It prevented them to try to make a living and higher income.

The height of the bridge was design particular to keep colored and poor people from accessing to different places.

I'm not really familiar with the MARTA and the history because I'm from the southern part of Georgia. I didn't think the MARTA's transportation system would have discrimination in its history because a lot of people (no matter the race or how much money in his/her pocket) use it in today's society.

It shows how they interpret and enforced Jim Crow Laws. And it gives the audience a sense of what the article is going to be about.

Unfortunately, this isn't a new tactic by any means and has even been seen in countries such as Brazil. It may or may not have been for "racial purposes" seeing that Brazil does it to make the country look as profitable and upbeat as possible even with the country being billions in debt with most citizens under proverty.

They used this as a form of regulation. A synonym for regulation is control or a rule. The system was controlling who goes where and had restrictions.

Seeing that the South is based off the premise of "Separate but Equal" its not surprising seeing the neighborhoods are bordered off from each other. The real surprise is that the infrastructure hasn't been changed/altered even after all these new laws and reforms... Separation brings mistrust and ignorance on both sides of the fence.

Ever since the last century, physical barriers were used to exclude and segregate the populations, Restaurants that accepted multiple demographic groups often separated the building with a wall to exclude a group

The difference between homeowners and renters becomes extremely apparent when it comes to voting to protect property and their exclusion to the norms of what is around to preserve their demographic preference.

He explains on how certain demographic groups and communities can, at often times, influence the architecture and residential developments that appeal specifically to them

This gives the assumption that when it comes to physical architecture and building, the area around as well as what we build with binds the actions and choices of what is built.

Using something that specific as a Bunch being divided by three armrests separating the seats, it produces a really clear image of what they are explaining in preparation to form their argument in the later sentences.

With her using The Sabin Colloquium as a reference, It boosts her Ethos by giving her a credible source on the subject she is writing about.

If the hill is steep enough, it might as well be a wall.

This is difficult however, because you cannot always prove intent. It will boil down to one's words against another. This is why it is so hard to combat those in power, because the effects of their actions can be broad and varied. It's hard to say whether there was malicious intent.

Norms can be just as powerful as laws when persecuting an indivuals

Efficiency for whom? Certainly not for the lower class or the general public.

This is frustrating because I don't understand how hard it is to see how a bridge or a sidewalk can connect people and how a lack of one might can divide, it might as well be a wall.

This reminds of the net neutrality controversy, allowing internet providers to charge a fee to let visitors of said websites to have faster speeds when visiting their sites. By doing this internet providers can control where people go on the internet, by controlling connivence and speed. This can be used to serve the agendas of these providers, and undermine smaller sites and business.

Probability is power. Exclusion does not need to be expressed as overtly as a bridge too low for the passing of buses to divide people. If you can control whats likely to happen, then what's the difference between in directly controlling what happens. Why the latter doesn't occur is because outrage would occur ensue.

This is a major theme I see in our western capitalist country, efficiency over equality. It may not be particular to capitalist nations, but I feel it is very apparent.

Seeing that there is a general consensus among scholars of the effects architecture can have on our social behavior with one another and that it is still not recognized among lawmakers shows me that this is a willful ignorance used to serve personal agendas.

Though it is not a spoken division people, it is a physical one that controls people's behavior through connivence.

The residents of these wealthy neighborhoods, believed people of color would bring crime to the neighborhood.

The writer is an example of how historically white people were separated from people of colour.

This has been seen so many times in the media. People of color gunned down, because they were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The writer depicts, how simple things such as landscape, can isolate people.

Staying on Georgia State campus I witness certain areas in Atlanta do not include bike lanes when you are not right next to a GSU building. This is problematic because the campus is so spread out that it is difficult tom maneuver when some streets have the lanes and the connecting one doesn't.

I think it is interesting how before the use of public transportation was seen as a burden and only for the poor; however, now it is seen as an convenience for all people of different social class and racial identity.

This is problematic because instead of helping these communities rebuild or be successful, they exclude the entire community from others because of history that may have not been any of the people living their faults. Or the person/ people have already been convicted of their crimes such as gang activity or theft, the rest of the community should not be judged.

