“GREEDY RICH IS THE POOREST OF THE POOR.” Worldsupporter. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
This blog post written by Cecile Cremer discusses the campaign started to help erase the socioeconomic gap that exists in Mexico. Cremer focuses on the images taken by Oscar Ruiz (featured image) that quite literally show a line between the rich and the poor. She also talks about how the general public is not aware of these slums that many people live in because of the image the media portrays. Instead of seeing the dirty, sewage infested slums, people see the attractive clean hotel resorts that are scattered all over Mexico. She ends her post with a call to action for people to step up and help this campaign erase the poverty that exists in Mexico.
Originally I was going to use the image as my source to write the Annotated Bibliography. However, when I clicked the image it led me to the blog post and effectively piped my curiosity as I wanted to see what this person had to say. Unfortunately, the blog post seems to be roughly put together, lacks proper citation and overall does not provide much in the way of detail about the topic. As a result this source can not be taken in a serious note as it lacks credibility. However, the image does remind of me the divide that exists here in Atlanta. The only difference is that in Atlanta, highways are the dividing line, not fences.
This video by CNN discusses the use of the “Mosquito device” and its effects on people. In the video, the business decided to implement the use of the mosquito device after a massive brawl erupted in the local metro station entrance and surfaced in front of the businesses. The area is known to be a popular place for the local youth to gather and interact because of all the youth oriented shops and places that surround the area. However, traditionally youth are associated with loitering, being noisy and causing havoc, making them prime candidates for exclusion.
I chose this video since it elaborates on the use of aural architectural defense, which was not familiar to me before. This video also connects with annotated bibliographies seven and eight, but focuses specifically on the aural method of exclusion. In the video, the business claims that the mosquito device is not targeted at youth, however when CNN tested it, only younger people were able to hear it. I know I have experienced this device in Atlanta when I was in an area where youth would usually collect. I remember the sound resonating in my head and being very annoying. Now I know why that happened and what it was.
“5 Ways We Design Our Cities to Make Them Inhospitable to Human Life (Photos) | Alternet.” N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
The article by Allegra Kirkland discusses the five types of defensive architecture cities use to exclude certain groups of people. Kirkland talks about how cities and private spaces use defensive architecture like spikes, sprinklers, checkpoints and divided benches to exclude the poor, specifically the homeless. In addition to this, cities also use aural methods like playing unpleasant sounds to prevent people from selling or sleeping around businesses. Kirkland uses the example of the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium which played an industrial sound track to keep people from sleeping on the steps.
I chose this article because it relates with my 7th annotated bibliography which focused on the use of spikes and expands on the different methods of defensive architecture being used in cities to exclude the homeless. This source also relates to the built environment setting found here in Atlanta. Most of the methods mentioned in Kirkland’s article can be seen in use throughout Atlanta. For example, some parks and businesses in Atlanta do use split benches, sprinkler systems, checkpoints and spikes to prevent the homeless from using those areas.
Andreou, Alex. “Anti-Homeless Spikes: ‘Sleeping Rough Opened My Eyes to the City’s Barbed Cruelty’.” The Guardian 18 Feb. 2015. The Guardian. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
Photograph: Guy Corbishley/Demotix/Corbi
This image depicts the spikes that are placed to prevent the homeless from sleeping or sitting in that spot. These spikes are commonly found in use around stores, parks and under bridges. The use of defensive architecture is present in many cities and even in Atlanta. However, their use has been placed under criticism by the public because it openly excludes and discriminates against the homeless. In addition to this, the use of defensive architecture, like these spikes, has been criticized as it can prevent people that may need a place to sit down and rest as well as limiting the city public life.
I chose this image as my source because it shows architectural exclusion in a very blunt manner. Usually, architectural exclusion goes unnoticed by the general public, however, this image clearly depicts the war that exists on public space. This image was published approximately a year ago, but the use of spikes is still present in most large cities and areas with heavy human traffic. This image is similar to my other annotated bibliography on “Poor doors” as both images are methods of defensive architecture and under heavy criticism from the public.
In this article, Emily Fox discusses the implementation and effects of poor doors in New York City. Fox reports that while “poor doors” are a new idea, the issue of architectural segregation based on income is not new. She states that people have always been excluded from areas like gyms, playrooms and rooftops based on their incomes. However, the idea of poor doors was not introduced until the requirement to share facilities was lifted in 2009. Once the requirement was lifted in New York, architects started designing buildings with poor doors and restricted access to amenities and “public” areas with the intention of providing people with lower incomes, nicer areas to live. However, as Fox reports, this was not the case, and lower income individuals were being segregated.
