I see the point of the parking stickers and restrictions though. For instance, if I lived near the braves stadium I would definitely no want people to be parking on the street in front of my drive-way because that causes congestion and hazards. Having a parking pass or a tow zone restricts people from parking in neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and other private residences. Having public parking in these areas would also take away from the community members who actually live in these areas and would rob them of their access to their own home and safety. It just would not be fair to allow the public to take advantage of these spots.

GSU's campus is extremely not bike-friendly. I am not sure if everyone feels this way but in my experience, I find it hard to bike around campus. With parking being so expensive due to overcrowding, I would think bikes would be more encouraged as a means of transportation for students. I wonder how their lack of bike lanes relates to themes in this article?

So I went to Colorado this summer for a hiking trip and I overheard a local say that they hate tourists and that they make everything crowded and expensive. I thought to my self (a little annoyed because I was touring the area), well without tourists this town would never stay afloat, I mean they don't produce anything and jobs come from tourism, so that industry is their livelihood. This same situation applies here because without tourism, places like these would fail and become impoverished. It might be annoying but it is the lifeline of places like these and locals never really understand that aspect. Just something I thought of. What do ya'll think about this?

I remember skimming an article on this back in the spring where they discussed this problem. Anthony Foxx talks about how he lived in Lincoln Heights, an area affected by this development. I love this quote from the article, "It became clear to me only later on that those freeways were there to carry people through my neighborhood, but never to my neighborhood"(Washington Post). Its a shame that these developments were put into place, especially during the time in which blacks could not vote. It really starves the area of business, wealth, and investments (similar to starving out an enemy camp from resources until it falls apart). The article is good and i'm including it below. Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/defeating-the-legacy-of-highways-rammed-through-poor-neighborhoods/2016/03/28/ffcfb5ae-f2a1-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html

Would this be a form of gentrification? Some aspects of this occurrence is to renew old buildings and the area, but maybe even changing the roadway directions and architecture flow can lead to this process. This change could be a form of renewal for the area. I believe that this is a divided topic because its a good thing for the area and businesses nearby but can be difficult for those who are "swept" out of the area. What do ya'll think cause it might just be case by case?

What was Moses's claimed reason for designing the bridges this way? I looked up the year it was built, 1951. This is extremely important in terms of social context. WWII was over and suburban life was beginning to boom. Also, civil rights efforts were in full swing. The 50's was home to some of the most famous civil rights cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, where separate but equal was deemed inherently unequal. Moses used his "power as an architect" to establish Long Island as a suburb for middle class white people.

But is this really that bad of a thing? I can definitely see where people who live in gated communities are coming from. Gated communities keeps solicitors, religious missionaries, and other inconveniences out in order to retain privacy and also safety of children. I don't think that gated communities are directed at any minority or impoverished group. Honestly I would feel safe in a gated community because of reduction of activity and road congestion through the neighborhood. It's somewhat of a generalization to say that all gated communities are meant to keep out the poor and underprivileged just because of background or social status.

This is also the case in grocery stores. More expensive foods are at eye level, where the consumer is more likely to make their selection, resulting in the store making more money. This makes me curious if a particular food company can partner with a grocery store chain to pay and get their foods in particular locations in the store. Such as eye level of a shelf, or displayed up front by check out where everyone passes.

I find this really funny actually because it makes me think of what would it say about America to "build a wall" on our southern border. (1)It would of course represent that America does not want Hispanics to come to America (2) It would show that American individuals value themselves higher than those wanting to come into our country (3) it might even show that America literally wants to close off from the rest of the world in order to keep others out (4) Could it also represent wanting to keep people in America so that immigration out might be frowned upon? just things to ponder.

This is especially apparent in Atlanta. A lot of times, the projects and low income neighborhoods are pushed to the edge of the highways and near public transportation, because it is considered undesirable to wealthier sects of society.

I believe that the hardest part of building structures and law is that it is very difficult to prove the intentions of the area coordinator or the builders themselves. Area structure may be a powerful tool to confine and restrict people but its hard to prove that those are the intentions. The coordinators could easily get away with this sort of stuff by providing misleading input about the composition. This subject should get more focus because it can be a "legal" way in witch to marginalize citizens into directed areas.

This reminds me of my school somewhat. Our cafeteria workers would make the fruit most accessible by placing buckets of them near the register. It might even be comparable to placing the gum and soda at the front of the grocery store instead of in their designated places. I believe that this system promotes impulse buys of thinking, "I could use more fruit" or "I think i'm thirsty, lemme grab a drink" in order to provide easy access to the consumer. The easier to access the more likely the customer will purchase the product. It makes me ponder how stores are set up and what "easily accessible items" I have been suckered into buying.