I've never thought about this consciously; however, I see now why they would build benches with divided arm rest so the homeless people won't be stretched out on a local park bench or train car.

Constraint: Law that prevents people from one social class from the other.

Not allowing MARTA to expand shows how the suburban areas have an higher power dynamic than the cities. However, they made MARTA, so the wealthy can stay wealthy with their jobs in Atlanta, but the people in the city are not allowed an easy way to expand their resume.

Schindler list another constraint of architecture preventing others from going from one place to another.

This is where the Schindler establishes her credit ability by stating her education and profession. Also, Schindler stating how this article received credible feedback is a great way for audience to identify the knowledge behind it.

Schindler starts the article by listing the constraints of the lower class and African Americans by the wealthy and Caucasian community.

Can you find this?

Though those who may fight against this form of control most likely do no see it as such, even if they did there are no laws in place to solve the problems caused by the regulation by architecture. If there was a way to change it, imagine how slow going the change would be, construction or deconstruction often takes months to years to be completed. That is not accounting for the time it takes for these things to be approved. So if architectural exclusion became more realized I wonder how they would go about fixing it.

Being appointed to a number of offices in the same general time frame often comes with larger amounts of power. You gain popularity and power through each office you are appointed to. That being said, it is likely that no would have challenged him even if they realized his intentions because of how much power he would have had.

I wonder why those in power are not educated regularly on the built environment and the impact it can have. Perhaps it really is not very well known, or perhaps these people do not care how it alters the way of life of some so long as they continue being able to live their standard way of life.

This is another example of why lawmakers should be regularly educated on the impact of build environments so that they would take more time in examining how architecture excludes people. If every law maker in the country had to be educated on this type of exclusion it would come to a point where there could be no ignoring it. I wonder if they do not analyze this form of exclusion because of the lack of education on the subject, or for more sinister reasons.

These forms of architecture are meant to encourage (in a negative aspect) certain people to stay in designated areas. For example, one would not want to walk to an area so far from a bus stop that they may end up missing they last bus. This would make that person stay in the general are of the bus instead of venturing so far out. An example being say there is a public bus system in a town and you have to walk 10 minutes to get to it. Then, it only stops in an area that is near a dollar general, but you would prefer to shop at Bilo because it has a better selection. The problem is that you would need to walk 20 plus minutes to get to Bilo and would then have to worry about weather, missing the bus, and carrying all of your groceries back to the bus. This is just one small example. Does anyone know of any example of the walls being built, other than those given in the text?

Also, as more people move to these areas the jobs that are available in the area often diminish. The few jobs that were available will all but vanish and because of how difficult it is to find transportation the poverty in the area will increase, further causing people to fight harder for transportation to not be sent to the area because of how "bad" it is.

This describes that the government and the system makes changes and creates regulations that benefit certain groups while limiting and restricting it for others.

The "wealthy, most white residents" opposed to this because they're stereotyping minorities believing if public transportation systems were to be installed into their neighborhoods that it would lead to unwanted crime and violence when that's not the case. Most minorities are trying to get to their work places because they do not have their own means of transportation and rely on the public transits.

This shows that a person in authority is limiting the transportation system needed for people to reach certain destinations.

I understand why there are gated communities and walls because they don't want any trespassers of any kind not just for people of color. But the whole no transportation to get to those places is what unfair and shows how racism still exists.

These people who create infrastructure and environments to keep certain people out are afraid of change. They are afraid to become diverse. What's so wrong with change?

The author gives an example of the wide-spread attempt to keep low income people from entering certain neighborhoods by discussing developments of Atlanta's MARTA system. Rich people reject the plan to expand MARTA so that poor people cannot have access to rich areas. As a result, poor people are limited to job opportunities and other luxuries.

Now that I think of it, there weren't many sidewalks or bike paths where I grew up; Bikers along the road were a nuisance, and pedestrians had to walk in the grass and bushes or just not walk at all.

I think this really puts things in perspective in regards to just how childish people can be when it comes to racial discrimination. They literally used anything they could think of to keep "people of color" away from them.

