'm from and in my own family. Some people, especially in the south, just can't come to terms with the changing sexual landscape of the American culture.

In "His & Hers", Tick argues that we are on the horizon of this conflict being solved and of a post-gender world. Based on the changes that I've seen through out the past few years, I'd say that I agree with her.

Tick, Suzanne. “His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society - Metropolis Magazine - March 2015.” Accessed October 31, 2016. http://www.metropolismag.com/March-2015/His-or-Hers-Designing-for-a-Post-Gender-Society/

In this article, Tick argues that the world of design is falling behind in the changing landscape of gender identity. She then points to how design is still under the influence of modernism, which was a movement shaped by predominately male perspectives, and she says that it wasn't until quite recently that we started to see a more feminine design coming into the workplace with windows and softer colors. She then goes on to compare the workplace to other areas of design like fashion, which she says is one of the most forerunners in gender evolution because of its rapid movement. She ends the article by addressing the problem of the transgender people and bathrooms by stating that in the near future, we should start to see design in the workplace that accommodates to all sexual orientations.

"Making Bathrooms More 'Accommodating'" covers many of the same issues presented here. However, these two articles working in conjunction paint a much broader picture, showing that there are schools and institutions across the country facing similar issues. This will undoubtedly lead to a Supreme Court case where there will be a final decision.

Whenever there is something that people don't understand, there is going to be conflict, no matter what. Depending on how this current situation over transgender restroom usage, there is sure to be another situation that will cause controversy. One of the largest problems with any of these situations is that the general public, as talked about by Bazelon, is not informed well enough to fully understand both sides of an argument. Only when both groups understand a topic are they able to make a concise decision.

This relates back to Bazelon's article, "Making Bathrooms more Accommodating." There are many situations arising in which there are members of communities that are transsexual, and are therefore trying to make use of the amenities provided to their identified gender. Accommodations for privacy as a whole may serve to solve a large number of these problems.

Bazelon, Emily. “Making Bathrooms More ‘Accommodating.’” The New York Times 17 Nov. 2015. NYTimes.com. Web. 17 Oct. 2016

Throughout this article, there is a presentation of the debated issues regarding transgendered members of society. In recent times, there have been many debates regarding the rights of some minority groups in America, most notably being the LGBT community. However, once gay marriage was legalized in 2015, another important topic that came up was the discussion of transgendered people and their rights and access to different parts of the community. Many people have brought forth concerns about having biologically male or female people in the opposing restrooms if they identify as male or female (Bazelon). Unfortunately, there is a widespread backlash in areas in which schools and public restrooms allow transgendered people to use their restrooms and locker rooms. How can they ensure the safety of all people involved? Even though this article does a good job of discussing the issue of transgender people, there are some details that they do not address. One of the main talking points was male-to-female members of society, and how some people perceived a possible threat to the biologically female citizens. While this may be a valid concern, it does not properly discuss a female-to-male members. If a male who has transitioned to a female is required to use a men’s room, there may be threats and or actions taken against them, and it may escalate the situation. There needs to be a higher level of privacy providing features that would enable all members of an area, no matter if they are trans or not, to be able to use the area effectively and feel safe in doing so.

Education about the issue will dramatically help. Whenever there is a situation that arises, it is paramount that all individuals involved understand completely what they are getting into. Without a full understanding, there can be no real concensus. People need to understand the mind set of the trans members of their society so that they are able to understand their struggles and work to improve the situation for everyone, ensuring an atmosphere in which everyone is safe.

This is one of the biggest problems. These outside groups are making their own determination as to the gender of the other person, and that should not be the case. If "Student A" perceives herself to be female, then no other person has the right to tell her that she is not.

Times have changed dramatically. America has become a very private society, and this is especially the case with young children who are beginning to change, both physically and mentally. By being forced to change in front of other people, many people experience anxiety. There needs to be a total overhaul of the system so that all people have a higher level of privacy, and this would help solve some of the issues that arise with these new debates over transgender accommodations.

Gender roles have been deeply engraved into the minds of many people. It is with this most recent generation that some people are beginning to break away from these norms. Women are no longer expected to stay at home and take care of the kids, gay people are more widely accepted. As a whole, society is advancing to a point in which they are accepting of the non-conformative people breaking these gender norms.

This is a good start. Rather than alienating the transgendered youth, they are making provisions for both groups of people, allowing them to coexist in the same area. Education about the topic is the best place to start, and if people are better able to understand the situation, it may lead to better regulations.

It is common sense. Common sense is not always right however, as it is only the construct of the society in which you belong too. One persons common sense may differ entirely from another, in the case of gender roles and who can use what, the common sense between the two parties are extremely skewed away from one another. To those who are for the movement believe it is common sense for a child to feel safe in their expression of who they are, while others, who do not share the same sentiments, common sense would dictate their aversion. In "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" by Emma Green, Green's common sense differs from others as she believe it is fundamental to create an environment where people can safely express their individuality.

But would this really work? Theoretically, this law may be able to help transgendered people in one way or another, but that is not going to stop the harassment from outside groups. It is one battle won in a larger, more violent war. Trans members of society have a much higher chance of not only suffering from depression and suicide, but as well as having a much higher murder rate. How much would this law really do?

To me, this appears as though she is saying that this sudden focus on transgendered members of society is a result of their previous focus on gay marriage, which is now legal. It is almost as if they area a scapegoat.

I think that the mainstream understanding of a lot of things is changing. Just a few decades ago, such things as sexuality, gender, and social norms were very rigid. However, in recent years, society is beginning to be more understanding of and accepting of what was once considered a great disparity of society.

