ARC 211: American Diversity and Design: Matthew Drago

University at Buffalo – State University of New York
ARC 211 – American Diversity and Design – Spring 2017
Online Discussion Questions
Matthew Drago
PhotoSource:http://www.ywcahbg.org/programs/diversity-forum#.WR0D8WgrLZs

Welcome!
My name is Matthew Drago. I was bornand raised on Long Island, New York and am currently majoring in
AerospaceEngineering at the University at Buffalo. Over the pastfew months, I’ve prepared a series of write ups
for Architecture 211 – American Diversity in Design, and the process ofdoing so
has helped me develop a more complete worldview. Throughout the course, I’ve
learned how various design ideas and implementations affect different groups
spanning across race, religion, age, disability, and wealth, just to name a few. As a
result, I find myself to be more aware of how the various products and systems
around me affect others, both postively and negitively, and whether that effect is
intentional or not.
Something that I found particularlly interesting during this process is just how
much the little details in design matter. Forexample, a lot of the early packaging for
prescription drugs was hard for senior citizens to open which wound up having a
profound effect on the people who relied on that productthe most. The following
pages document my responses to the online discussion questions in the Spring 2017
version of ARC 211 American Diversity and Design at the University at Buffalo-
State University of New York.
Photo Souce: Matt Drago

Response to "What is design?" from Hello World
On “What is design?” from Hello World: Where Design Meets Life by Alice Rawsthron
The author opened her chapter with the example of Ying Zheng, the ruler of the Qin empire, one of the most powerful and
enduring empires I the history of China. She explained how design innovation contributed to Ying Zheng’s success. For
example, in the development of weaponry, he resolved many problems by standardizing parts, and this single innovation
gave his armies great advantage over other armies. For this discussion, let’s move away from 246 B.C. China, and into the
U.S. Describe an innovation or invention (can be current or historical) that gave advantage to a group of people in the U.S.
or to the population as a whole. What were the social impacts of this innovation? Were any groups negatively impacted by
this innovation? For example, the telegraph, developed and patented in the
United States in 1837 by Samuel Morse, permitted people and commerce to
transmit messages across both continents and oceans almost instantly, with
widespread social and economic impacts. This heightened communication
speed allowed business persons to make decisions with up-to-date
information, often resulting in big profits. Those without access had to rely
on out-dated information, which put them at a disadvantage.
Probably the most culturally significant American invention that I can think
of at the moment has got to be the Internet. Through it, users get access
virtually unlimited amounts of information, and can communicative and exchange new ideas with people around the
world. The only negatives I can think of are things like cyber bullying, a large reduction of personal privacy, and how often
misinformation that is shared because anyone can say anything online. See the average Facebook feed for more
information on all three of those. http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/internet-of-things

Response to "Introduction" from Diversity and Design
On “Introduction” from Diversity and Design: Understanding Hidden Consequences
The editors state that “diverse participation in the design process, from both professionals and public citizens alike, yields
more equitable results.” This makes sense, but typically has not been the case. Nonetheless, many marginalized groups
have impacted design in ways that have changed our visual and physical worlds as well as our systems, policies, and
institutions. For example, in the 1960s, disability rights advocates designed media events toraise awareness about barriers
in the physical environment. They persisted with their efforts for decades, and, finally, in 1990, the Americans with
Disabilities Act became law. It mandated accessibility in public accommodations such as restaurants and stores, public
transportation, communication, and other areas of public life. This dramatically changed our physical environment (from
curb cuts to ramps to automatic doors) and the results made public life more equitable.
Now it’s your turn. Describe a design that was impacted by a diversity group. How and why did it change form and/or
circumstances? (Note that a design can be anything requiring planning and development prior to the production of an
action, system, visual, material object, or environment. Also, keep in mind that, for our purposes, a diversity group is a
group of individuals who are underrepresented in society in some way—children, older adults, the economically
disadvantaged, those with cognitive disabilities, etc.)
In my eyes, the story of America can best be described in the development of Jazz. I know that music isn't typically the
first thing we think of when we think design, but it's art all the same. What happened was, as I best understood it, soon
after the First World War ended, the makeup of American cities was fundamentally different than it was before. Sure,
there were still immigrants that came in every day, but there was also a much larger population of African Americans and
people who moved in the countryside for all the jobs that became available when during the conflict. So now we have this

