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.

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.