Zajímavá poznámka. Keller má nízké mínění o voličích samotných. Jsou pohlceni liberalismem a jeho přístupem k životu podobně, jako jsou i elity.

...A vida, myšlenka není Kellerova, ale je 60 let stará a pochází z eseje Ralfa Dahrendorfa z roku 1964 (Recent Changes in the Class Structure of European Societies)!

For my supplemental text, I read the article "Universal Design in the Community Planning" about the development of new, more effective and efficient city planning (https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udincommunity.html ). In the article, the author writes about new cities that are being designed as a tight-knit community and as a work/play area. Homes are being built directly on top of restaurants and shops so residents do not have to go very far for socialization. In cities that are designed where everything is spread out, this is not good for people who are "disabled with age," or very, very old to the point where they cannot function like they use to. As cities are more spread out, older people are forced to drive places since they can't drive. This can be very dangerous. These new communities that are closer together are making it easier for the elderly to reside there since everything is closer together.

The supplemental text relates to this article because both discuss specifically designing the built environment to better fit the needs of the disabled. While this article does not mention specific examples of things a city can do to help the disabled, it promotes the involvement of disabled people in discussions of city planning. For the supplemental text, it does not discuss the disabled getting involved in city planning, but rather what cities have already done to help the disabled, or, in the supplemental text's case, the elderly. Both of these articles have a goal of making the social environment equal and available for all people to enjoy. By realizing disabled people's needs in the environment, city planners can design cities that will make them accessible and enjoyable for everyone, disabled or not.

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.

This article, ‘I love cities, but they don’t all love me back,’ advocate for disabled says before Habitat IIIhttp://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/i-love-cities-they-dont-all-love-me-back-advocate-disabled-says-habitat-iii is taken from a forum called Habitat III, World Cities at a Crossroads. It shows the "breakthroughs, trends, and innovations from cities around the globe," and one the topics it deemed important was the discussion of what can be done in cities for those who are disabled in some manner. There were thoughts of putting up audio street signs for those who are visually impaired, making signs simpler to understand for those who are mentally impaired, and even making the sides of signs less sharp so that those who walked by would be less likely to injure themselves. Widespread plans toward acknowledging and accepting disabled people into public areas is needed, but with so many different types of disabled people, it is hard to come up with one solution that fits all needs. The U. N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came into affect in 2008, and in the countries where the treaty was ratified (United States not included), these countries are already working to create spaces that cater not only to the able but to those with special needs. A draft of the New Urban Agenda for the U. N. mentioned disabled people 12 times but hesitates to outline exactly what it will do concerning these people. Though progress is slow, disabled people are speaking out and beginning to have their voices heard when it comes to the built environment.

These two texts were very interesting and similar in many ways. Both deal with the issue of disabled person's accessibility to public and even private areas, and both argue that not enough is being done. The Habitat III article does a good job highlighting the different kinds of disabled people while the Teaching with Trauma article glosses over the various types of disabled and only really talks about wheelchair access. The Habitat III article speaks of policies that are being put into affect already to help provide access to the built environment to disabled individuals, while Teaching with Trauma does not identify any real laws going into place to help people. Perhaps the reason for this is because the Teaching with Trauma article speaks about policies in a particular area while the Habitat III article deals with protocols in places around the world.

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.

If the politicians and city planning officials can open up a dialogue with disabled people, it will benefit both sides. The disabled will be able to share their concerns and ideas for a more equal and unified environment, and the city planners can make the ideas a reality, making everyone enjoying the environment happy.

This is why it is important for city officials to acknowledge the point of view from disabled people. If they are constantly ignored, then their influence is heavily weakened. But if they are acknowledged and given an equal say (like a democracy should work), then their influence and recognition will increase.

When thinking about it, this is true. All humans have some type of disability. However, I think this quote hurts Lid's point rather than helps. One could make the argument that since all humans have disabilities in some way or another, there should just be basic set functions to help extremely disabled people and that's it. Like only including ramps and nothing else, or something of that sort.

