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.