Now i'm confused on what context he is stating that "scarce resource", which to me means that he doesn't want people to use too much of it and that he desires others to not use it excessively. On the contrary, open space should be the main focus with consistent use and rapid production of such. Open space is not a scarce resource, but should be used by any and all who desire to. What do y'all think? Am I taking this out of context or...?

During post- World War 2, the G.I Bill was created in order to aid in veterans to return to colleges, universities, and trade schools. The education and training provisions only lasted until around 1956 where it was then ended. It is just something to think about to place people into the context of the time. It was not just a sudden rapid increase of students, but was from veterans returning home and attend school.

S:http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/gi-bill

Could the sheltering of the students within these close-knit buildings be a form of restriction that we have been learning about? I mean they say that colleges desired to promote freedom among students, but in contrast decide to keep them enclosed from the "lures" of the outside world. Are we at Georgia State restricted by the space in which we live in and could we not even be aware of it. Think of the courtyard and compare it to the description given.

Honestly I think that at this point he is stating the obvious. He is saying that quiet places are where students have the ability to refresh themselves and that public areas can give the opportunity to create a community. These are things that one can learn just on the playground in building ties with others. We all know it subconciously, even when we don't realize it. Also, does this really need to be done near park trails and high ecological areas? Could it be done on a campus like Georgia State without these resources? Does this mean that students at Georgia State are not living up to their full potential because of the city atmosphere?

There is a set way of learning and it is only now that we are starting to improve our methods. There are new tactics of learning, new website that can help, and visual aids that can make learning more fun. I believe that society is straying away from the traditional form of lecturing, even though it is still common, to something a bit better and easily obtainable to students.What do y'all think, are there new teaching methods being set into place and do you all think that it is working?

Georgia state encompasses this and more into the campus. There is a water feature found in the courtyard, there are trees down avenues and in common spaces, there are spaces between buildings that add to a more open appeal. The cool thing is that unlike some cities, Georgia State has several parks and green spaces everywhere so that students can find some escape from the hustle and bustle. Our campus, for being an urban school in downtown Atlanta, has got this base covered.

To flesh this theory out, ART is the idea that one can repair mental fatigue by looking at or being in nature. This can be done by going to the park or just seeing some grass and flowers. Nature requires less brain function, thereby allowing the brain to rest and repair itself. It kind of hard to do this in Atlanta but I did Centennial Olympic Park for my site for unit one and that place has all of these elements so if you need a break, its literally like a 10min walk away.

S:http://www.ecehh.org/research-projects/attention-restoration-theory-a-systematic-review/

These ingredients are what make happiness. I have learned from reading Eckhart Tolle that someone can be given all they want in the world but that their ego will get in the way of happiness. You can give a student more computers, fancier water fountains, larger screens, but in order to create student well being and health, social connections need to be made. green spaces are a space in which this can be done and results in a lot of success. I love Eckhart Tolle and he has books and many more lessons so I recommend checking him out.

S:https://youtu.be/S4OOnlMmTKU

This day was started in reference to the Santa Barbara, California oil spill in 1969. The movement was started by Gaylord Nelson in order to teach people about air pollution, water pollution, and to just raise awareness of the issue.The date of April 22 was meant to be the day between spring break and final exams. on that day over 20 million people rallied to streets and businesses and ever since it has been an annual occurrence.

S:http://www.earthday.org/about/the-history-of-earth-day/

Its very interesting that the author would bring this up. Colleges, or at least some, are attempting to become more "green" on campus because of the vastness of space and people. Georgia State, although not doing a crazy amount, is making attempts to do as such. For instance, there is a program in the panther dining where people can volunteer time to collect excess food and donate that to local homeless shelters. Although this reduces food waste, it requires volunteers which can be difficult to find sometimes. If a community wants change, then change will happen (a concept that works for everything btw).

This is interesting as people socialize, learn, and spend more time on campus, they feel more part of the community. I guess that this is the same as someone who brings their children to the park everyday feels connected to the others who do the same. They feel unified in their shared spaces and apart of something more than themselves.

This is definitely true! Think about how different the Georgia State campus would be without hurt park, the fountains, the student center benches. There would be a lack of socializing and outside of the classroom learning. Personally, I sit out near the student center during mornings to talk to friends and socialize, that would all change without a dynamic open space.

Again, I see the point. I would not feel comfortable with non-community members who don't pay taxes using my public facilities. This ease of access would cause overcrowding. I would prefer members of the community to only be allowed to use the space. Humans tend to take better care of the thing that they have to pay for, so the community members would take better care of the parks because they pay taxes, and non-community members would not because they do not have to pay. Isn't it so?

I see the point of the parking stickers and restrictions though. For instance, if I lived near the braves stadium I would definitely no want people to be parking on the street in front of my drive-way because that causes congestion and hazards. Having a parking pass or a tow zone restricts people from parking in neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and other private residences. Having public parking in these areas would also take away from the community members who actually live in these areas and would rob them of their access to their own home and safety. It just would not be fair to allow the public to take advantage of these spots.