This zoning tactic exist today. Certain neighborhoods do not allow occupants to build a house that is less than a stated square footage. Back then; however, stipulations would keep black people out of these neighborhoods. Today, black people are able to meet the guidelines and move in these neighborhoods. I was talking to an older person and he informed me that what white people do is move out of the neighborhood when black people move in.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that the states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

In other words, the courts ruled in order to reduce air pollution and other environmental dangers, a community may restrict commuters from parking on their streets. Laws have a way of "fixing things up" to other motives.

It is easy to get lost in Los Angeles. All the different freeways can confuse tourist. My mom and I got lost in LA trying to get food and gave upon the restaraunt after a hour looking for the right freeway and exits.

The streets in Oakland are raggedy with potholes and dips. But as you get closer to San Leandro which is the city over, the roads are much better with cleaner streets. And i used I-880 on a daily basis to go everywhere.

Canada also does this for their process of citizenship. To become a citizen of canada, you have to pay a large sum of money, and tell them why you would be a productive member of their society

This may just be my opinion, but when cops use road blocks and search everybody's cars before exits, it could be used as a tactic to keep all of the potential crime out of neighborhoods, and to keep potential law breakers from trying to go to that exit in the future.

This is especilly apparent in Atlanta's northern suburbs, and even in Augusta Georgia with their clear line dividing the poor "South Augusta" and the wealther "North Augusta"

I feel like it is not difficult to find fault with it, it just looks bad on them.

The homevoter hypothesis supports the fact that voting zones are targeted to help a certain political party. For example, homeowner's precincts may favor the republican party. Homeowners are thought of as being middle to upper class people.

More of an opinionated fact no type of real ground to the accusation. rhetoric at its finest.

If you cut off these poor communities access to the outer city they can not grow and will stay in the same oppression and eventually die out.

Not only is the physical environment designed to exclude certain people and behavior but it is design to accommodate behaviors. In a suburban park, benches may be made to accommodate a family of four because this is what a typical upper-class family looks like.

I wonder if this is the same zoning the APD uses in Atlanta??

Why would the mall want to exclude customers?

Their isn't because no one has put forward the effort to try it.

Public transport is commonly used by people of lower class. So they strategically place the transit stops to exclude the lower class from being in the same area as the people of higher class.

The projects are a prime example of this segregation.

I think this is the same reason why Marta has not been moved up south because they don’t want people doing drugs and crime being in their neighborhood.

Local governments would because people running the government do this for their own benefit. To have a place to live where only people of their rank live in. And to mold the traffic and people of color and lower class out of their way.

I'm quite shocked to see that these practices are still being upheld as late as 2012. I would have thought that a forward thinking society would have resolved these glaring physical issues by now.

Bike lanes are rarely seen. At least where I live I barely see any. When I do see them they are so short in width that if the bike were to accidently move slightly out of the lane, it would surely get hit by a coming car. And the area I live in there is like zero access to public transport so maybe that’s a reason for a lack of bike lanes. People who use these methods are transport are just not wanted in my area.

That's why lawmakers have a hard time trying to prevent exclusionary tactics. Often there is no reliable source that accurately shows the intent of the developer. This creates legal issues when trying to accuse someone of social-bias

Excluding poor people and blacks from places has been a practice for quite sometime. The tactics used are becoming more creative. I researched this topic and found that laws sometimes make certain areas favorable for political gain. In other words, voting precinct are zoned to favor a certain political party.

Georgia may be a prime example of this given the States history concerning slavery and the Confederacy.

The measures he took to keep away people of color are beyond extreme. It’s sad. America has this reputation for being the “land of the free,” but then there are bridges being built to exclude people of a different skin color from coming to another piece of land.

An institution has the power to influence people and at the same time allow people to use their own judgement and make their own decisions

Economic isolation in terms of living spaces is much more complex than just being a by product of architectural design. Historical suppression of certain races and basic economic principles in a capitalist system create this situation.

The center of this article is Lawrence Lessig's theory. His theory says that architecture shapes behavior. In other words what you build has an impact on how people react to those surroundings. Architecture shapes the environment and the people in it. Thus, sometimes limiting access. Architecture includes transportation, city development, zoning, and urban design.

Sometimes architectural planning does create social division BUT from my observations it seems that people choose to be racially divided.

without the humans having any knowledge of this being done to them. This is physiological torture. Excluding people intentionally and permanently with them thinking and wondering why this is happening to them. Why they can't gain access to certain places.

