Sarah Schindler wrote an article that put a focus point on Segregation which is taken advantage of by architecture, basically segregating the poor communities from the rich communities. The things that we see happening in the world are usually designed with deeper meaning than what we hypothesize. When we look at the way laws are placed (to basically separate the races), we don’t give ourselves the chance to bring forth attention to discrimination. Just as Sarah Schindler Stated in (Section 1, Part A) (Architecture as Regulation), “For example, one might think it a simple aesthetic design decision to create a park bench that is divided into three individual seats with armrests separating those seats. Yet the bench may have been created this way to prevent people—often homeless people—from lying down and taking naps.” This goes without saying, architectural designs are not being presented in ways for us to be affected by what is being presented right in front of us. People are being blind-sided by the law and aren’t aware of it.

Sarah Schindler transitions this Built Environment situation, unlike normal readings and opinions that stick to the basics of what you may already see. We are trapped in a simple mind-set that doesn’t let us perceive beyond what we literally see. This is mainly because most people choose to ignore the discussions dealing with segregation or race in general. In (Section 1, Part A) Schindler states, “[r]ace is a ubiquitous reality that must be acknowledged . . . if [planners] do not want simply to be the facilitators of social exclusion and economic isolation.” The author is saying that many of these separations and exclusions of these communities are being ignored and unrecognized in depth, therefore the people who create the physical designs are the main cause of social exclusion and discrimination, and they are to be held to that negative output, because again, they are the ones choosing to ignore the fact that these designs are doing nothing but keeping the high ranked separate from the low ranked.

To conclude (Section 1, Part A) Sarah gives an example statement which says, “For example, a cafeteria manager who places healthier food items in a more visible and accessible location than junk food in order to nudge people toward healthier choices is guiding actions through architectural decisions. These architectural decisions create architectural constraints: features of the built environment that function to control human behavior or hinder access—the embodiment of architectural exclusion. In the case of the cafeteria, the architectural constraint is that it is physically difficult to reach or see the junk food, and thus it is harder to access.” This simply means that society will put out anything that they want us to accept, no matter if it’s bad or good, and we will gladly take this “something” that is easily displayed for us instead of reaching deeper to see if there’s anything else out there for us; anything beyond what they are putting out on our tables.

In (Section 2, Part A) Robert Moses’s statement is put forth and he states, “One consequence was to limit access of racial minorities and low-income groups”—who often used public transit—” the statement continues but from what is stated, Moses wanted to keep people of color, poor people, from being able to get to these areas where the rich reside. He made is basically his mission, being an architect, to keep these low-income, no income, individuals out. Part II mentions how we still continue to perceive things how we want, instead of how things were actually meant by law and by physical design etc. To conclude this, when it comes to gated communities, some people recognize the type of people who live in gated communities and see it as a problem, while many others see these “wealthy” people in gated communities, safe and sound, and don’t say a word because they are used to things being that way. Summing up what was just explained, “Although these walls are generally put in place by private developers to keep out those whom they do not want to access their communities, local governments have the power to prohibit these barriers. And while some cities have taken action to actively outlaw gated communities, most have not.” (Section 2, Part A).