“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.
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.