This seems to be the focus of the paper. How does the law make it possible for these urban design issues to become exclusionary?

I don't know how credible this claim is. In this sentence the author seems to be trying interpret the white peoples opinions in a negative light. I'm not supporting racial discrimination. Rather I am suggesting that there are probably real concerns that the white citizens have (e.i a quite neighborhood, traffic, etc.) that shape their opinions.

Built environments date beyond the 1970's and court rulings have been necessary. In Memphis, a group of dissatisfied white people fought to keep their neighborhood from uniting with a black neighborhood. The courts ruled against the petition stating that the plan would slow down the flow of traffic. According to Justice Marshall the ruling was correct but the reasoning behind the ruling was not correct.

Even though America is seen as the beacon of human progress the country still suffers from the socio-economic and racial issues originating from its past.

Keeping people behind walls and trapping them in and environment where it is impossible for them to grow is unfair. They should be able to integrate with other people so that there will be fair opportunities. Excluding a group doesn't help the situations they are in.

How could one regulate this? Because it is such a powerful and potentially harmful tool, it should be analyzed and patrolled, but it's impossible to argue knowledge of intent. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's near-impossible to regulate.

Certain environments are created and set up certain ways to where it is only geared towards certain groups of people only. Those who are not intended to live in these areas will eventually be excluded . He wanted to exclude people in a way that not every one would realize.

Well after reading this article who would't agree upon this controversy. I never really thought about it before but now it's so clear. Architecture which is hard, built on concrete, hard to move, set in stone; its the easiest way to exclude people without people knowing about it.

This is similar to fractional gerrymandering, where the base is split, Gerrymandering could very well have been the reason for the highway's relocation, as it would serve as a convenient border between districts.

In certain environments larger houses are built and are eventually turned into gated communities. Since these houses are bigger and better they cost a lot more and while some people can afford it others can not. This is intended to exclude certain groups of people and those who have a lot less, hindering them access to cleaner and safer neighborhoods.

I thought that home owners would be opposed to being near a transit station, like the MARTA rails, because of the increase in noise pollution. Historically speaking property values are lower near transit stations than in surrounding areas, which might be the point she is trying to make.

They are made of concrete so that there is no way to escape it. It is set in stone and its what it will be and stay forever. Concrete is hard and heavy; it is used to built structures dividing the people with no way out of it.

Robert Moses' blueprints illustrated the construction of bridges that prohibited black people from passing under bridges. These constructions purposefully did not allow black people to visit public parks at Jones Beach in New York.

Like the Jim Crow Laws were passes to make it "separate but equal," but in reality they were a way to keep the people of color away from the white people giving them no equality at all. The Jim Crow laws made matter worst in fact.

The way Infrastructure is built and where it is placed can control the way people think and what their actions will be. It puts restraints on certain groups of people causing them to act in a way that was intended for them.

Sharing the road with bikers is uncomfortable because you never know when you might need to swerve to avoid an accident and there happens to be a biker there and possibly crash into the biker.

Why do people always look at violence as answer?

In my opinion, I do not see this a segregation. I see this more as respect for the resident of that neighborhood. That resident is paying to live there and we know that anyone with money can buy a house wherever they want. As long as you have money, people won’t pay much attention to your race.

Just because something is not illegal does not mean that it is correct.

We have seen segregation on public transportation for a long time now but does it still continue today? It continues today because older generations still have the same point of view that they did years ago and they pass this point of view to the new generations.

Stereotypes are imbedded into people’s head so much that we believe them. However, we all know that they are not true. Just because a neighborhood has some criminals living there does not meant that every single person that is living there is a criminal. Take for example police officers. As we all know, they are some officers that have acted wrong in the past and because of this, people hate police officers now. We know that all police officers do not act in a wrong way, but just for a small number, we misjudge the rest of them.

It is no secret that the private owners are wealthy people. However, that is not the problem. The problem is that the government has the power to stop it, yet they allow it to continue. Just because a person is wealthy does not mean that they should be powerful; sadly, this is the world that we live in.

The level of racism was so high during this time and it still is today that it amazes me that really important corporations such as the FHA would support segregation in such a way.