population of folk musicians, ragtime performers and gospel musicians that are being added to the existing more
classical/pop crowd that previously resided there. Now of course, back then recording technology wasn't good enough to
just play a record at your restaurant if you wanted live music, so a lot of those musicians just found themselves playing
with each other and being forced to experiment because none of them really knew any of the same music, and we really
started seeing the beginnings of jazz with things like Dixieland. Just a brief while later we had the Harlem Renaissance,
the radio because SERIOUSLY popular (so musicians in Chicago could hear what a band in New Orleans sounds like),
serious improvements were made to microphones allowing baritones and altos to be able to sing in these bands, giving
birth to the "crooner", and the economy of
the 1920s made the demand for live, high
energy music skyrocket. The whole thing
was just this perfect storm for cultural
development, and I strongly believe that it
not only fundamentally changed our
country, but the entire world. So, yeah, Jazz
really isn't the result of one group finally
getting representation, but the blending of
many, and considering our country's past,
it's... poetry.
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/american-
jazz-man-anthony-falbo.html

Response to Articles on Hats as Communication Design
Typically, we do not think of hats as elements of mass media or social media. However, the two hats (red and pink)
discussed in the articles certainly have taken on that role. Why are the twohats (red and pink) mentioned in the articles
vehicles of communication design? What meanings do each of the two hats carry? In terms of communication design, how
are they similar? And how are they different from one another?
The two hats in question here, the Pussy Hat and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) Hat were really born out of the
same thing: anger, but the messages the hats are communicating couldn't be much more different.
Let's start chronological, with the MAGA hat, the symbol of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Toreally understand
the feelings behind it, we need to first recall the Tea Party Movement. After Obama was elected in 2008, there was a huge
conservative uprising, angry about just about everything that was going on those days, and during the midterms in 2010
and 2014, they got a lot of Republicans in office, even replacing more moderate members of the GOP with their own.
Despite their winnings at the polls though, Obama's powers of the vetokept their agenda suppressed and because the now
ever afraid of being primaries GOP couldn't compromise, nothing happened for years. And so now that a lot of the
problems from the financial collapse haven't been solved and this liberal was in the White House they came to an obvious
conclusion-- America is not what it used to be. And so they got mad. And so did Donald Trump, he was one of them you
know. So now that America's not great anymore, what's do they have todo now, more than ever? Make America Great
Again, of course! It's that simple! So simple in fact, you can put it on the front of a baseball cap, something that I haven't
worn since I was a kid! A true American tradition.
The Pussy Hat came second, mostly because it was a reaction to the MAGA hat and Donald Trump's presidential
campaign. It's been a hard year tobe a liberal, with the divisiveness of the primaries and Clinton's defeat at the hands of

the electoral college, but it was many of Trump's comments that provoked the strongest emotional response from people.
Most notably, there was the realest of the "Trump tapes" a series of recordings of Donald Trump over the past few years,
with the most notable being Trump saying that since he's a reality TV star, girls will let him do anything, specifically, "grab
'em by the pussy". And thus, the hat found its name, marked by twodistinctive cat ears spun out of yarn. That hats are
pink, a color long associated with femininity and the feminist movement, and are homemade, reflecting it's grassroots
when it made its debut during the Women's March. To the people who wear them, the hats are a show of strength, and
mark the resistance they'll be showing to Trump and his policies over the next four years, because I suppose every
movement needs a symbol, and hats are in right now. Compared to the MAGA hat though, the message the hat
communicates isn't well broadcasted on its own, but when it's worn by a thousand people at a march a message comes
clear: the people here are standing together.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-17/opinion/ct-conservatives-liberals-culture-war-perspec-0418-
20140417_1_modern-family-winter-soldier-captain-america

Response to Media/Society Chapter and TED Talk on
Photographs
Where would you place the images shown in Photos That Changed
the World into Croteau and Hoynes' diagram entitled “Model of
Media and the Social World”? Identify a mass media photograph
taken in your own lifetime that has served as an icon of an event.
(Feel free to add an attachment.) What roles does this photo play in
the communication of the event?
So, I think that when you think about recent history, especially
from the point of view of the United States, 9/11 acts as an epoch
that fundamentally changed our nation to the point where it's not
uncommon to talk about the nineties as part of the "pre-9/11"
America. As horrific as it was, the nature of the attack served to
define the coming challenges of the 21st century, where instead of
these great interstate conflicts, the entities we face seem to
transcend borders as the world continues to globalize and the
resolve of NATO keeps open conflicts between major world powers
suppressed. No photo inspired more feelings after that day than a

