“How Cities Use Designs to Drive Homeless People Away, “published by The Atlantic and authored by Robert Rosenberger, was a thought provoking article which suggested and brought into discussion how cities are strategically designed to detour certain behavior and groups, in this case the homeless population. Its first example of such designs are metal spikes built into the ground outside of an apartment building. While clearly the spikes were put there in hopes of keeping the “property” homeless people free, because of their obvious and apparent nature the community quickly took notice and went to action from signing petitions, contacting local representatives, and even sending an image of the deterrent viral. While all of these were great and caused this particular story to end in a nice and expeditious manner, the author brought into question the possibility of other architecture/design deterrents that aren’t as obvious to the human’s eye such as: skateboard deterrent devices, benches’ armrest, and even uncomfortable seats, just to name a few.

The difference between the metal spikes and the other deterrents is simply their subtleness. The article goes on to hint that the various subtle group deterrents create an “invisible problem”, saying that most people are, “like the non-skateboarder that walks unknowingly by the skateboard deterrents each day, (making) it’s easy to be someone moving through our world without seeing these power plays, enacted through design and policy, keeping the predicament of the homeless conveniently out of view. The problem remains, but it’s rendered “invisible”.

Another point the article made, one of the last in fact, was about the importance of figuring out what values should be taken into consideration and the need of hearing out and having empathy about others needs and “alternative values.” For instance, if homeless people had the opportunity to voice their opinion in making these decisions, the city or whoever is designing may find out that their opinions actually “warrant consideration”. Which if taken seriously and implemented, communities worldwide could one day serve every one.

Rosenberger, Robert. "How Cities Use Design to Drive Homeless People Away." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 19 June 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

There are so many modern examples of exclusionary building and design. For example, instead of building a wall to divide a historically black neighborhood from a historically white neighborhood, now in 2017,"northern suburbs" won't allow public transpiration to keep lower income "undesirables" out of them.

This to me is like giving a kid with no shoes sandals and walking away thinking "how you must of helped him/her" without ever stopping to realize that he lives in a coastal environment. While the intent was good, the kids circumstances are not that much better than before.However, this could all be solved by communicating with the person / group you are trying to help. Which draws back to the Atlantic article were the author suggested that, "it would be wise to take into consideration alternative values and needs when making decisions/designs in communities-- especially when the groups has varying needs than your own.

This is a very common theme within both articles and even within many of the issues that this "new america" faces. Being that this countries and worlds history is rooted in a dark past of racial segregation, inequality and brutal slavery there is no possible way to evade discussing how it effected and still effects every avenue of life--including architecture. So I think both articles are identifying a major root of this issue by discussing race, color, and history.

Many times the these regulations in urban communities serve as walls, fences, and specifically bridges that a lot of times create a feeling of exclusion --not in a good way and a feeling of imprisonment.

The supplemental text does not support,deny, or event explain the lasting effects of architecture, beyond there intended time. I wonder if there are any situations where cities/ communities make a conscious effort to rid there environment of some of these structures/designs. Or do people simply let them remain and continue to be conducive to an environment of inequality, even if its unconscious?

This exact example is discussed in the supplemental text from the Atlantic calling it a "pervasive homeless deterrence technology".However despite its pervasiveness for the one it is designed to deter, another person may simply see it as a "three person bench" without giving it much thought.

While this is not discussed in the Atlantic article, I have seen this occur around my home. The local school district has worked continuously to exclude the major apartment complexes in the community --which house most of the areas working class residents, from there school zones. While this was suppose to be subtle many saw its racial and economic bias, yet turned a blind eye. So I wonder if the problem is really invisible as said in the Atlantic artlice or just flat out ignored?

Not only has the law ignored the less obvious exclusionary features and design tactics but I believe the people have to.For example, the local civilians spoke up about the metal spikes near the apartment complex and rallied behind them being taken out simply because it was in there were more apparent. However, they pass and even use less obvious deterrents every day but do not stop to question or interpret there true purpose and meaning.

This seems very similar to the skateboard deterrent situation, being that it is one of those things in life you don't notice until it effects you. Just like a non- skateboarder would walk right past a skateboard deterrent a person with a car/ someone who doesn't rely on public buses would drive right under a low bridge without considering the actual implications/reasoning behind the design. Despite these being different situations, this is very reflective and conducive of the "invisible problem", that Robert Rosenberger mentions in his article.

This supports the article, "How Cities Use Design to Drive Homeless People Away", being that homeless people are rarely homeless by choice and practically always because of some variant of a financial hardship.