Kennesaw State University staff and students are up in arms over the appointment of their new president, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens. Olens protested a gay rights bill, and many opposed his decision to do so.He also opposes gender neutral bathrooms, which would strongly inhibit transgendered students at KSU. The problem with his appointment was that staff had no say in it, as well as the damage it would do to the safe space Kennesaw State was trying to establish. With Olens in charge, many students would likely not feel safe on campus from fear of harassment and even potentially violence. This is detrimental to the University as a whole.

Brasch, Ben. “Kennesaw State Students, Faculty Hold Silent Olens Protest.” ajc. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

“1600-Genderbread-Person.jpg (JPEG Image, 1600 × 1035 Pixels) - Scaled (22%).” N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016

As the graph above illustrates, gender identity comes from the mind, the expression of which is the embodiment of the human psyche. The mind is a very complex and delicate piece of machinery, so much so that the entirety of its functions, what it can do, still remains a mystery. Gender identity, being connected to something so profound and delicate, is a topic of utmost sensitivity. The constant denial of what the mind believes itself to be causes anxiety, depression, and an overall feeling of difference. The pile up of these emotions have, as Jen mentioned, led to very high rates of suicides. They view health problems in terms of the "victim" however, they do not consider the strain it causes on the transgender student.

The same sex marriage law catered to a certain minority so that they can express their right to marry whomever they wish. The law was made to allow the basic right to marriage, yet proposed bills that cater to people who otherwise find the act repulsive, due to religious belief, are on the chopping board. Religious right is inalienable, so is the right to marry, what then, is the problem if legislation are in place to allow people to practice their belief and not attend ceremonies where the act offends their religion?

The age old argument. If men (identify as female) are allowed to use the bathroom, and the situation arises, they can overpower their women counterparts and sexually assault them. What these supporters fail to mention is that, even without legal allowance of men going to into women bathrooms, people who wish to do such acts do so without regards. These acts, despicable to the highest of levels, still happen on a daily basis. Men who wish to assault women in bathrooms exists, and will continue to do so with or without the law on their side.

Are they exposed, though? Occupants are not openly exposed when they use the restrooms. There are dividers, stalls, that separate and hide body parts. Since that is the case, what is the problem with having an identified female going to the room in which they identity with? Major concerns over privacy are no doubt just, but there is a solid metal wall that separates you from the other.

Replace "transgender" with African-Americans and the argument resembles those of past gross negligence towards the injustice faced by black citizens on issues of violence and discrimination. We now look towards that point in history with contempt and disgust, yet in today's society, we are doing just that which we criticize our predecessors for. Not unlike the past, we are not acting fast enough on these issues; we let them foster on and on. The time has come for these problems to be addressed, with clear and comprehensive legislation passed for accommodations.

"His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" by Emma Green. Summary:

The article starts off with the acknowledgment of the changing in gender roles. Because of such changes, Green appeals that designers should take note of these differences and help promote acceptance and change through their designs. Green then goes on mentioning the condition of design within the working world of today, to which she attributes to the modernism movement; a movement deeply connected to the male perspective, as they are the ones that dominate the working force. Green makes the claim that a wave of feminism will hit the work force, in response, Tick reaches out to designers on that they should focus on incorporating "gender sensitivity" into the workplace. Giving examples of the type of changes, such as adding more windows, more "softness in texture," in essence, a re-haul of the old solid workplace catered to the male perspective, to that one that focuses on softness and hospitality.

The article then shifts gear to the actual instances where gender sensitivity has made its way into the way things are designed. Tick adds that the fastest field to incorporate this sensitivity is within fashion, due to its rapid movement. Tick gives examples of designs, such as a woman's military coat, and masculine designs for male makeup, which have been made in attempts to accommodate the changing gender roles. Ending the article, Tick brings up transgenders face on a daily basis, the use of bathrooms. Tick argues that the very first step should be providing an environment that allows an individual to express his or her identity, the issue of bathroom usage then, is the stepping stone towards creating such an environment.

Gender is not going to disappear, in fact, not only is it not going anywhere, but it is also changing at a rapid pace. The rapidity to which gender roles are changing is the focus of the article by Emma Green, "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society," in which, she implores designers to incorporate gender sensitivity into their works, allowing for an accommodation of the differing roles.

This can be attributed to the phenomena Green mentions in her article "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society". The world, as of now, is shaped by "modernism", a movement that centers itself around the male perspective. A new wave however, is coming, to which feminism is the cause. The shift creates anxiety within the population as the foundation on which it was built upon begins to crack, causing Americans to experience this "profound gender anxiety".

The reasoning behind bathrooms and its centrality to the argument is because they are "...spaces that are sensitive to such personal issue." (Green) Everyone can accept you for who you are, use the proper pronoun when addressing you, support you and your identity, however, that all comes to nothing when you are forced to enter a room that spells out, in big letters, the gender that you are not. That is profoundly personal, and it affects the psyche, so much so that it destroys the identity that you have built for yourself, the bathroom signs will always be there to tell you that you are not who you say you are. That is why bathrooms came next, and that is why bathroom neutrality, advocated in "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" is so important.

As the post above mentions, religion should not have any ties to government. The issue at hand is a state problem, not one of religion. Therefore, religion should in no way be under consideration when deciding the course of action on bathroom access.

I wonder how Keisling feels now about the issue with North Carolina Governor McCrory. McCrory does not identify as a bigot, but he is nevertheless bashed as one. Keisling would probably view him as ignorant, but I have to wonder if those are the only two categories for people of dissenting opinions or values. Does everyone have to agree in order to not be a bigot or ignorant?

This argument is a lot like the argument made by Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina. He defends his passage of House Bill 2 by saying that the resistance to it comes from a values disagreement. Government is supposed to provide for the welfare of its people, but to what extent the role should be in this controversy is what makes the debate so heated.