This article is similar to the one in my 5th annotated bibliography. They both discuss the implementation of poor doors and segregation through architecture. This was also the reason I selected this article as a source, since it provided me with an alternative view on this issue. However, this article is very vague when it is compared to the one used in my 5th annotated bibliography.
In this article, the author, Hillary Osborne talks about the “poor doors” being constructed in London’s inner city flats. As newer flats are being constructed, separate entrances are being created, one for the poor and one for the rich. Osborne discusses how the richer entrances are well lit, well maintained and designed to be ascetically appealing. On the contrary, the “poor doors” are poorly maintained, dark and usually designed poorly. The lower income residents are also separated from their richer counterparts since they have different storage areas, waste management and usually little to no parking available. Osborne closes her article on how the “poor doors” are increasingly becoming common practice worldwide.
This type of structural segregation is also present in some areas of Atlanta where they will not allow poorly dressed individuals (those who look poor) inside of “richer” buildings. I chose this article because it explicitly shows the concept of architectural exclusion and the article is presented in a very professional non-biased manner. Essentially, this article does not add any opinion, but reports the findings.
The authors test their hypothesis that people who feel socially included will tend to express product loyalty and follow more mainstream trends compared to those who are socially excluded. The authors divide the people in the study in two categories: Those who are considered “stable” and those who are considered “unstable”. They tested them by socially excluding them through social media, product advertisement and vacation location choices. Their results showed that people who experienced social exclusion and were “stable” would express product loyalty and follow the trends of those around them. In contrast, those who were “unstable” showed little to no product loyalty and interpreted the social exclusion as a reason to stand out and be unique.
I chose this paper because it shows how socially people can become excluded, through products and their choices. By becoming excluded socially, these people can also become architecturally excluded. For example, those who were classified as “unstable” can feel excluded from certain interior and exterior environments if it does not make them feel like they belong. Atlanta itself relies heavily on advertisement and products, and those who exhibit no product loyalty may easily feel excluded from Atlanta.
The authors, Michael D. Burnard and Andreja Kutnar test the hypothesis that indoor built environments with natural materials, specifically wood, decrease stress. They use critically evaluated articles that previously studied the psychophysiological responses to wood as well as recent papers as their support. In order to monitor the stress levels of the individuals, the studies they reviewed conducted saliva tests and monitored the Autonomic nervous system. Their findings lead them to the conclusion that the use of wood has a positive effect on people, because it reduces stress levels. However, the authors also state that more studies need to be conducted in order for this conclusion to be proven true.
I decided to read this paper because it was well written and provided me with more insight on how the indoor built environment affects human behavior. None the less, the paper has flaws in the sources it used. Most of the data they discussed was biased in regards to how they collected and tested the samples. Regardless, this paper opened my mind to how indoor built environments also affect people.
The purpose of this paper is to identify which characteristics of the built environment influence the activities of walking and cycling. To support their findings and conclusions, the authors use journals from 1977 to 2015 with impact factors of 1.5 as their sources. The authors begin by analyzing the built environment broadly and dividing it into four types of barriers: Opportunity, access, safety and physical barriers. All four of these barriers restrict people from participating in walking and cycling. In order to increase the probability of walking and cycling, the authors discovered that necessary facilities should be provided, nearby, safe and visually appealing to people.
Furthermore, the authors also address more specific built environment factors like: land use, landscaping, greenery, public space, and building design. They discover that providing larger parks, filtering what can be built (liquor stores), increasing trails, adding greenery, and reducing things that do not promote exercise (e.g elevators) can increase participation in walking and cycling.
I chose this source because it provides alternate views on how the built environment affects health compared to the first annotated bibliography. The authors are straightforward with their data and mention the flaws in the data making it unbiased.
This paper discusses how the built environment and socio-demographics affects people’s weight using data from the Atlanta SMARTRAQ travel survey. In order to be able to separate people into different categories, the authors used the BMI index. The authors also used the Multinomial Logit Model because of the multitude of variables. The MNL model was used in this study as a way to explain the relationships that exist with weight, socio-demographics and the built environment.
The study discovered the following: Males, people with lesser educations, African Americans, households with lower incomes and the presence of children are more prone to be overweight than their equivalent counterparts. The study also discovered that certain aspects of the built environment, such as street connectivity and net residential density had an effect on obesity. Areas with high street connectivity and net residential density lowered the probability of being overweight whereas, areas with low street connectivity and net residential density increased the probability of becoming overweight.
This source was very informative about how the built environment affects health, which I never really thought about before. This paper is relevant to the current time period and the authors are not biased when presenting their views.