photo captured by Thomas E. Franklin of three New York City Firefighters raising the flag at ground zero. Hailed as the
modern day IwoJima, it spoke to the nation's fortitude in the face of resistance and inspired a new brand of patriotism
that defined the Bush era.
The greater tragedy here can be found when you read between the lines. In the following months, I'm not entirely sure
when, but the prevailing narrative of Al-Qaeda's motive was that they hated America for our freedom. Blinded by anger
and what can almost be compared to nationalism, the United States invaded Afghanistan, and later Iraq, toppling Saddam
Hussien's regime on the basis of faulty intelligence that the dictatorship possessed weapons of mass destruction. As the
years passed, pictures from Guantanamo bay depicting prisoners being tortured were released, drone strikes mistakenly
hit civilian targets (repeatedly), and over a hundred-thousand civilian deaths wound up inspiring new generations of
terrorists, while creating a power vacuum for greater horrors to fill.
Now there are tworeally big points of irony here, (both tie back to the photograph, trust me on this one) the first being Bin
Laden's actual motivation for the attack on the World Trade Center. The actual attack was a response to America's foreign
policies in the middle east, more specifically the joint US-Israelibombing of Lebanon in the eighties, when Bin Laden
specifically recalls buildings falling down. His rationale behind the attack was that if he brings some of the fear and
destruction that they had brought to his part of the world, that we'd change our policies and leave them alone. Of course,
that failed spectacularly, Bin Laden actually created the means of his own destruction, just as we had done long ago in
Lebanon, and are still doing today. The second is that even though the whole "they hate us for our freedoms" narrative was
dominant, it is all to often pointed out that we actually had a lot of our freedoms eroded away in the months following 9/11
with the passage of the Patriot Act, establishment of the TSA, and the strengthening of the NSA.
So how does this tie back to the picture? Well, it might just be the inner English teacher in me, but watch not only where
your eyes are drawn to in the photo, and then to the eyes of the firefighters. The focus of your eyes and the firefighter is the

flag. And it's a beautiful moment. Where these three heroes are surrounded by the ruins of the WTC, they get the
momentary reprieve through pride for their country and are able to forget the events of that morning, if only for a
moment. While it may seem like a good thing, it's actually a big factor of all the problems we're discussed so far. While
we're swept up in a flurry of patriotism, we fail to see the world for what it is; a shine to our past and right now, the
highlight is on our failures. I'm not attacking our country here, you'll find nobody more patriotic than I am, but my belief
is that our self-righteousness has time and again has proven to be our kyrptonite. If we are to lead the world into a better
tomorrow, this picture must no longer be our present, or else it will continue to define our future.

Response to “Industrial Design” by John Heskett and "The Incredible Inventions of Intuitive AI" by
Maurice Conti
In his chapter on industrial design (written in 1987), historian John Heskett claims that the methods of mass production
introduced by Henry Ford in the U.S. involved new concepts of the standardization and integration of the production line
that were adopted across the world. With Ford’s method, work could be completed by relatively unskilled workers; it was
more efficient and with this method, products were made more quickly and cheaply than previously possible.What were
some of the social consequences of Ford’s production line? In other words, how did this system change our U.S. society?
Do any of those changes remain with us today? Now consider Maurice Conti’s TED Talk, and the predictions he makes
about production. How do you think manufacturing processes will change in the next twenty years? How do you think
these changes will affect our U.S. society?
When Henry Ford introduced his production line, he impacted American society more than any other industrialist before
him, and I am not using that term lightly. His method of using unskilled workers each assigned to extremely smalltasks
relative to the sum of the parts allowed products, specifically cars because, you know, Ford, allowed formally expensive
products to be available to the masses. Also, because of the large increase in production per worker, he was also able to pay
his employees much higher than his competitors at the time, and led to wage increases across the industry and later the
nation. Suddenly, it became possible for factory workers, who made up a large portion of American society to not only
afford a higher standard of living from the higher wages, but the reduced price of the goods they manufactured made them
affordable for just about everyone. The impact of Ford's production line was so profound, that without it, we would be
living in a fundamentally different of America. Wages would be lower, prices for consumer goods would be higher, and
likely even more goods would be manufactured in third world countries where labor is cheaper. Product defects would be
higher, and the higher cost to produce goods would affect the design of them in one of two ways: either less time and effort

