Annotated Bibliography Three: Revisiting Fear and Place: Women’s Fear of Attack and the Built Environment

Posted on by

Koskela, Hille, and Rachel Pain. “Revisiting Fear and Place: Women’s Fear of Attack and the Built Environment.” Geoforum 31.2 (2000): 269–280. ScienceDirect. Web.

 

Hille Koskela, a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Helsinki, wrote the article entitled “Revisiting Fear and Place: Women’s Fear of Attack and the Built Environment” to highlight that “fear of crime is so closely embedded in broader aspects of social life that, while improvements to built environments may benefit some aspects of quality of life, they are unlikely to have significant effects on fear of crime” (Koskela). She aims to show this by analyzing two cities, Helsinki and Edinburgh. When she talked to women from each city, she found that the spaces they feel unsafe vary greatly. Some are empty and open, such as parks, while others are empty and closed such as alleys and bridges. Other places women can feel unsafe are crowded and open, such as bus or train stations, or crowded and closed, such as restaurants, shopping centers, and underground subway stops. Hille makes a point that with such a diverse range of places, it is important to look at the social context behind each place. A good example of this can be seen in the reputation places have for being either safe or unsafe. She then goes on to say that the biggest reason women feel unsafe is due to the power inequality between men and women. She brings this up in light of the fear of a “dark figure” at night, which is always associated with being male. To sum her article up, she writes as a call to action: “Geographers and planners should take greater account of the complexity of fear; on this issue as many others social and physical space cannot be separated.” Her intended audience for this article is women’s studies academics, as well as those interested in the relation between women and the built environment. This source is useful to find how built environments are related to women’s fear, as well as what areas they may be fearful of.

Annotated Bibliography: Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods

Posted on by

Leyden, Kevin M. “Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Public Health 93.9 (2003): 1546–1551. CrossRef. Web.

 

Kevin Leyden, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at West Virginia University and author of the article “Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods” writes that “persons living in walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods have higher levels of social capital compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs.” (Leyden). Within this article, he defines different types of neighborhoods based on their walkability then compares their levels of social interaction. The first neighborhood described is a “city center neighborhood.” In these neighborhoods, everything required for daily life is in walking distance. Next is a “mixed-use suburb,” where necessities can be walked to but there are not as many things nearby as a city center neighborhood. Finally, the “modern suburbs” are entirely automobile dependent. When the three were compared based on how well residents knew their neighbors, their political participation, their trust or faith in other people, and their social engagement, it was found that neighborhoods entirely dependent on automobiles consistently scored the lowest, while city center suburbs scored the highest. Leyden uses these findings as a call to action, saying that suburbs should go back to being able to walk places in order to foster a sense of community. His target for this article is people who have the intellect and power to advocate for a change in government policy regarding zoning and other obstructions to city center neighborhoods. This article is useful in regards to the way that streets, sidewalks, and other routes of travel can shape entire communities. It also highlights the importance of location.

Annotated Bibliography: Gentrification and Socioeconomic Impacts of Neighborhood Integration and Diversification in Atlanta, Georgia

Posted on by
Aka Jr, Ebenezer O. “Gentrification and socioeconomic impacts of neighborhood integration and diversification in Atlanta, Georgia.” NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Volume 35# (2010): 1.

 

The purpose of Gentrification and Socioeconomic Impacts of Neighborhood Integration and Diversification in Atlanta, Georgia, an article by Ebenezer O. Aka, Jr., a professor of urban studies and public policy, Director of the Urban Studies Program, and Interim Chair of the Political Science Department at Morehouse College, is stated as “To determine the occurrence of gentrification and its effects, there will be a longitudinal analysis on variables of race, age, educational attainment, income, housing values and rent cost” (Aka). With this in mind, he analyzes five Atlanta neighborhoods: Summerhill, Grant Park, East Atlanta, East Lake, and Edgewood. He begins by defining gentrification as “the upgrading of devalued or deteriorated urban property by the middle class or affluent people” (Aka). He then explains some of the benefits of gentrification, such as higher property value, better road maintenance, police protection, and improved public education. He then goes on to point out the negatives, which affect low income people, African-Americans, and the elderly disproportionately. The biggest is displacement, or the dislocation of the low income individuals. This is due to the higher property tax that comes along with the heightened property value. As these people are forced out, a population change occurs. The new residents are usually younger white middle class individuals. Other effects noted are social changes as community ties are severed, economic changes due to an imbalance of housing and job growth, and political changes such as decreasing federal funds and tax abatement. This article is written for academics questioning gentrification in an attempt to convince them to help alleviate its negative impacts. This article could be useful to anyone studying one of the five mentioned neighborhoods as background knowledge. Another way it could be used is as a supplement to any mentions of gentrification. As gentrification involves a community being “upgraded”, the exteriors of the buildings are sure to change in numerous ways to reflect this.

Skye and E. Resendizrojo’s Annotated Bibliography on “Sexism Is Alive and Well in Architecture”

Posted on by

Hosey, Lance. “Sexism Is Alive and Well in Architecture.” Huffpost women. Huffington Post. Web.26

January 2016 .

 

Lance Hosey, Chief Sustainability Officer of the international architecture firm Perkins Eastman and author of the blog article, “Sexism Is Alive and Well in Architecture,” writes that “Emulating women’s bodies in architecture objectifies women, but it also objectifies architecture, reducing buildings to mere totems, ciphers reminding of us who is in power.” To prove this he first examines the gender gap within the field of architecture, noting how many females do not feel respected and only one female architect has ever won the architectural Gold Medal. He then looks at the creations themselves, specifically the ones inspired by women. He notes that by incorporating the human body it objectifies women. By writing on all of this, he hopes to change the sexism in the industry: “Using the human body as a model for architecture is as old as architecture itself, but maybe it’s time for architects to rethink where they get inspiration” (Hosey). This sentence is directed at other architects, as they are the ones with the power to change the industry. Overall, this is a very useful source when looking for an idea of gender inequality and sexism within architecture.