This section of the article is written in a way that makes those who are merely uncomfortable with sharing their spaces the victims. However, it neglects to acknowledge the severe heath problems that may arise for the transgender person. For instance, "the high rate of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and and drug and alcohol addiction, as well as a higher suicide rate among untreated transsexual people than in the general population. Many transgender and transsexual activists, and many caregivers, point out that these problems usually are not related to the gender identity issues themselves, but to problems that arise from dealing with those issues and social problems related to them." To learn more about gender identity issues, visit: http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime.com/sexual_problems_pyschologist/psychologist_gender_identity_issues.htm

Morrill, Jim, and Tim Funk. "McCrory Says Good Friends Have Shunned Him, His Wife over HB2." Charlotte Observer. N.p., 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. This article is about the recent political issue in North Carolina, regarding transgender bathrooms. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory has sparked conflict by stating that Caitlyn Jenner should have to use the men's restroom if she is to use government facilities. It is important to note that he does not include private facilities. Governor McCrory signed into law House Bill 2, which requires bathrooms in government facilities to be used by people based on the gender listed on their birth certificate. A majority of the responses to this bill have been not only negative, but calls to violent action, or at least exclusionary action. McCrory has received death threats. His wife has been shunned from events. Even life-long friends of the McCrory family are pulling support. An important point in this article, at least in my opinion, is that he is not hateful. Governor McCrory did not intend to incite or imply hatred. Being governor means that he is trusted to do what he believes is right, and he believes his view is right. He did not write this bill into law in any ill manner, but he notes that he has been confronted only with negative, hateful responses. He listens to opposing views, respectfully disagrees, and moves on. But he is not responded to in the same way. He does not identity himself as an ultra-conservative, but according to his audience, he sure is now. We are in a time of major societal change, and there is sure to be backlash and resistance. Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina is part of the resistance, but he is not violent and he is not hateful. He merely disagrees with the majority, and that is no longer a viable option anymore. As Governor McCrory aptly notes, “It’s almost like the George Orwell book ‘1984’,” he said. “If you disagree with Big Brother or you go against the thought police, you will be purged. And you will disappear.”

The first thing that comes to my mind when I read this is the Westboro Baptist Church and the way it uses its faith to justify its bigotry as conviction. In the image above, these members protest everything that challenges their faith, but they do so in a way that, arguably I assume, denies their beliefs too. They use the bible to justify their dislike and opposition to such social movements as same sex marriage, but they do so in an alienating way that comes off as extremely hateful, which is something the bible also teaches against. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/group_images/SPLC_Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg

There is evidence that there is a greater societal dysfunction in countries with higher religiosity rates. Though most arguments use this data to say that religious people are problematic, in this instance, it can be used to explain why people act out. Religion can influence people to believe, support, and enforce social constructs that may be alienating and negatively affect minorities that challenge the status quo. http://www.skeptic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/v12n03_images/fig5_6.gif

Scientifically, during the process of fetal development, everyone starts off as females and it is only later on when its sex changes according to genetic makeup.

Just like race is not going to disappear. Race is a part of your history, culture, and values, and gender too has its effect on people's lives in similar ways such as biology.

One path of reasoning that may be used to justify the difference between racial issues and issues of identity is that no one typically wants to change the race they are born as, but people think that if you are born a gender, you are stuck as that gender. There are very few trans-racial people, but a great amount of trans-gendered people.

The problems outlined here are some of the many issues that often surround concentrated urban settings. For this reason, the Elevate series was created by the Mayor's Office of Cultural Affairs in Atlanta.

This photo is from Elevate, showcasing one of the many performance artists of the event.

Blake Flournoy's article "Examine Atlanta with Microcosm" identifies that the South's prized jewel of a city has some major flaws. While Atlanta is the home to a very diverse population with very active art and political movements, there are many issues that have yet to be solved. Through the Elevate series, the city has created an outlet to both inform and entertain the public, The event, held in the middle of October, took place on downtown's very own Broad Street. During this event, different art pieces, performing arts, lectures, and forums allowed the people to show their discontent on the issues that plague the beloved city. Issues from sexuality tensions to gentrification were addressed throughout many different media.

The two articles highlight problems that exist in all urban settings. There are shared issues of poverty, gentrification, racial tensions, etc. that cities across the world face. Movements such as the one in Chicago and Atlanta's Elevate series attempt to shed light on the problems and offer various solutions.

Flournoy, Blake. "Examine Atlanta with Microcosm".Creative Loafing, 2016. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

While this article highlights recent efforts to rid cities of run-down, low-income neighborhoods, the city of Atlanta has been fighting this same battle for over half a century. In the 1950s and 1960s in Atlanta, poor neighborhoods were being bought our and entirely demolished. The intent was to create newer housing and areas of commerce as most of these older homes were deemed unfit living conditions. Most of the neighborhoods that were destroyed were bought for below market pricing, leaving the previous inhabitants poor and homeless. The largest example of this process came with the extension of the interstate system through the city. Where large highways sich as I-75, I-85, and I-20 now lie, there were previously entire neighborhoods.This scenario is considered negative gentrification, which is what this article is attempting to counteract.

Maria Saporta reports on the recent resignation of Ryan Gravel and Nathaniel Smith from the board of the Atlanta BeltLine Partnership. The Beltline is a walking path around the city of Atlanta that is supposed to provide a space for everyone to live and use. Gravel is the founder of the Beltline, and he felt as though "not enough emphasis is being given to the issues of equity and affordability". He first proposed the idea for the Beltline as his Georgia Tech Master's thesis, and his original vision for the project was inclusivity. Smith and Gravel both felt that the project was moving too far away from this original vision. Both Gravel and Chaskin share a mutual interest in the inclusivity of built environments.