would be spent on design in an effort to cut costs, or
products would be designed to be simpler to produce.
Both design possibilities would make common goods
today like every computer impossible to manufacture
cost effectively.
Maurice Conti's TED talk began to take Ford's
production line a bit further, incorporating artificial
intelligence/robots into the design process itself
rather than just confining its abilities to the assembly
line. The idea is that with incorporating artificial
intelligence into the design process, it can be done
more efficiently, and a lot of design defects can be
avoided by the AI's programming. Humans would still
have a part in the process to influence the process in a way robots can't by infusing it with human creativity or maintaining
the AI as we maintain the robots on the factory floor. So for the most part, Conti's right, AI is going to play a significant
role in the design process in the future, and that's going to have extremely mixed results here. I'm majoring in Aerospace
Engineering, so it's extremely possible I'll be working with these programs in the future to make rocket/aircraft design in
the future, and it could very wellprevent a lot of inefficiencies and mistakes as rockets continue toget more complex and
larger (hopefully). If we had that kind of technology in the past, I could tell you that it would NEVER have suggested to
NASA the space shuttle program due to spacecraft's gigantic costs, inefficiencies, and risks that come with maintaining the
orbiters from flight to flight. Between every flight, EVERY PART needed to be checked for damage or replace, a million of
these deemed vitalto the structure of the orbiter, because space is hard. But here comes the double edged sword of the AI,

the space shuttle program was in all intents and purposes, highly successful. The idea of landing an orbiter on Earth and
reusing it again was strait out of sci-fi back then (which is why the prototype was named Enterprise, I kid you not), and
some missions like the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope would have been impossible. So while the design was a
walking death trap of inefficacy, it was inspiring and human in a way no other space program has been since, rivaled only
by the Apollo Program. So what could that say for the future of AI in design. In product design, AI wouldn't be inclined to
take risks, the design that it would produce would likely be one that carefully follows market trends in order to make a
product that sells best. What could this mean for the future of product design? Personally, if I was the CEO of a Fortune
500 company manufacturing plumbuses, in order to make the highest profit, I would like my design teams to closely
follow the suggestions of the AI rather than take risks. It's likely that these teams would have less people in them today,
focusing more on ensuring the program is working correctly rather than being closely involved in the design process itself.
If my prediction is correct, in terms of product design, we would likely live in world where legendary product designers
like Steve Jobs would be something we'd see in the history books beside Ford, because while AI will certainly be better at
following the market's trends, I find it hard to imagine a future where AI is bold or creative enough to push a design that
both challenges and changes the market in a way that humans can. Time will tell.
I'm fascinated with this kind of thing, so I really felt the need to share what I know here. I'd actually have to disagree with
you there on the negatives of the assembly line because it really was a win for everybody. The idea of a craftsman
producing a labor of love to me is a tad romanticized from the reality of the situation. Was it better and more engaging
than an assembly line? No doubt about it, but it the context of a factory trying to build cars (especially one trying to
standardize their models) much of the artistry vanishes there, so there was still a large element of monotony that was only
amplified with the assembly line. Besides, those same mechanics building cars could now make a living repairing the cars
that were put out on the road. That's not one of those "who will maintain the robots?" kind of example, the industry
absolutely exploded to the point where I'm sure that every one of those skilled builders could have found jobs as a

mechanic, or open up their own garage all together. And then there is the depression argument which can be refuted with
two main points. The first was that those feelings of depression and loss of individuality was actually a decades old trend
at the time, Teddy Roosevelt remarked on it a lot in his speech "The Strenuous Life" back in 1899. The second point is that
it improved all of their lives. Demand for labor increased, wages shot up, and unskilled workers FINALLY had the means
to form strong unions where just a decade before seemed absolutely impossible. As far as I'm concerned, downsides are
null.
http://www.classiccarstodayonline.com/2013/04/30/when-classics-were-born-a-collection-of-assembly-line-pictures/