If Lid's argument for the disabled were to be summed up in three words, these are them. Lid is advocating for the disabled's accessibility to be eased and increased in urban life, their participation to be increased in government when it comes to design, and their inclusion in city planning discussions to be increased as well.

Just a note on how Lid formats her paragraphs, sometimes she puts her topic sentence as the last sentence instead of the first. She doesn't do it often, but does do it sometimes. I found this interesting.

Lid is just repeating her argument again. If city planning commissions included more input from disabled people, it would not only strengthen disabled people's influence but their courage in standing up and speaking out on issues they feel need to be addressed.

This is just like the Beltline. When studying the Beltline, it is not only safe, but it is also an environment where people of all ages and abilities can come to enjoy it and socialize. The Beltline is the ideal urban environment that Lid envisions.

This is exactly what Ryan Gravel promoted and advocated for with the creation of the Beltline. He wanted Atlanta to be a more walkable city. It is also not a coincidence that Ryan Gravel wanted Atlanta to become a more social city and wanted to create an environment that increased social opportunities for residents of Atlanta.

Lid, once again, keeps going back to the idea of an urban space operating as a social place. The social aspect of an environment is crucial to Lid and that is why all people should have an equal opportunity to experience it.

I did not understand what Lid meant when she discussed zebra crossings so I looked up a picture. These road markings are very effective in making it safe for pedestrians to navigate the roads if they need to do so. These markings also better the relationship between pedestrians and drivers.

This is a problem. Environments are being designed for their beauty rather than their functionality. To me, functionality is way more important than beauty. While I acknowledge that aesthetics are important, the function that the environment serves should be the focus of an urban project.

This connects to an annotation I had above. It is hard to make the environment suitable for all people with all types of disabilities. But if disabled people worked with city planners, a compromise could and would be reached that would most likely benefit both parties.

This is really unfortunate, but I know it to be true. Urban areas are often pressured politically and economically to conform to a certain type. This type of pressures leads to a lot of public dislike and distrust. I wish urban areas wouldn't be under so much economic pressure.

Lid's definition of urban is very community-oriented. She is committed to making the urban environment equal for everyone and making sure everyone feels like they belong.

Definitions for macro, meso, and micro:

Macro: Large-scale, overall Meso: Middle, intermediate Micro: Small-scale, small

Relationships in the physical environment are very important to Lid. She studies not just how the disabled interact with the environment but also how pedestrians interact with the road and drivers.

Oslo is the capital of Norway. Below is Oslo on a map and a link to the city's information page for more facts and statistics about the Norwegian city.

http://www.visitoslo.com/

What's interesting about this article is Lid never calls for disabled people to participate. Rather she calls for the government to include disabled people in their planning process. This is very interesting. Lid is blaming the government for lack of inclusion rather than putting blame on the disabled for lack of participation.

Spatial justice is so close to the phrase "social justice." They really do fall under the same category of equality. Social justice is about having equality across the law. Spatial justice is about having equality across the physical environment.

This is a bit of a stretch. If we were to redesign every environment we have now to accommodate people with impairments, this would cost billions of dollars. I think a better approach would be to build more smart from now on, and maybe make some fixes here and there to what we currently have constructed in our physical environment.

I just wrote about this in my second Built Environment Description. Krog Street Market includes a large ramp in front of the market to ensure all people (even people who are wheelchair-bound) can enjoy what it has to offer. By including ramps, various places are able to open access to their physical environment on an equal basis.

This is a real declaration written by the United Nations (UN). It was drafted in December of 2006 and signed in March of 2007 in New York City. It became effective in May of 2008. Below is the link to the actual full text of the declaration.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

This is why it's so hard to accommodate all disabled people. It's really difficult to accommodate all people in a wheelchair, all people who are blind, all people who are deaf, and so on. But if disabled people met with city officials more frequently, like Lid suggests, maybe it will become easier to plan for the disabled in the community.

When I first read this I thought it was too sad to be true. But after seeing that Lid was citing the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the WHO with this statement, I realized it must be true. It is disappointing to imagine that disabled people are excluded from city planning because architects simply exclude them and because there are "negative attitudes" from both presumably the disabled and city officials. Politicians and disabled people need to come together to assist one another. If they don't, these problems and this separation will continue.