The fact that people would actually take their time to design and build bridges with these specifications and purposes amazes me. But then again, hate for someone can be so big and common that I just do not know what to expect anymore.

This issue is not common only with home buying, it is common in all aspects of buying. You can see this issue in clothes shopping, technology shopping, automobile shopping, and even food shopping. The higher quality goods will always be higher than those of less quality because the people behind those goods aim at a select market where people of color are supposedly not present.

I never really paid attention to why cities or towns are built the way that they are until now. If the opportunity for integration in a town or city is taken away by architecture, then no one will truly do anything to integrate people or communities. However, if cities and towns are designed in a way were a variety of people can interact, then the citizens will take initiative in integrating because it is easier for them thanks to the way their town or city is designed.

This is a problem that is common in our present society. Big companies are always look for their benefits and they don’t care what they have to do or who they have to harm in order to achieve their goal. This is plain unfair to the people who do not have a voice in these type of situations.

In my opinion, I do not see this a symbol of discrimination. I have worked in construction before and the construction use the material that is best for that particular job. If the material usage was a symbol of discrimination, then experts would have to argue that leather shoes and canvas shoes embody a systematic social inequality.

Who would've ever thought that the height of a bridge held that much significance. The height of the bridge keeps public transportation such as buses from passing underneath. Finding ways to keep Blacks from accessing certain environments is most definitely wrong and puts them at a disadvantage because it restricts them from many opportunities.

Who would've ever thought that the height of a bridge held that much significance. The height of the bridge keeps public transportation such as buses from passing underneath. Finding ways to keep Blacks from accessing certain environments is most definitely wrong and puts them at a disadvantage because it restricts them from many opportunities.

That's like saying "lets build a vacuum chamber, because drug dealers breathe oxygen!"

I totally agree with this statement, but on the other hand other people would disagree because they would believe thats just how the architecture was design.

I don't think anything "slight" and "routine" would've required a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. It was pretty clear that this was an act of racism; the Court, the white community and the black community all knew. Most racists don't want to admit that they're racist. The victims were the only ones who would've called this for what it was: racism and segregation.

I never thought the government would do something so small like designing a small bench just so that the homeless people could not have comfortable place to sleep.

I never realized this before, but my home in the suburbs fits this description perfectly, it is in what used t be a predominately wealthy, white area, and I have often been confused about the lack of sidewalks. There are no sidewalks anywhere, even though the road outside of the subdivisions is known for vehicle collisions, people still walk along the sides of the road when walking their dogs or kids, and looking very foolish.

I love the wording for this because it embodies what the areas are trying to achieve and also name-calling these hard-to-reach, undeserving areas.

Typically I see more public transit stops near the low-income neighborhoods and apartment complexes, especially in the suburbs. Even when discussing the housing market and talking about where we would live if we could, my friends and I recognize certain neighborhoods to be better to live in because it's a "rich neighborhood" but we'd need a car because public transit it almost non-existent. People living in wealthier neighborhoods can typically afford a decent car so they wouldn't need to use public transit.

These acts of violence does not solve anything because to this present day racism still occurs in America.

So this was like preemptive, architectural, redlining, where the banks would purposefully refuse loans to low income households?

In the 1950s white people would protest and create huge signs in front of their businesses to keep color people away from them.

Again, like the separated park benches, we assume the best and that the reason behind the design didn't have exclusionary intent. Is it because as a more fortunate individual, I've never been conditioned to be suspicious of the way things are? Also, it seems like benches a couple decades back and benches now are very different. The park benches I remember as a child didn't have individually separated armrests but now when I walk around, I notice it's a more common design. I only assumed it was a design that helped people keep to their personal spaces.

When I go shopping for clothes or for food, it's always the smaller, less costly trinkets that are right by the register or where people wait in line. It's kind of crazy how businesses try to squeeze every penny out of you without trying to insult you and at the same time it makes sense because they are a business with a goal to increase profit. So, what's the underlying goal of the government that approves of certain architectural designs within the city?