Saporta, Maria. “Beltline Founder Ryan Gravel Resigns from Board.” Atlanta Business Chronicle. Accessed October 20, 2016.

Proximity alone isn't a catalyst for social interaction.

I remember my parents always complaining about the HOA (Homeowners Association) telling them what to change or fix about our house to make the neighborhood seem more desirable. While these regulations were now here near as strict as they are in this study, the verb "observed" perfectly describes the root of my parents' animosity towards the HOA. They felt like there was always this force looming over to keep us in check. Naturally, this generates frustration.

I would be very upset about this too. If I wasn't allowed to sit on my back porch because it's "too ghetto" that would be considered ridiculous in my neighborhood (which is mostly white and Asian). To what extent does the race of these people play into the perceptions of what is and isn't considered desirable behavior?

Why would these behaviors need to be censured? Perhaps because they are associated with the low-income neighborhoods and we automatically associate low-income with lower quality of life throughout.

From what I've read, it seems that people who have been living in these areas their whole lives and have a strong bond with the environment and established community would look upon new middle-class residents negatively.

This is what Ryan Gravel had envisioned for his BeltLine project. Sadly, he felt as though his original vision isn't being met, which is why he and Nathaniel Smith have resigned from the board.

Here is a visual of how the Westhaven Park neighborhood has gentrified and what they want to do.

This ties into my previous annotations on page 12 and 13, where they discuss ways in which they want to make a sense of community, and how some people are turned off to the idea of using public places due to the unwanted behavior.

This is an example of segregation by the built environment that we have discussed in previous readings. Since there are different concerns and priorities between lower income families and higher income, they often get segregated

The concern for public and private space is a continued argument through the reading. Here it is describing how some people want private property to “defend” their space and how they want to perceive it and use it.

We have seen this all throughout the semester, and how the built environment affects many aspects of the culture. Here, they are discussing how many people wish to live or work in an area that is safe and for the most part not disruptive, but not many people will make an effort to attain this or will disagree over it. This is just another fold on the complexity of gentrification.

This is the other side of the argument of public space, the other in my annotation of page 5. This shows how some people believe public space actually sparks unwanted behavior, and as a result, renders the space useless.

It is interesting to see that their findings have been that the crime has gone down because that was one argument against gentrification, saying it would actually spur it.

Williams, Dave. "Atlanta City Council Approves Homeless Shelter Ordinance over Audience Protests." Widgets RSS. Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

Dave Williams, a staff for the Atlanta Business Chronicle, wrote an article detailing the event of the Atlanta City Council approving a homeless shelter ordinance. This ordinance authorized negotiations for the possibility to convert a homeless shelter into a police and fire facility. The overwhelming decision of 13-1 by the city council outraged many locals attending the meeting. One of these outraged locals said, “The policy of the city right now is gentrification.” They are also furious because the city does not really have a plan for where they would relocate all of the homeless people.

These two readings are related because the article by Williams is an example of what Chaskin and Joseph are writing about. Many cities in the U.S. are trying to find the balance between the revival of areas without displacing families. They call it “Positive Gentrification.” This causes a problem because many people view gentrification as something only negative, as shown in Williams’ article.

William’s article is a direct example of this, they are displacing a homeless shelter, which indirectly promotes income mixing because the homeless have no income.

This ties into my earlier annotation about the argument of public space on page 2, and this is the side of the argument that argues against private space

This ties into the article written by Dave Williams. By bringing in police and the fire department into the building that houses homeless people, it will almost have a double layer of gentrification. Not only are you getting rid of the “undesirables” of a city, but you are also adding a layer of protection and stability that will draw more affluent people into the area.

We have seen this argument pop up in many of our readings this year. It is a very fine line between what constitutes as public or private space. This is another example of how controversial gentrification really is.

These are the positive outcomes of gentrification. These are why people believe it is necessary for urban renewal, and what they use as their main argument.

I asked myself why gentrification is inherently viewed as negative. I found that some belive gentrification is an "unfourtunate desecration" of authentic, historical, or otherwise truly intereseting neighborhoods. http://web.williams.edu/Economics/ArtsEcon/library/pdfs/WhyIsGentrificationAProbREFORM.pdf

I find it interesting how we don't really need to see anything dangerous happening, we get "cues" from the built environment and make assumptions.

For my supplemental text, I read the article "Universal Design in the Community Planning" about the development of new, more effective and efficient city planning (https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udincommunity.html ). In the article, the author writes about new cities that are being designed as a tight-knit community and as a work/play area. Homes are being built directly on top of restaurants and shops so residents do not have to go very far for socialization. In cities that are designed where everything is spread out, this is not good for people who are "disabled with age," or very, very old to the point where they cannot function like they use to. As cities are more spread out, older people are forced to drive places since they can't drive. This can be very dangerous. These new communities that are closer together are making it easier for the elderly to reside there since everything is closer together.

The supplemental text relates to this article because both discuss specifically designing the built environment to better fit the needs of the disabled. While this article does not mention specific examples of things a city can do to help the disabled, it promotes the involvement of disabled people in discussions of city planning. For the supplemental text, it does not discuss the disabled getting involved in city planning, but rather what cities have already done to help the disabled, or, in the supplemental text's case, the elderly. Both of these articles have a goal of making the social environment equal and available for all people to enjoy. By realizing disabled people's needs in the environment, city planners can design cities that will make them accessible and enjoyable for everyone, disabled or not.

