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.

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.