I recall that on my one-month stay in Korea, I toured the Seoorung Royal Tombs and I noticed that the walkways had a higher, wider level next to the lower much narrower level. I deduced that the design was intentional because of its consistency. I asked my aunt why and she replied that the wider walkway was used by the kings' servants and the narrower walkway was sized to be used by only the king. Even something as simple as a sidewalk embodied a distinct social difference.

I think growing up with a roof over my head, clothes on my back and food on the table have seriously blinded me to how little I think about these details. Until recently, I hadn't considered how difficult it could be to find a place to rest your head when you have nowhere to go. I've been conditioned to think that the separated park bench is for aesthetic and practical purposes than more insidious reasons.

Historical evidence can definitely back this statement. Individuals deemed undesirable could often be identified based on their relative physical location. Examples in history include the "barbaric" Mongolians on the other side the Great Wall of China, the French arrondissements and the white plantation owners' extravagant homes with the slaves in separate living quarters to name just a few.

This reminds of what Trump is trying to do to Mexico.

This reminds me of a brief rumour I'd heard about Hurt Park's changes in the previous year. A few of my friends had spoken about how sitting areas were being replaced by flowers under the premises of beautifying the area but really were trying to deter the homeless from resting in the area.

It would seem that the affects of the built environment are still not widely known or understood. Those in places of power need to be able to better see what the built environment can do to certain people.

Does anyone know of any instance of this happening around this area of Atlanta? Coming from a small town the rich neighborhoods are often separated from the poor ones by miles and miles and because many of the poor do not have cars they would have no reason to ever have a street closed off.

My roommate was just commenting on how difficult it is for her to get to work because she does not have a car. She has to use the bus and train and walk. Even now built environments often restrict the lower middle class and poor.

I think Moses intentionally built a bridge so low leading to a park at a beach because in most places the walk to the beach is not a short one and during the heat of the summer one would be even more discouraged to go if the only choice they had was to walk because a bus could not drive under the bridge.

Moses used his power in a way that may not have been noticeable to the public or many people in places of power because it is such an ingenious way to exert control over certain people. Though his biographer knew why he built overpasses low, those who approved these building ordinances may not have know this or at the very least realized his reason behind building. Also, depending on the time this took place there may not have been such strict building codes as those that are in place today.

The design of the built environment restricts what those in the environment can do based on where in they live. It is meant to control who goes where, in this case, often without those who are being controlled noticing the means of their control.

I have never even thought about architecture affecting where I go but as I'm reading I'm amazed and I want to do something about it.

They could be just like Moses a racist supremacist who doesn't care about people of color or they want people of color to be stuck in these societal bubble that they have people of color in.

noun a city or town that has local government.

Driving with bikers on a busy road is equally unpleasant for both the biker and driver

Similar techniques are advised in weight loss programs, such as moving something to another room to lessen the temptation and increase the required effort to obtain it

While I feel this can in certain scenarios be found true, the majority of the time modern architecture is not designed with such motives

People have a tendency to over-analyze everything and find meaning where none was intended

I feel that one way streets are often the result of poor long term planning that results in too little space for a proper road

Reminds me of the Berlin Wall separating East and West Germany

I pose the question, does this type of discrimination go on still and we turn the other cheek?

He wanted to use a subliminal approach to be discriminate rather than be out right with it.

simply being put he was a person who discriminated on poor people and African Americans.He wanted people of similar statue to be together and not intertwine with others.

meaning "a prime example or model of something."

Why won't the government build more shelters and enrichment programs to help the homeless out and clean the streets? it shows how much the city, state, and government puts into thought about how they feel about the less fortune.

Their is still a subliminal way the government goes about hiding racism and segregation . The architecture of building cities is a way we can still be segregated with out the government having to face discrimination claims.

Although both efficiency and civil liberties should both be held in high esteem, it is a bit harsh to blame planners for failing to see the consequences of their action when they were just trying to increase the efficiency in a system. Which brings up the question, is it discrimination when its completely unintentional? Well, since the broad definition of discrimination is the favor of or treatment towards a particular group or class, I would say that yes, it is discrimination, and people should be held responsible.

This law was further upheld in 2005 when the City of New London, CT, used eminent domain to transfer land held by one private citizen to another private citizen, a developer. The ground for upholding were that it was putting the land to better use (and also to generate higher tax revenue for the City of New London.)