The article "Universal Design in the Community Planning" by the Center for Universal Design examines new urbanist approaches to building residences and communities that presents challenges for universal design. Current trends including mixed-used developments that perpetuate daily movement act as a hindrance for universal designs that are meant to include all demographics. The article also discusses smart growth which directly addresses problems that exist within car-dependent populations. Smart growth encourages non-vehicular transportation within communities which can help senior citizens and persons with disabilities when transporting. This relates to Lid's "Implementing Universal Design in a Norwegian Context" because both articles examined how modern building trends hinder universal design and discriminate against people with disabilities. Both articles bring up implementations that can help the disabled, but the proposal's differ. The Center for Universal Design desires for cities to incorporate "smart growth" which allows for people with disabilities to easily transport throughout while Lid encourages a democratic process to occur where the government, city planners, and the people unite to create a better universal design that is all-inclusive.

The article, "Implementing Universal Design in a Norwegian Context" by Inger Marie Lid discusses how urban public areas fail to provide accommodations within public design to include persons with disabilities. In particular, Lid examined the city of Oslo, Norway, where she lives. Lid discovered that politicians, urban planners, and the people need to establish a democratic relationship when designing public areas. Additionally, urban areas represent the public which should represent diverse demographics. Disabled people need to be included in this diversity in order to be included in urban design. Ultimately, disability advocate groups need to gain more power while politicians and city planners need to become more aware of disability perception in order to better resolve the issues that exist within architecture and public exclusion. Lid is a supporter of universal design and explores its positive implications throughout her study of Oslo's design.

When listening to the rhetoric of politicians, you never hear them mention or emphasis accessibility for wheel chair users. Do they not care to put this in their agenda or do they believe this is not a concern to society? It would be interesting to see a moderator ask questions regarding such to the presidential candidates in order to bring this conflict to the forefront of the nation, even though urban design is designated for more local governments.

This also related to Ryan Gravel's thesis of the Beltline. Gravel yearned to make Atlanta a more "walk-able city" which would in turn make Atlanta more desirable. In present-day, the Atlanta Beltline acts as a perfect example of a built environment that encourages walking and pedestrian comfort. With pedestrian-friendly paths for walking and biking, the surrounding Beltline communities have flourished just by the inclusion of a grandiose sidewalk. This concrete structure has promoted walking and the community has responded. Now, Atlanta residents with access to the Beltline utilize its path and enjoy themselves. Gravel's vision was revolutionary for revitalizing pedestrian comfort and Atlanta's walkability. ! !

This whole paper contradicted this thought. More so, urban public places can act like strong predators of inequality which diminishes a particular demographics' dignity. Personally, I believe Lid's argument and research was successful to expose the need to include the disabled within urban design and how our society can go about this action. Hopefully, her examination of Oslo, Norway can convert to Atlanta, Georgia with ease.

So we need to meet in the middle. Disability advocate groups need to carry more influence while politicians and urban planners need to have a more knowledgeable "disability perspective." If both roles execute such, then future urban developments will be more inclusive for persons with disabilities. Until then, we can unfortunately expect the same exclusion that has been perpetuated by society, politics, and design.

Lid acknowledges her counterargument in this quote. It is impractical to satisfy the entire demographics wants into a single design.. So which wants should we prioritize? Are some people's wishes inherently better than others in the mind of the government and city planners? Regardless, compromises must be made to satisfy people's desires and include everyone to a certain degree.

Urban cities have this assumption that a diverse population resides within its limits. When I think of the city Atlanta, there really isn't a majority. Instead, an agglomeration of various cultures and minorities, which was one of the primary reasons I wanted to move to Atlanta and attend Georgia State University. Garland-Thompson brings up a fabulous point. Urban areas represent diversity and the architecture should mirror such diversity. Therefore, if disabled people are in the diverse population, then they should be included in urban public areas.

In architecture, more knowledge results in more universality. More knowledge in any case is better than ignorance. We must educate politicians, city planners, and civilians to prevent ignorance from determining the city's makeup.

So politicians would rather have ineffective buildings that they recognize derived from their wrong choices, but don't want to take the measure to solve their faulty decisions due to the expensives that entail form reconstruction..? That sounds corrupt and is at the expense of the city's citizens.

Prior to this article, I would have never noticed such a hindrance. Instead, I would have appreciated the cobblestone for its beauty. but this beautiful structure can cause pain for citizens that require wheelchair access. It is interesting how one man's praise can also act as another man's hindrance.

This seems to be the case in American cities. American capitalism has turned our economy into a greedy, self-interested, predatory system. Businesses don't seem to be concerned with the well-being of the public. Instead, they only seem to regard their profit. As a result, architectural companies do not value constructing universal designs to encompass everyone; they build with the main intention of making money.

This coincides with a previous annotation I made about envisioning "city people." If individuals include persons of disability within their perception of the city, then recognition exists... My fear is that too many people don't envision such inclusion, and therefore, the disabled already aren't equal to their counterparts through initial awareness. How can we change perception? What measures need to be taken to consider all people?

Can this implementation proposed by Lid be translated successfully into American government and society? I understand the author is examining the city of Oslo in Norway. So are these countries to different in every aspect to be equated in city planning?

Participatory planning can help city planning become more democratic to include its citizens. Which in theory sounds amazing to have individual feedback that would influence city construction, but what if the people in the city are discriminatory? This could, in turn, negatively impact the inclusion of individuals. For instance city planners and citizens may resent homeless people sleeping on public benches. Therefore, the city implements new benches that make it uncomfortable for someone to rest upon it. This change excludes the homeless by the democratic planning process. Of course, there are benefits, which Lid explains, but there's always a disadvantage, especially with the hateful people that we have in the United States today.

