Archive | January 2016

Summary #2 Tapestry Of Space: Domestic Architecture And Underground Communities In Margaret Morton’s Photography Of A Forgotten New York

Gallery of Morton’s Pictures

The article, Tapestry of Space: Domestic Architecture and Underground Communities in Margaret Morton’s Photography of a Forgotten New York, written by Irina Nersessova talks about Margaret Morton’s photographs of New York’s homeless populations’ home life and it’s parallel with the life of someone who is housed. Morton’s photographs captures the everyday life of the displaced in New York. According to Nersessova, homelessness is as nothing different as someone who is housed. Morton’s pictures depicted that the homeless have a home. The only difference between the housed and the homeless is the level of stability of their home.
In reference to Morton’s photographs, the homeless use their space as a creative guide just like a homeowner would. The decoration acts as an indicator that the space is theirs. An example would be that a homeowner might name their home with their last name. The same goes for a homeless person who puts their name above their space. Unlike a homeowner, the homeless will use material scraps that they find whereas a homeowner can go out and purchase letters to put on a mailbox or a fence that will be placed in front of the entrance. Nersessova goes on to say that “…the displaced best represent the universal relationship between space and the splintered identity.”
Ideally, a home is a place where you often feel safe. A homeowner will feel safe in their home because it isn’t likely that an unwanted guest will intrude. Even more, it can act as a refuge to get away from the outside world. This idea can apply to a homeless person as well. The public are usually unfamiliar with a developed homeless society like New York’s tunnel. Consequently, they will ultimately end up ignoring them, making the place perfect protection from the outside world. The only difference is that the homeless have definite security; it’s a paradox, because a place so open, compared to a house, should be less safe. However, as Nersessova explains, “The absolute darkness of the tunnel prevents danger from entering it, which explains how it is possible to have the highest feeling of safety in a place that is perceived as most dangerous.”
Most often, people will think that the homeless are undesirable that don’t contribute to society; however, they are mistaken. The displaced persons in Morton’s pictures, live in the world of mass production and capitalism just as housed people do. The only difference is how their contribution has an effect on their psychological attitude. A homeowner contributes by maybe owning a business or purchasing products from a privately owned business. Nersessova goes on to describe how consumerism can consume a person, forcing them to demand for excess. A homeless person contributes by using the thrown-away products by the product-obsessed population. Some may use those products to keep them warm, to decorate their space, or help them make a little change in order to buy supplies they may need. Nersessova voices how their mentality can’t be reduced to commercialism due to their lack of resources.
As described above, the homeless life isn’t that much different from the ones whose home is more stable. A homeless person’s space can feel just as safe as a house to a homeowner, if not more. A homeless person can definitely decorate their space to indicate ownership just as a land owner can. In addition, a homeless person’s contribution is very much desired in society as a homeowners does, even if society; itself, doesn’t realize it. Furthermore, the parallels between the housed and the homeless demonstrated in Morton’s photographs aren’t very noticeable at first but as Nersessova breaks down those misconceptions in this article, a reader can begin to visualize Morton’s purpose.

NERSESSOVA, IRINA. “Tapestry Of Space: Domestic Architecture And Underground Communities In Margaret Morton’s Photography Of A Forgotten New York.” Disclosure 23 (2014): 26. Advanced Placement Source. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Summary #1 Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination And Segregation Through Physical Design Of The Built Environment

Sarah Schindler is determined to inform and evaluate the idea of architectural regulation of urban areas in her article, “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design of the Built Environment.” She describes architectural regulation as an unrecognizable threat to socioeconomic and racial exclusions from certain areas. She explores how this idea is overlooked by lawmakers and the courts. In the process of explanation, she also provides excellent examples. As stated by Schindler, “Exclusion through architecture should be subject to scrutiny that is equal to that afforded to other methods of exclusion by law.”
Her main reason for why lawmakers aren’t discontinuing this issue is because they fail to see the effect of many architectural elements in city projects. Although, not all legal scholars are blind to this issue, they misinterpret it as a metaphor to build on the idea of hidden regulatory systems. Schindler; however, insist that it isn’t just a metaphor; but, in actuality, a real regulation as well. According to Schindler, regulation through architecture is powerful but is also less indefinable, making it harder for legislators and common people to roar for a change. Most architectural things about places are seen as
An example she describes is a physical barrier like fence or bridge. She discusses how a ten-foot high, 1,500 feet long fence separates the suburb of Hamden, Connecticut and the housing projects in New Haven. The divider makes it difficult for people living in the projects to have access to the outside community. A trip to the grocery store made housing residents “…have to travel into New Haven to get around the fence, a 7.7-mile trip that takes two buses and up to two hours to complete.” The common reason for construction of the fence was primarily to keep violence out however, the underlying intention was to keep undesired people, like poor citizens or people of color, from having access to the surrounding city.
Another example is the placement of public transportation. She reminds us that most low income citizens rely heavily on public transportation whereas wealthier citizens have private automobiles. Some places like the mall refuse to have transit stops because they don’t want a certain kind of people having access to that location. Therefore, the only people being denied access are the lower socioeconomic class. She also brings up the point that this issue can have a larger impact because then it makes it problematic for those people to have jobs in those areas. This would mean that employers would have to pay a higher wage because citizens of that community are not likely to accept a job with minimum wage as a low income citizen would. She even states that even if the lower- income citizen did have a car, some communities require a parking permit. If that person did not live there or didn’t know a friend who could offer a guest pass, they would be out of luck; making their trip even more hectic.
Schindler continues to say that legal decision makers can’t recognize this problem and address it. They are too busy paying attention to what the courts consider to be physical exclusion instead of conducting their own research. This isn’t to say that they are totally blind to the idea. They have shut down or put limitations on cities’ attempts to practice racial zoning, exclusionary zoning, and racially restrictive covenants. However, architecture is unlikely to be seen as a way to keep someone out because it isn’t as obvious as a law. To a common pedestrian, the different features about a place is just that; a feature.
In conclusion, Schindler offers solutions that can be made in the judicial process however; doesn’t believe it will do much good. She mostly recommends “forcing reformation of certain existing discriminatory infrastructure…” in the legislative process.

Just a regular bench

               Just a regular bench

To anybody else this will just seem like a regular bench, however that person is sadly mistaken. What if the designer made it this way so that a homeless person couldn’t sleep comfortably on it? What if it was only to limit how many people could sit on the bench? These are the types of questions that won’t be asked by a regular pedestrian.

SCHINDLER, SARAH. “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination And Segregation Through Physical Design Of The Built Environment.” Yale Law Journal 124.6 (2015): 1934-2024. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Dec. 2016.

Hello world!

Welcome to your brand new blog at!

To get started, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit the comprehensive support site, check out the Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

For personal support, you can attend Georgia State’s training on Edublogs or stop by The Exchange for one-on-one support.

You can also reference the free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.