It seems so simple now that she points it out, its literally social psychology. The placement and posture of an individual is used to indicate their status and power in a culture, that's why kings sat on thrones above the people, (that and the illusion of divine rights), to demonstrate their power. The same thing was being done with architecture, and I just never realized it. Wow.

My brother and his wife live in a gated community outside of Hilton Head, SC. Immaculate lawns, million dollar houses, golf course, beautiful but isolated. When I visited I did not see any minorities. Both my brother and his wife moved from Los Angeles "to get away from the crime".

I grew up on Long Island, close to Jones Beach and went under these bridges many times. They are distinctive and seen all over NY state. I thought the reason they were low was that they were on parkways which restricts commercial traffic (trucks and apparently buses). Never knew there was a more sinister reason they were low.

This seems to be the "thesis" paragraph, and the official start to the paper, which means that the previous paragraphs were background information to keep in mind while reading the text, or examples of exclusionary built environment. I really like this arrangement I had mistakenly assumed that the article itself started after the abstract, and the intro was the first paragraph

For those who have not seen the Civil Rights Museum in Centennial Park, I highly recommend you go. It is well done and thought provoking.

This is horrible. Not only did the city close of a street upon request but the arguments they used to justify themselves were just wrong, closing off the street may reduce traffic there, sure, but every other road would have to suffer increased burdens. And what about the people who used that specific road to get to work, that isn't "burden of citizenship" that's outright discrimination.

Another example of a tool to force segregation - in this case under representation in congress - is gerrymandering. Georgia voters are approximately 50% democrats but the GA state legislature is almost 76% republicans. Many have attributed to redistricting by the GOP legislature in 2012.

I have often wondered why MARTA doesn't go farther, South, well now I know, although it seems to me that most individuals now days use MARTA to get to work at Metro Atlanta from their homes in homes in the suburbs. Perhaps time has passed since the publication of the research she uses here, or perhaps I am missing a larger trend.

infrastructure: the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the operation of society or enterprise.

When I use to drive to Berkeley, I would get frustrated with all the barriers, one way streets, and limited parking.And there would still be traffic around 4pm-6pm during the week.

It is where an institution can affect human behavior but still allow people to make their own decisions.

I hope one day the "norm" isn't accepting architecture and transportive services that served as the foundation of historical segregation. I hope one day we can all move on and be more progressive in eliminating architecture that reminds us of our frightening past.

This paragraph alone is enough to make an individual super angry about past architectural decisions, and angry over the fact that the truth is just now being heard by me and I'm certain many others.

I didn't even think about one way streets being a means of exclusion, I thought about it as just a way to handle traffic. Living in Atlanta, though, this article has caused me to make some shocking connections. I wonder what would happen if one-way streets in Atlanta were changed?

This is so sad. It makes me question why changes weren't immediately dynamic.

we never gave the features much thought because that's something we think the government can never be capable of doing. Like we know the government is bad and corrupt and whatnot, but this is something we don't expect them to do because this just takes it to another level of discrimination.

It still continues to disturb me that bus stops and transportation services are manipulated strategically. I'll definitely be more aware while I'm living here in Atlanta.

Why haven't new forms of architecture replaced the old? Why do we continue to ignore the issues in today's seemingly "progressing" infrastructures? Why don't we fully educate/ go into further detail of the extent of discrimination that took place? I'm just now learning about some of these forms of discrimination and it disheartens me greatly.

It frightens me to know that the Justice System attempted to cover up the true motives to closing the road down. It makes me wonder what other frightening things the government has tried to hide.

The law recognizes that built environments are constructed to limit access to different places for certain social classes. However, the law does little to address the barriers that are being built. Instead, the law sees exclusionary built environments as being necessary.

Until now, I didn't even realize the extent of discrimination in MARTA's history. I'm a bit shocked that I didn't put the pieces together, but I've always wondered why MARTA, with its may benefits, hasn't been expanded.

I actually would like to know exactly what time this Robert Moses curated this infrastructure to get a better idea of the exact history that ties along with this discrimination. You read about segregation in history textbooks, but often aren't given details of discrimination to this extent.