This makes me wonder if as a whole, the United States doesn't respect people with disabilities. Do disabled people feel this way? I could only imagine because there doesn't seem to be plentiful implementations to benefit them. Feeling isolated by society, government, and architecture must diminish their self-respect and self-worth which is terribly sad.

Nussbaum's quote claiming that all humans are "mortal, decaying bodies" almost objectifies humans. This "we are become decrepit and then eventually die" attitude conveys a negative outlook on mortality. Regardless, this notion qualifies individuals through varying degrees of disabilities which I believe is true, just like Max had stated. Whether physically, mentally, and/or emotionally, every individual becomes depreciated to an extent, and therefore measures in architecture must coincide with these impairments.

Was the CRPD revolutionary to the world? Was it the first, groundbreaking declaration that demanded inclusion and protection of persons with disabilities? I would hope legislation already existed in the United States that helps the disabled... but do our lawmakers value this?

This quote sounds similar to the Bill of Rights or John Locke's philosophies on natural rights, which elevates Lid's rhetoric because such writings are extolled within United States' society. It is a basic right to have an equal status within citizens which parallels with the Bill of Rights and natural rights.

As Max had provided context to the United Nation's CRPD, Lid parallels this mandate throughout her argument, and therefore it is important to understand the declaration's vision. Also, the United Nations had created rights designated for persons with disabilities, thus, the world perceives the disabled as a demographic who are entitled to equal rights; those countries in the UN understand the inequality of disabled people and their need for mandates that provide opportunities designated for them. At least on a world-wide level, this discrimination is seen as an issue.

Interesting how urban design can segregate a certain population, whether intentional or not, even though its access is deemed as "open for everyone." Ironically, it does just the opposite for individuals who require additional accessibility; the city isolates them from equal consumption.

This notion is mentioned in Ryan Gravel's Where We Want to Live. Urban cities function as a location where people interact with people due to close proximity. Contrastingly, in more suburban cities, people don't closely interact like the urban population due to their sprawl. The Atlanta Beltline became a proposal to perpetuate citizen interaction.

By being present to governmental bodies, groups can bring forth their issues so that the government is forced to deal with their issues. This strategy is exhibited by many well-known protest groups such as the Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter, LGTBQ protesters, etc.

This article, ‘I love cities, but they don’t all love me back,’ advocate for disabled says before Habitat IIIhttp://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/i-love-cities-they-dont-all-love-me-back-advocate-disabled-says-habitat-iii is taken from a forum called Habitat III, World Cities at a Crossroads. It shows the "breakthroughs, trends, and innovations from cities around the globe," and one the topics it deemed important was the discussion of what can be done in cities for those who are disabled in some manner. There were thoughts of putting up audio street signs for those who are visually impaired, making signs simpler to understand for those who are mentally impaired, and even making the sides of signs less sharp so that those who walked by would be less likely to injure themselves. Widespread plans toward acknowledging and accepting disabled people into public areas is needed, but with so many different types of disabled people, it is hard to come up with one solution that fits all needs. The U. N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came into affect in 2008, and in the countries where the treaty was ratified (United States not included), these countries are already working to create spaces that cater not only to the able but to those with special needs. A draft of the New Urban Agenda for the U. N. mentioned disabled people 12 times but hesitates to outline exactly what it will do concerning these people. Though progress is slow, disabled people are speaking out and beginning to have their voices heard when it comes to the built environment.

These two texts were very interesting and similar in many ways. Both deal with the issue of disabled person's accessibility to public and even private areas, and both argue that not enough is being done. The Habitat III article does a good job highlighting the different kinds of disabled people while the Teaching with Trauma article glosses over the various types of disabled and only really talks about wheelchair access. The Habitat III article speaks of policies that are being put into affect already to help provide access to the built environment to disabled individuals, while Teaching with Trauma does not identify any real laws going into place to help people. Perhaps the reason for this is because the Teaching with Trauma article speaks about policies in a particular area while the Habitat III article deals with protocols in places around the world.

I agree with the claims made by the interviewees. Most people ignore or don't even regard the integration of disabled individuals within cities.Personally, it hasn't crossed my mind. When one envisions the busy life of the city and the people within the city, one doesn't think of disabled people and the accessibility designed for them. Therefore, because of this disregard, these individuals yearn to feel present within the urban environment. They want to feel incorporated, and they should be.

If the politicians and city planning officials can open up a dialogue with disabled people, it will benefit both sides. The disabled will be able to share their concerns and ideas for a more equal and unified environment, and the city planners can make the ideas a reality, making everyone enjoying the environment happy.

This is why it is important for city officials to acknowledge the point of view from disabled people. If they are constantly ignored, then their influence is heavily weakened. But if they are acknowledged and given an equal say (like a democracy should work), then their influence and recognition will increase.

When thinking about it, this is true. All humans have some type of disability. However, I think this quote hurts Lid's point rather than helps. One could make the argument that since all humans have disabilities in some way or another, there should just be basic set functions to help extremely disabled people and that's it. Like only including ramps and nothing else, or something of that sort.

If Lid's argument for the disabled were to be summed up in three words, these are them. Lid is advocating for the disabled's accessibility to be eased and increased in urban life, their participation to be increased in government when it comes to design, and their inclusion in city planning discussions to be increased as well.

Just a note on how Lid formats her paragraphs, sometimes she puts her topic sentence as the last sentence instead of the first. She doesn't do it often, but does do it sometimes. I found this interesting.

Lid is just repeating her argument again. If city planning commissions included more input from disabled people, it would not only strengthen disabled people's influence but their courage in standing up and speaking out on issues they feel need to be addressed.

