This phenomena can currently be observed on our very own campus.

Probably a contributor to this cultural stigma is the fact that it's much harder to grow something on a field covered in snow. The culture comes from somewhere.

This ties into what Tuan said earlier about how tools such as air travel can expand the world and make it feel spacious for some. I imagine it could also make the world feel more crowded for those who can not afford air travel.

Music experienced as a group is different from music experienced alone.

Similar to "The Enormous Radio," technology changes the way we interact with other people. In this story, however, it appears to be more of an interaction, where as in "The Enormous Radio," things are very one sided.

What does he mean by "I say I was trying to advisedly?"

Amen

We mentioned this in class, that although standardized housing allows for equal opportunity, it doesn't allow for expression. It doesn't allow it's inhabitants to have a voice. What's the point of having opportunity if you can no longer take it?

HOLY HOT DAMN WHAT A SONG

Almost all the people in that video are white

THEN WHATS THE POINT?

Also, I feel like this article is formatted a bit like those John Oliver videos online. He starts off with a funny video, then gets down to the nitty gritty of social injustices. This article has a great hook.

This article is making me so angry because this is the shittiest excuse I've ever heard for not liking hip hop. But this point here brings up an interesting point. Part of what drives architects to try and absolve their digressions must be guilt. Even if that is the case, they still need to acknowledge the influence they have, because that's the first step to using that power for good.

yeah fuck the police! (referring to the nwa song that provides an excellent example of this)

You can stay that again. That song was weak sauce, and you can tell even before he starts rapping.

By getting the input from the inhabitants, I feel that architects would benefit greatly. Something that keeps coming up is the lack of connection that inhabitants have for their home. This could easily change if architects find a way to involve those who are going to potentially live in their designed structures.

By analyzing hip hop and rap, maybe architects can see what they are doing wrong?

Almost like a society's desire to eliminate the attitudes that are deeply rooted in a certain community. This happens a lot now a days with gentrification.

Is this ever going to be possible with public housing and low cost housing in general? Is it really possible to minimize costs without minimizing thought?

It seems kind of weird to distinguish races as if we innately live differently and have different "character". This mindset doesn't feel like it would help with any kind of racial divide.

Is this to suggest that part of the reason architecture doesn't benefit minorities is because minorities are not part of the architectural community?

It's funny to see how much this changed recently, with more middle-class whites beginning to return to areas like Woodside. Gentrification is beginning to occur more often in these areas.

The government essentially as to become involved in order to provide these lower income families public housing.

I recently read a book that described this phenomenon, which focused a lot on the concept that society pushes the idea of never being able to escape poverty into the minds of young children who are minorities. It's almost like a tactic used to keep minorities below everyone else.

Sort of like a modern day housing PTA club. It works to create a community within the public housing residents, and allows for residents to feel like they are being heard when it comes to making changes to the actual home.

In this way, public housing is flawed. It fails to create much diversity within its housing areas, and is usually incredibly ordinary, with not much life or greenery.

This reminds me a lot of Section 8, a form of aid given to low income families as well as elderly and disabled individuals through forms of public housing.

This discussion of style and proportion reminds me a lot of George Orwell's approach to language in his Politics of the English Language, where he emphasizes the need for a simple and structurally sound base before any fancy ornamentation or extreme stylistic twist should be made on any spoken or written word. A sentence that uses large, polysyllabic words is of no use if it does not follow rudimentary grammatical rules that render it useful in communication.

The speaking of the French palace makes me very interested about the general idea of public vs. private. I wonder if it is more common for architecture as a very concrete term to signify what is public or private, or whether this is the job of decoration. Thinking about this has also made me really question whether architecture and decoration can really be separated at all or if they are naturally embedded in each other.

Individuality is such a big thing now a days when creating a room that fits the individual. This might have to do with the fact that you want to feel the most comfortable in your own home, and in order to do so you must feel like your home is a personal space. Personal expression is an important factor to consider when building a home, and works as a foundation for architects to build off of.

Most of the architecture that we see here in the United States is based on structures that exist in areas like Europe, and it seems that the architecture found in many European countries focus a lot on the aesthetics. It is, in a way, meant to be art in itself.

It seems like architecture has changed in order to accommodate to people and their lifestyle. Instead of simply adding certain elements to a structure for aesthetics, architects focus on adding elements that will benefit the inhabitant.

It seems that architects focus a lot of their attention on differentiating the inside from the outside, possibly to emphasize on the home being an inside force, and the rest of the world as being an outside force.

We have an endless connection to our dwellings since we always go back to our homes

Surroundings shape the overall character of a person (nature vs. nurture)

The main differences seem to be in whether or not importance is placed on the macrocosm or the microcosm. I think it would be interesting to see if there was a third individual that incorporated both sides of these ideologies because they do seem very compatible.

Doesn't the root of building/dwelling lie in manipulation of the environment?

I find it interesting that the author of this analysis would lead with this observation, which was not something that really stood out to me when I first read the Heidegger piece.

Building informs our sense of being through confirming our connection to the fourfold.

I don't get this

This may be over optimistic. Man hasn't been doing such a great job of saving the earth as of late.

Interesting. Freedom as a requirement for dwelling. This makes a lot of sense in a historical context. Over the years, many peoples and cultured have been exiled and forced to emigrate to a new land. The Irish, for example (I use this example because it is the only one I know a lot about, not because it is the most prevalent today.) Many of the Irish emigrated to America, but some of them still felt the call of the motherland. Because they did not move there freely, it did not feel like a home. Is this what Heidegger is talking about?

this reminds me of Yi-Fu Tuan's idea that building a living space and living in it require people to constantly think and be aware of what is going on

How has the time in which housing was in short supply and high demand informed he current status of housing and dwelling that we exist in today?

All of this talk of the "fourfold" seems very reminiscent of the Platonic four elements, which, interestingly, exist in a sort of opposition to the Cartesian "I think, therefore I am" stated earlier in the piece. There is certainly a mix of philosophical approaches taken in this piece, and I wonder how well they exist in harmony.

This very affirmative statement situates very nicely historically, but I wonder when it became so clear and ineffable that "we are dwellers". Should a statement like this acknowledge historical turning points like the neolithic revolution, is that the point at which it became possible to say so confidently "we are dwellers"?

This comment seems to presuppose that dwelling is a purely anthropocentric idea—I suppose, then, that Heidegger would say that an animal taking refuge does not dwell. I would be curious to know how the role of a domestic animal might be considered, or if dwelling is, in fact, exclusive to humankind.

This is very similar to the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am". To place this sort of phrase at the beginning of the analysis seems to place the same importance on it that Descartes did, in that existence and the self lie at the center of all thought, and, by extension, at the center of each building and dwelling, too.