Responses to the Passages from Schindler’s “Architectural Exclusion”

“…wealthy white residents of suburban Atlanta, Georgia, suburban San Francisco, California, and Washington, D.C., have organized to oppose the locating of transit stops in their communities, at least in part because transit would enable people who live in poorer areas of the cities to easily access these wealthier areas”  This passage describes how wealthy white Americans vote against transit stops in their suburban neighborhoods because they do not want poor people or people of color in their neighborhoods. They believe that these people will cause problems and become a nuisance in their communities. These wealthy individuals are directly contributing to the geographic divide between upper class and lower class Americans. They ultimately believe that if more poor people are in their area, this will cause more crime and decrease the property values of their homes and businesses. Not only does the prevention of transit stops deter poorer people from having jobs in suburban cities but it also makes lower class individuals feel less worthy of obtaining those jobs in the first place.   “…’there is no such thing as a neutral design” Some places that are supposed to accommodate everyone fall short of expectations in reality. An example of this would Georgia State University’s Atlanta campus. While the architects probably intended for the campus to be accessible for people of all abilities, there are many obstacles for people with disabilities. There are several areas around campus that people in wheelchairs would not be able access because there are no ramps for them. This is just one of the many examples of external designs that are meant to be neutral...
css.php