This is just like the Beltline. When studying the Beltline, it is not only safe, but it is also an environment where people of all ages and abilities can come to enjoy it and socialize. The Beltline is the ideal urban environment that Lid envisions.

This is exactly what Ryan Gravel promoted and advocated for with the creation of the Beltline. He wanted Atlanta to be a more walkable city. It is also not a coincidence that Ryan Gravel wanted Atlanta to become a more social city and wanted to create an environment that increased social opportunities for residents of Atlanta.

Lid, once again, keeps going back to the idea of an urban space operating as a social place. The social aspect of an environment is crucial to Lid and that is why all people should have an equal opportunity to experience it.

I did not understand what Lid meant when she discussed zebra crossings so I looked up a picture. These road markings are very effective in making it safe for pedestrians to navigate the roads if they need to do so. These markings also better the relationship between pedestrians and drivers.

This is a problem. Environments are being designed for their beauty rather than their functionality. To me, functionality is way more important than beauty. While I acknowledge that aesthetics are important, the function that the environment serves should be the focus of an urban project.

This connects to an annotation I had above. It is hard to make the environment suitable for all people with all types of disabilities. But if disabled people worked with city planners, a compromise could and would be reached that would most likely benefit both parties.

This is really unfortunate, but I know it to be true. Urban areas are often pressured politically and economically to conform to a certain type. This type of pressures leads to a lot of public dislike and distrust. I wish urban areas wouldn't be under so much economic pressure.

Lid's definition of urban is very community-oriented. She is committed to making the urban environment equal for everyone and making sure everyone feels like they belong.

Definitions for macro, meso, and micro:

Macro: Large-scale, overall Meso: Middle, intermediate Micro: Small-scale, small

Relationships in the physical environment are very important to Lid. She studies not just how the disabled interact with the environment but also how pedestrians interact with the road and drivers.

Oslo is the capital of Norway. Below is Oslo on a map and a link to the city's information page for more facts and statistics about the Norwegian city.

http://www.visitoslo.com/

What's interesting about this article is Lid never calls for disabled people to participate. Rather she calls for the government to include disabled people in their planning process. This is very interesting. Lid is blaming the government for lack of inclusion rather than putting blame on the disabled for lack of participation.

Spatial justice is so close to the phrase "social justice." They really do fall under the same category of equality. Social justice is about having equality across the law. Spatial justice is about having equality across the physical environment.

This is a bit of a stretch. If we were to redesign every environment we have now to accommodate people with impairments, this would cost billions of dollars. I think a better approach would be to build more smart from now on, and maybe make some fixes here and there to what we currently have constructed in our physical environment.

I just wrote about this in my second Built Environment Description. Krog Street Market includes a large ramp in front of the market to ensure all people (even people who are wheelchair-bound) can enjoy what it has to offer. By including ramps, various places are able to open access to their physical environment on an equal basis.

This is a real declaration written by the United Nations (UN). It was drafted in December of 2006 and signed in March of 2007 in New York City. It became effective in May of 2008. Below is the link to the actual full text of the declaration.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

This is why it's so hard to accommodate all disabled people. It's really difficult to accommodate all people in a wheelchair, all people who are blind, all people who are deaf, and so on. But if disabled people met with city officials more frequently, like Lid suggests, maybe it will become easier to plan for the disabled in the community.

When I first read this I thought it was too sad to be true. But after seeing that Lid was citing the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the WHO with this statement, I realized it must be true. It is disappointing to imagine that disabled people are excluded from city planning because architects simply exclude them and because there are "negative attitudes" from both presumably the disabled and city officials. Politicians and disabled people need to come together to assist one another. If they don't, these problems and this separation will continue.

This is Lid's definition of "urban life." Social interaction plays a major part of her argument here. She believes that an urban environment is more of a social environment, one in which everyone should have equal say and participation.

This makes a lot of sense. If people with disabilities engaged more with politicians and city planners, then their issues could be immediately brought up and addressed. For people who are not disabled, it is hard to imagine what disabled people struggle with. But if a disabled person was actually there to bring up their daily struggles, a lot of their concerns could and would be addressed.

If politicians and spatial planners do not understand about accessibility for wheelchair use, how can disabled people expect them to design appropriate structures? This supports the author's thesis. The lack of knowledge on the disabled's lives and problems is a major problem.

This is the author's, Inger Marie Lid's, thesis for the article. Right off the bat we know that she is going to be discussing disabled people and how able-bodied people can include them in the building of environments.

Now that our society is becoming more aware of the labels and stereotypes put on people by certain word usage, I find myself wondering which term of reference is preferred by those who are "disabled" in some way. I wonder if handicapped is a better, nicer term, or is there some other word that is more sensitive to the feelings of those individuals. Disabled/ disability seems to carry such a harsh connotation with it, like those people are not as good as others, but then again, so does the term handicapped. Perhaps, like in many situations, it is not the word that needs to change but the attitude about those types of individuals. Changing word choice is just a band aid for when people have poor images of certain kinds of people who are different from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPmGW-GDHA

I never really considered widespread wheelchair access or access for people with disabilities before and the hardships they have to endure to be anywhere. I know people who have a hard time getting around exist, I see them and the handicap doors that I walk through, but I never considered how some places could be barred to them and they could not have a voice in the public because of it. Because some people cannot get to a certain place, their voice is not heard, and that is troubling. I only see a person in a wheel chair as a rarity, but is that because they cannot get to the place where I am rather than my previous notion that there just are not that many people who are disabled?

I was not sure what this meant, so I found an article that explains what these are http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/3585?e=blackstone_1.0-ch02_s01 The article deals with the topic of a sociologists approach to situations. Micro is small group interactions, sometimes just the self alone. Meso is at a larger group level, such as a business, and macro is large scale interactions, situations that affect entire continents and global relations.