Response to All Module 4 Materials
Your readings and viewings this week present different ways of thinking about architecture. Mies Van der Rohe describes
architecture as “The will of the epoch translated into space.” Andrew Ballantyne describes architecture as the background
for life. Jeanne Gang describes it as the act of building relationships. All agree that architecture can change based on
context and culture. Choose two works of architecture from any of your materials this week—one wih the sensibilities
about the past and one with sensibilities about the present and/or future. How do each of these buildings either reflect or
challenge their cultural contexts? (Use the SEE-IT method to respond to this question.)
A building that exemplifies America's past would be Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's own personal estate. Not only what
Jefferson a plantation owner, writer of the Declaration of Independence, politician, diplomat, rebel, philosopher, and the
third president of the United States, he was also an architect. He had designed his own home on his plantation in Virginia,
which exemplified America's colonial style. During his travels toParis, he was exposed to some of the most beautiful
architecture in the world, and when he returned home, he
had the entire top half of his home demolished and
remodeled it off what he had seen in Paris, most notably
fashioning a dome on top and marking the entrance with a
column and pediment, all distinctive of the classical style. At
the time, this building represented both the new American
Architectural tradition and incorporated design features
from the more "modern" Europe. And even calling Europe
modern at that time is a little generous because until
architects like Louis Sullivan came along, architects spent

most of their time and energy trying toemulate the works of the Greeks and Romans that came before them. Monticello
could very wellbe seen as a continuation of a western tradition, where the torch the Greeks lit was passed to the Romans,
then the renaissance Italians, and later the English and French Empires, had finally made its way to America, carried by
great men such as Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, as our young nation progressed into the present, our government buildings
and great museums and concert halls all symbolically carried on the ancient Greek traditions of democracy, philosophy,
and the enlightenment of man.
Speaking of concert halls, one concert hall in particular bucked this trend, and that was Frank Gehry's Walt Disney
Concert Hall located in Los Angeles, CA. Even though the building was completed fifteen years ago(roughly six percent of
this country's history) it helps mark a major shift in the possibilities of American Architecture in the Information Age. Two
things made this building possible. Twothings made this building possible: CAD, and the fish. Sometimes in the eighties,
Frank Gehry became obsessed with the shape and form of fish. I don't know how it happened, but suddenly Gehry became
really fascinated with them, so much so that he built a restaurant in the shape of one and a giant fish sculpture for the
Barcelona Olympics. To design these structures, Gehry used computer modeling, CAD in particular, which was actually
ground breaking considering that that software was only seeing heavy use in aerospace at the time. The curvature of the
fish and the capabilities of CAD were first put to the test at the Guggenheim Bilbao to great success and were brought to
their culmination with the Walt Disney Concert Hall. The Building is as modern as it can get. The Internet was still at its
relative infancy, but the impact computers were having on our lives was already profound, so why shouldn't that impact
stop short of architecture? Indeed, architecture is the will of the epoch translated into space, the Walt Disney concert hall
stands as a testament tothe impact of computing on our lives and our increasingly global culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Jefferson%27s_Monticello.JPG

Response to Ballantyne and Zumthor Articles
Andrew Ballantyne and Peter Zumthor present ideas about architecture that seem to value the sensorial and material
elements of life. How are Ballantyne’s and Zumthor’s viewpoints on architecture alike? More importantly, how do they
differ? (Use the SEE-IT method to respond to this question.)
Naturally, most of Zumthor's and Ballantyne's views are Architecture were the same. Both have tremendous respect for
the art form and hold it in high esteem, which is something that our society could stand to emulate. The idea of using
Architecture to attract the eyes of tourists and passerbys alike is present in both of their writings, and a well-designed
building's ability to draw people in cannot be overstated. Good buildings get people asking questions, involved with the
details, and allow them to appreciate the marriage between engineering and art. However, that marriage has its limits. As
with anything that is good for you, too much is still too much, and therefore the complexity and sophistication that we can
give to a building's design must be given with discipline or else over-designing can lead a building to feeling like an
architect's own challenge of "how much art can I smack onto this thing?".
While the don't disagree on this importance of architecture and the discipline that should come with it, they differed when
it came to its utility. Ballantyne takes the much more practical approach determining that a well-designed building is built
to be a spectacle that draws people in, but as time goes on, the interest fades and the building becomes a normal everyday
part of life. Only the greatest works never lose their spectacle to most, but even then, those who interact with the building
every day eventually see it lose its luster and turn into a utility rather than the work of art it was intended to be. Zumthor is
more idealist in his interpretation of architecture. Instead of a utility that first provides spectacle and then simply
function, he likens it more closely to art, specifically music, a translation of tension and release found in many great works
of music into a more permanent medium of mortar and steel. Given that these buildings are more art than just tools alone,

their impact as art never fades with time. Sure, people might not take the same amount of pictures that they used to, but
art is still art, and it's impact remains with age. I'm inclined to agree with Zumthor here. Sure, when a building isn't shiny
and new, many tend to fade into the background, but I think it would be wrong to say that that's the rule. Architecture is
art. Even though the Mona Lisa is really old and everybody's seen a picture of it a million times people still flock to it as
they flock to the Parthenon, the Pyramids of Giza, and the Effiel Tower. The truely great works will always stand out as
great works of art or moment to empire's past.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/detailed-europe-skyline-royalty-free-illustration/482993073