This is Lid's definition of "urban life." Social interaction plays a major part of her argument here. She believes that an urban environment is more of a social environment, one in which everyone should have equal say and participation.

This makes a lot of sense. If people with disabilities engaged more with politicians and city planners, then their issues could be immediately brought up and addressed. For people who are not disabled, it is hard to imagine what disabled people struggle with. But if a disabled person was actually there to bring up their daily struggles, a lot of their concerns could and would be addressed.

If politicians and spatial planners do not understand about accessibility for wheelchair use, how can disabled people expect them to design appropriate structures? This supports the author's thesis. The lack of knowledge on the disabled's lives and problems is a major problem.

This is the author's, Inger Marie Lid's, thesis for the article. Right off the bat we know that she is going to be discussing disabled people and how able-bodied people can include them in the building of environments.

Now that our society is becoming more aware of the labels and stereotypes put on people by certain word usage, I find myself wondering which term of reference is preferred by those who are "disabled" in some way. I wonder if handicapped is a better, nicer term, or is there some other word that is more sensitive to the feelings of those individuals. Disabled/ disability seems to carry such a harsh connotation with it, like those people are not as good as others, but then again, so does the term handicapped. Perhaps, like in many situations, it is not the word that needs to change but the attitude about those types of individuals. Changing word choice is just a band aid for when people have poor images of certain kinds of people who are different from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPmGW-GDHA

I never really considered widespread wheelchair access or access for people with disabilities before and the hardships they have to endure to be anywhere. I know people who have a hard time getting around exist, I see them and the handicap doors that I walk through, but I never considered how some places could be barred to them and they could not have a voice in the public because of it. Because some people cannot get to a certain place, their voice is not heard, and that is troubling. I only see a person in a wheel chair as a rarity, but is that because they cannot get to the place where I am rather than my previous notion that there just are not that many people who are disabled?

I was not sure what this meant, so I found an article that explains what these are http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/3585?e=blackstone_1.0-ch02_s01 The article deals with the topic of a sociologists approach to situations. Micro is small group interactions, sometimes just the self alone. Meso is at a larger group level, such as a business, and macro is large scale interactions, situations that affect entire continents and global relations.

Stratify means "to arrange or classify," according to Google. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stratify

Through italicizing experts, the author trying to make fun of the term in reference to these people in a display of satire. However, why is that the case? Obviously she must not think all of their knowledge or opinions are sound, or she would not feel the need to mock them as an expert. What is an expert in her eyes then? Is it someone with the personal life experience (not necessarily any schooling) that qualifies them as an expert, or the one who has done all the research and is very aware of the textual knowledge of a situation?

She literally just had a sentence similar to this a couple paragraphs ago. "The notion of the right to the city, understood as a right to urban life, involves both the political, social and material dimensions of the urban...begin by developing a conception of spatial justice." She is becoming repetitive in her argument already. The points she is making are not new, and she is not elaborating, but rather restating. Her word choice is even the same.

Is she arguing for access for people with disabilities, or arguing specifically for wheelchair access? I do not think the author does a good job portraying what she is actually trying to address in that regard, as people with disabilities are not just people stuck in a wheel chair.

She announces that planning in urban areas is a social justice issue, but I think it has always been one. Planning in urban areas has always affected people, and when it does that people either stand behind it or try to stop the process. One example is the Atlanta Beltline, where many people took the idea as their own and used it to aid themselves in their environment. Plans such as low income housing were a big deal for people, and that was a social justice issue to make sure everyone could enjoy the Beltline and all kinds of people could have access. Another prime example is segregation within the American south. Black people put on all kinds of protest and marches to raise awareness for their plight and try ti change the environment around them for one geared toward equality for races.

The fact the author switches between different modes, such as third person and first person perspectives is unnecessary and disruptive. The context of the article is most assuredly going to be about accessibility and the built environment for people in wheelchairs with disabilities, so there is no need for the author to go and state the point of the essay in their own words.