Stratify means "to arrange or classify," according to Google. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stratify

Through italicizing experts, the author trying to make fun of the term in reference to these people in a display of satire. However, why is that the case? Obviously she must not think all of their knowledge or opinions are sound, or she would not feel the need to mock them as an expert. What is an expert in her eyes then? Is it someone with the personal life experience (not necessarily any schooling) that qualifies them as an expert, or the one who has done all the research and is very aware of the textual knowledge of a situation?

She literally just had a sentence similar to this a couple paragraphs ago. "The notion of the right to the city, understood as a right to urban life, involves both the political, social and material dimensions of the urban...begin by developing a conception of spatial justice." She is becoming repetitive in her argument already. The points she is making are not new, and she is not elaborating, but rather restating. Her word choice is even the same.

Is she arguing for access for people with disabilities, or arguing specifically for wheelchair access? I do not think the author does a good job portraying what she is actually trying to address in that regard, as people with disabilities are not just people stuck in a wheel chair.

She announces that planning in urban areas is a social justice issue, but I think it has always been one. Planning in urban areas has always affected people, and when it does that people either stand behind it or try to stop the process. One example is the Atlanta Beltline, where many people took the idea as their own and used it to aid themselves in their environment. Plans such as low income housing were a big deal for people, and that was a social justice issue to make sure everyone could enjoy the Beltline and all kinds of people could have access. Another prime example is segregation within the American south. Black people put on all kinds of protest and marches to raise awareness for their plight and try ti change the environment around them for one geared toward equality for races.

The fact the author switches between different modes, such as third person and first person perspectives is unnecessary and disruptive. The context of the article is most assuredly going to be about accessibility and the built environment for people in wheelchairs with disabilities, so there is no need for the author to go and state the point of the essay in their own words.

Although Ponce City Market is the best modern representation of the arcades, this description is reminiscent of Atlantic Station. Stratified from the clamor of downtown, Atlantic Station is a residential area that can be self-functioning. In addition to the shopping center of nice stores and restaurants, there is a Target and Publix that supply the basic necessities of residents. The culture and architecture of Atlantic Station almost discourage unity with the downtown of Georgia State, and the Station operates in its own affluent bubble.

The utility of built environments arise from the needs of the people; Benjamin's argument for built environments is that they adapt to the various interactions of their tenants, supporting the idea that our interaction with an area serve to shape our built environments.

There is no connection between the various shops in the arcades; rather, the arcades were an assemblage of stores that provided various necessities for tenants. This characterizes the evolution of a built environment here described by Benjamin, first from a place of necessities to a place of art.

Arcades, resemble the bazaars of the Middle East, which according to the New World Encyclopedia, appeared in the Middle East around the fourth century. Bazaars were a street of shops where goods and services were exchanged or sold, and preceded the modern-day supermarket. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bazaar

The article “Pokémon Go Has Created a New Kind of Flaneur” by Laura Bliss equates contemporary Pokémon Go players to the wanderers of the nineteenth century. Charles Baudelaire in 1863 coined the idea of a flaneur, a French term for those who “stroll the city streets” merely to collect observations of their environment. The contemporary app encourages players to explore urban areas and collect Pokémon at historic, cultural, and forgotten spaces of their city.

While the game encourages electronic exploration of the city, “le traineur” is not grounded in reality. Bliss admits that most players rarely look up from their phones to observe the areas they wander, which discredits their association with the flaneur. The consumers characterized by Benjamin were intentional in their exploration of arcades. French arcades supplied the needs of tenants, who perused the stalls and walkways with purpose. Benjamin even describes the role of facial expressions as a form of advertisement employed by vendors in the arcades, and the joy of consumers at these expressions. While I think the article presents a relevant comparison to our preceding flaneur, I believe the similarities are exaggerated; contemporary players are more absorbed in an electronic arcade than their actual built environments.

Here we note the impact of the arcades on the separation of public and private spaces. Arcades became an amalgamation of the two spaces, and garnered the intimacy of personal activities like smoking while making these public and communal affairs.

This observation connects to my highlight on page eleven. Arcades impacted the early evolution of advertisement; as characterized by the highlighted section above, storefronts were arranged to encourage quick and expansive recognition of goods and deals in a store. The design of the arcades was meant to slow the consumer and encourage exploration, a form of forced advertisement.

This observation reveals the extent to which built environments are shaped by convenience. This idea is prevalent in new additions to the city to improve walkability in a heavily trafficked city; the emergence of Beltline and the recent introduction of streetcars are meant to relieve the stress of driving. Spaces like the Beltline even encourage alternate forms of transportation, like biking and skating.

The cultural significance of this design must have revolutionized business across the world. A new independence from weather would allow an increase in the openness of the market. It would also encourage specialization, and the introduction of new products as vendors could sell a more diverse array of goods.

Here we note the evolution of the idea of value as something of a social construct, that it is not determined by the actual utility or composition of a good, but by the worth allocated to that good. This foreshadows the dependency of society on brand, and the development of a more materialistic society.

This statement reveals the impact of arcades on gender stereotypes. Generalizations such as the resistance and strength of men made that gender more qualified for employment as salesmen.

This characterizes the idea of attraction in the market, as advertising became the exotic nature of a storefront. Brand and class were at this time determined by appearance of a street salon.

Empress Josephine of France adorned these shawls, shipped to France from her son in Egypt. Napolean and his officers brought them from their campaigns abroad. Josephine was a trend-setter in French fashion, and despite her initial distaste for the garments, she would devote much of her wealth to these shawls in her lifetime. https://historiquecouture.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/the-cashmere-shawls-of-empress-josephine/