How could one regulate this? Because it is such a powerful and potentially harmful tool, it should be analyzed and patrolled, but it's impossible to argue knowledge of intent. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's near-impossible to regulate.

I don't think anything "slight" and "routine" would've required a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. It was pretty clear that this was an act of racism; the Court, the white community and the black community all knew. Most racists don't want to admit that they're racist. The victims were the only ones who would've called this for what it was: racism and segregation.

I love the wording for this because it embodies what the areas are trying to achieve and also name-calling these hard-to-reach, undeserving areas.

Typically I see more public transit stops near the low-income neighborhoods and apartment complexes, especially in the suburbs. Even when discussing the housing market and talking about where we would live if we could, my friends and I recognize certain neighborhoods to be better to live in because it's a "rich neighborhood" but we'd need a car because public transit it almost non-existent. People living in wealthier neighborhoods can typically afford a decent car so they wouldn't need to use public transit.

Again, like the separated park benches, we assume the best and that the reason behind the design didn't have exclusionary intent. Is it because as a more fortunate individual, I've never been conditioned to be suspicious of the way things are? Also, it seems like benches a couple decades back and benches now are very different. The park benches I remember as a child didn't have individually separated armrests but now when I walk around, I notice it's a more common design. I only assumed it was a design that helped people keep to their personal spaces.

When I go shopping for clothes or for food, it's always the smaller, less costly trinkets that are right by the register or where people wait in line. It's kind of crazy how businesses try to squeeze every penny out of you without trying to insult you and at the same time it makes sense because they are a business with a goal to increase profit. So, what's the underlying goal of the government that approves of certain architectural designs within the city?

I recall that on my one-month stay in Korea, I toured the Seoorung Royal Tombs and I noticed that the walkways had a higher, wider level next to the lower much narrower level. I deduced that the design was intentional because of its consistency. I asked my aunt why and she replied that the wider walkway was used by the kings' servants and the narrower walkway was sized to be used by only the king. Even something as simple as a sidewalk embodied a distinct social difference.

I think growing up with a roof over my head, clothes on my back and food on the table have seriously blinded me to how little I think about these details. Until recently, I hadn't considered how difficult it could be to find a place to rest your head when you have nowhere to go. I've been conditioned to think that the separated park bench is for aesthetic and practical purposes than more insidious reasons.

Historical evidence can definitely back this statement. Individuals deemed undesirable could often be identified based on their relative physical location. Examples in history include the "barbaric" Mongolians on the other side the Great Wall of China, the French arrondissements and the white plantation owners' extravagant homes with the slaves in separate living quarters to name just a few.

This reminds me of a brief rumour I'd heard about Hurt Park's changes in the previous year. A few of my friends had spoken about how sitting areas were being replaced by flowers under the premises of beautifying the area but really were trying to deter the homeless from resting in the area.