This is honestly making sense and is kind of cool. It makes me think of the structure of Georgia State Campus. Does the one way that runs by the housing area discourage traffic because of the frequency of students? Or does it model the campus to look more admirable to visitors? Does the design of the Commons and the courtyard in the middle promote interconnection in the community or does it act as a safe haven of green among the many concrete sidewalks and busy streets (maybe like an oasis)? Crazy to think about.

I am asking this NOT in response to the context to this exact case. Is it possible to remove race from a safety situation? Regardless of primary race in a neighborhood, if there is proven increased crime in that said area, is it racist or wrong to restrict a road leading to an area of reduced crime, in order to maintain reduced crime levels in that area? It is an enormous concept to understand, and I am not positive there is even a right answer to that question.

I started reading up on this case. The case is officially called The City of Memphis v. Greene. It's interesting because after the trial Judge McRae stated that, in context of closing down West Drive, it "did not create a benefit for white citizens which has been denied black citizens"(umkc).Once the Court of Appeals took hold of the case, they denied closing it and even said that Judge McRae erred due to his limited focus(umkc). The Court of Appeals even went on to say that it would represent a "Badge of Slavery" and that the closing would indeed divide the communities and even place a barrier between the two areas, causing limited contact(umkc). Its a really interesting case so here is the link.

Link:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/MemphisvGreene.html

Within the past year, this exact thing happened in the town I am from, Johns Creek, GA. There was a proposed plan to have a Marta stop in our city to reduce traffic. It was shut down for this exact reason. Here is a link about the decision to not extend the Marta line into North Fulton.(http://raycomgroup.worldnow.com/story/30571840/johns-creek-says-no-to-marta)

I started reading up on this case. The case is officially called The City of Memphis v. Greene. It's interesting because after the trial Judge McRae stated that, in context of closing down West Drive, it "did not create a benefit for white citizens which has been denied black citizens"(umkc).Once the Court of Appeals took hold of the case, they denied closing it and even said that Judge McRae erred due to his limited focus(umkc). The Court of Appeals even went on to say that it would represent a "Badge of Slavery" and that the closing would indeed divide the communities and even place a barrier between the two areas, causing limited contact(umkc). Its a really interesting case so here is the link.

Link:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/MemphisvGreene.html

This is a prime example of creating the built environment the way one community wanted it to be,by blocking the people of color from coming into the community through a street that connected them. This action was over looked and given an explanation that made its racial undertone go as unseen as possible.

The regulation of people through architecture honestly is more powerful then law if i can stop you from leaving a certain area i control how you make your money,where you spend it, and the people and opportunities you and future generations will have.

the lack of transportation to these places north of the city leads to less people of color having higher paying jobs that rely on public transportation. this statement is true because most higher end paying jobs are moving up north or aren't along any public transportation lines.

I never thought that the architecture of bridges could discriminate the people of color.

I noticed while riding MARTA this morning, almost all of the ads had either black people on the picture or clearly showed that they were geared towards lower income people. They KNOW who is going to see these ads.

This shows how Jim crow laws were enforced. They believed that it was okay to be "separate but equal".

Public transportation to some places became limited due to architecture because of discrimination. They were used to isolate minority groups from such "wealthy" and white neighborhoods.

This addresses one of the main problems in part one of the article with the problem being how many people of the law neglect their attention to the problems of the urban designs of the time affected segregation.

Like Jim Crow where some believed that it was a way to be separate but equal. But in reality it causes more unnecessary tension with no equality.

The writer is giving a brief history of what her article is about.

This reading intended audience is people who are not of color and not aware of racial discrimination in architect.

Would these challengers, courts, and lawmakers have any motives to not acknowledge architecture as regulation?

I never really thought that the architecture of a place could function as a regulation, but it makes a lot of sense thinking about it. Many forms of architecture and infrastructure are still the same and have an almost eerie history, and we still use them today without realizing the history.

The built environment explained here gives me a better insight on what we will actually be discussing in this class.the environment built around us can limit the success of people.

Jurisprudence is defined as: a legal system.

They don't wanna let us in!

So this Part provides specific examples....? Remember only to read parts I and II

This is what's called the writing's "exigency" or "reason for being"... Why write this? because...

Who, then, is this author's target audience?

This is one of her main claims then in Part I. She'll provide evidence of this.

Who is Lawrence Lessig?

This is the heart of her thesis?

Describe this author's ethos. Who is her audience (as indicated by this "about me" paragraph)?

An abstract is a kind of summary. What is its purpose? Of what genre are abstracts conventional? Why? What makes an abstract different from different kinds of summaries? What do you notice about this abstract?