Built environments are constructed to separate social classes. For example, a bridge serves as an avenue to get to the other side. If the bridge is built low, the bridge keeps a bus from traveling under it. However, there is still means to crossing over the bridge. This access is given to certain people. Thus, a separation barrier exist. A separation barrier limits movement for a certain class of people.

• In my personal opinion I feel as if I would have never thought about architecture as a way of racism. But now that I have found a understanding of it, I can see things that I never noticed.

• Does it only include urban design ? Could it include rural or suburban design ?

anti-discrimination law: refers to the law of all people should be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment.

When African-Americans would protest and do sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, some white people would spit and curse at them or even beat them. http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/feb-1-1960-black-students-and-the-greensboro-sit-in/?_r=0

"powerful symbolic message'- The African American community took this as a act of racism.

Is there a good reason for this though? Could they have evidence to back up why they don't want black people in there living environment?

They have made it to where some counties that don't approve of MARTA can still accommodate people who need to go in certain counties, such as the CCT, which stands for Cobb County Transit.

This goes back to the explanation earlier in the text about why the bridges were built so low , which was to keep colored people from entering certain places.

Sabin Colloquium- innovative environmental law scholars

This is where they talk about what they can face if the lawmakers find out the "real reason" of the form of regulation towards a different race.

The opening of the text is sharing reasons why different architectures are built the way they are and it is similar to controversy in Atlanta with Cobb County not wanting MARTA to come to in their county.

The article How We Built the Ghettos by Jamelle Bouie breaks down ways that low income black citizens can be grouped and put in unsafe and more crowded areas. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/how-we-built-the-ghettos.html,

The Court probably did see the message, many of the people in the system might have even agreed to segregation or inequality. Ignoring the obvious signs is a way of agreeing to the injustice. Not everyone with political power are unbiased or fair.

It is basically a form of covert racism by using excuses to keep minorities away from the all white neighorhood. They are trying to hide their fear of non-white citizens.

Like redlining in real estate where lower class individuals are denied the opportunity to live in middle or upper class communities. Many times they are not even shown the neighborhoods that are around a "higher" class because of their financial status.

I believe this to be true. If a person has never seen the bright side of the city or the good in the city they can only tell someone how awful it is.

Did not know the definition of this word. Paradigmatic: adj. Something that is ideal or standard.

Rhetorical situation of this article: April of 2015, published in a scholarly journal. Audience is most likely people interested in academics, particularly in law or urban planning. The author is a Professor of Law at the University of Maine School of Law. The message is to expose the injustices brought about in the "built environment" by architectural exclusion.

Major road projects are typically voted upon by people in the community, are the people from lower-income areas not properly represented?

In my experience with public transport including cities in the US such as Chicago, and cities in Europe such as London, I personally find MARTA comparably hard to use and not easily accessible. Chicago's "L" is widely used among all people across very diverse socioeconomic groups. Practically everyone in London uses the "Tube" to get from point A to point B. Atlanta's public transport is subpar at best.

These examples vs other examples of exclusion are different in nature, and I don't fully agree that they are comparable. Jewish people being forced to live in a separate area is blatant racism. Whereas the vast majority of other examples of exclusion by architectural means in this article are not blatant acts of racism. I do not believe the other examples are justifiable, I just do not think they are comparable to this particular example.

An example of this is the context in which people from different socioeconomic groups use public transportation. Higher-income individuals typically use public transportation as means of getting to an entertainment event, such as a sporting event or concert. Whereas people from lower-income groups use public transportation as means of getting to and from work.

Another obstacle of finding means of transportation in affluent suburbs is the lack of taxi's. If the public transport doesn't take them to the exact location of where they need to be, the person would really have no other option than to walk. Whereas in a city, if you are not right were you need to be once departing public transport, there are taxi's readily available to take you that last leg.

This shows the discrimination between the socioeconomic classes. Wealthy people thinking that they have this superiority over the middle class and poor class.

Again, I see the point. I would not feel comfortable with non-community members who don't pay taxes using my public facilities. This ease of access would cause overcrowding. I would prefer members of the community to only be allowed to use the space. Humans tend to take better care of the thing that they have to pay for, so the community members would take better care of the parks because they pay taxes, and non-community members would not because they do not have to pay. Isn't it so?