So I went to Colorado this summer for a hiking trip and I overheard a local say that they hate tourists and that they make everything crowded and expensive. I thought to my self (a little annoyed because I was touring the area), well without tourists this town would never stay afloat, I mean they don't produce anything and jobs come from tourism, so that industry is their livelihood. This same situation applies here because without tourism, places like these would fail and become impoverished. It might be annoying but it is the lifeline of places like these and locals never really understand that aspect. Just something I thought of. What do ya'll think about this?

I remember skimming an article on this back in the spring where they discussed this problem. Anthony Foxx talks about how he lived in Lincoln Heights, an area affected by this development. I love this quote from the article, "It became clear to me only later on that those freeways were there to carry people through my neighborhood, but never to my neighborhood"(Washington Post). Its a shame that these developments were put into place, especially during the time in which blacks could not vote. It really starves the area of business, wealth, and investments (similar to starving out an enemy camp from resources until it falls apart). The article is good and i'm including it below. Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/defeating-the-legacy-of-highways-rammed-through-poor-neighborhoods/2016/03/28/ffcfb5ae-f2a1-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html

Would this be a form of gentrification? Some aspects of this occurrence is to renew old buildings and the area, but maybe even changing the roadway directions and architecture flow can lead to this process. This change could be a form of renewal for the area. I believe that this is a divided topic because its a good thing for the area and businesses nearby but can be difficult for those who are "swept" out of the area. What do ya'll think cause it might just be case by case?

But is this really that bad of a thing? I can definitely see where people who live in gated communities are coming from. Gated communities keeps solicitors, religious missionaries, and other inconveniences out in order to retain privacy and also safety of children. I don't think that gated communities are directed at any minority or impoverished group. Honestly I would feel safe in a gated community because of reduction of activity and road congestion through the neighborhood. It's somewhat of a generalization to say that all gated communities are meant to keep out the poor and underprivileged just because of background or social status.

I find this really funny actually because it makes me think of what would it say about America to "build a wall" on our southern border. (1)It would of course represent that America does not want Hispanics to come to America (2) It would show that American individuals value themselves higher than those wanting to come into our country (3) it might even show that America literally wants to close off from the rest of the world in order to keep others out (4) Could it also represent wanting to keep people in America so that immigration out might be frowned upon? just things to ponder.

I believe that the hardest part of building structures and law is that it is very difficult to prove the intentions of the area coordinator or the builders themselves. Area structure may be a powerful tool to confine and restrict people but its hard to prove that those are the intentions. The coordinators could easily get away with this sort of stuff by providing misleading input about the composition. This subject should get more focus because it can be a "legal" way in witch to marginalize citizens into directed areas.

This reminds me of my school somewhat. Our cafeteria workers would make the fruit most accessible by placing buckets of them near the register. It might even be comparable to placing the gum and soda at the front of the grocery store instead of in their designated places. I believe that this system promotes impulse buys of thinking, "I could use more fruit" or "I think i'm thirsty, lemme grab a drink" in order to provide easy access to the consumer. The easier to access the more likely the customer will purchase the product. It makes me ponder how stores are set up and what "easily accessible items" I have been suckered into buying.

This is honestly making sense and is kind of cool. It makes me think of the structure of Georgia State Campus. Does the one way that runs by the housing area discourage traffic because of the frequency of students? Or does it model the campus to look more admirable to visitors? Does the design of the Commons and the courtyard in the middle promote interconnection in the community or does it act as a safe haven of green among the many concrete sidewalks and busy streets (maybe like an oasis)? Crazy to think about.

I started reading up on this case. The case is officially called The City of Memphis v. Greene. It's interesting because after the trial Judge McRae stated that, in context of closing down West Drive, it "did not create a benefit for white citizens which has been denied black citizens"(umkc).Once the Court of Appeals took hold of the case, they denied closing it and even said that Judge McRae erred due to his limited focus(umkc). The Court of Appeals even went on to say that it would represent a "Badge of Slavery" and that the closing would indeed divide the communities and even place a barrier between the two areas, causing limited contact(umkc). Its a really interesting case so here is the link.

Link:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/MemphisvGreene.html

I started reading up on this case. The case is officially called The City of Memphis v. Greene. It's interesting because after the trial Judge McRae stated that, in context of closing down West Drive, it "did not create a benefit for white citizens which has been denied black citizens"(umkc).Once the Court of Appeals took hold of the case, they denied closing it and even said that Judge McRae erred due to his limited focus(umkc). The Court of Appeals even went on to say that it would represent a "Badge of Slavery" and that the closing would indeed divide the communities and even place a barrier between the two areas, causing limited contact(umkc). Its a really interesting case so here is the link.

Link:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/MemphisvGreene.html