Response to Levy Article
John Levy’s article, “An Overview: The Need for Planning,” discussed ways in which planning can determine the
characteristics of a place. For example, some smaller towns restrict the heights of buildings to maintain a certain scale.
How did planning define the character of the place in which you grew up?
Full disclosure here, I know like nothing about my town besides the occasional legend or two. Lucky, one of my Neighbors
happens to work for the town's planning department and is a UB alumni, so he filled me in on everything here.
Something that makes Smithtown different from the vast majority of American towns, especially the suburban ones, is
that it's REALLY old, we actually celebrated the town's 350th anniversary about two years ago. As such, most of the town's
major roads either weren't intended for servicing suburban sprawl, or just weren't planned at all. They weaved in and out,
around the hills and rivers and wound up making life rather difficult for planners later on. One of the first major attempts
at any planning was the implementation of a grid system centered around the St. James train station in order to make the
best use of the space, but there was no standardized lot size like we'd see today. It took until 1932 for the town to create the
Zoning department to regulate development, which around the same time Robert Moses' highways were being built to
service the growing population on Long Island. About twenty years later, Route 347 was built straight through the town
originally intended to be used to truck goods to and from the farms around Smithtown and further out east. During the
housing boom following World War II, suburbs were quickly becoming a thing, but it didn't really catch on in Smithtown
until the sixties when the Long Island Expressway was finished and it became possible to commute to New York City from
Suffolk County. Fortunately, the town board sensed change was coming sometime around 1960 they founded the Planning
Department, and by the end of the decade, the population quadrupled from 20k to 80k, eventually coming to rest at
around 120k, today's population.

Many of the Planning Department's rules were made to protect three things: Property values, adjacent owners, and the
environment. Most roads were standardized, thirty feet wide, and an additional ten feet from the curb belonged to the
town for utilities, trees, and sidewalks, the square footage of a house could not be more than a quarter of the size of the lot,
and there are mandatory set backs from the property line. Tomake the town easier to manage, it was also divided into
subdivisions, about ten percent of which is often left over for park space. Other times, park land is bought by the town or
donated, one example being Hoyt Farm. A lot of these planning developments weren't so great, in my opinion, as strip
malls dominate a lot of the commercial space, and it is impossible to walk or bike anywhere, the car is king. Another issue
is one of diversity, or lack of, considering that there is none, the town today is about 95% white. It's not an accident, Long
Island's communities are incredibly segregated. Personally, I'm also not a fan of how tight the Planning department can be
sometimes with regulations, and to me it's either a product or the cause of the NIMBYism that is present in the
community. Overallthough, the town's planners did a good job. Sure, Smithtown isn't a city on the hill of efficiently,
freedom, and diversity, but it's a safe place to live, and the
town's culture is in thanks to both the town planners and
community groups working to protect many of the area's
colonial era buildings and the beaches on the north shore. In
terms of how the town's character was influenced by the
planners, I'm not entirely sure, but it appears to me that it was
prevailing character of the population that defined our
planning objectives.
http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc33989.php

Response to Pruitt Igoe Project, Talen, and Larson
Imagine that you are part of a urban planning and design firm working with Emily Talen (author of “Design That Enables
Diversity”) and Kent Larson (who gave the TED Talk "Brilliant Designs to Fit More People In Every City" The thee of you
have been tasked with developing a plan to rebuild Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis. City officials told the three of you that that they
want to do it right this time. Identify three strategies for rebuilding Pruitt Igoe in ways that promise to be
more successful. What would Talen do? What would Larson do? What would you do? How would your
strategies differ from those of the original urban planners/designers of the project? Why would your
strategies be more effective?
In our plan to rebuild Pruitt Igoe, the primary objective is be to make sure it is nothing like Pruitt Igoe. Instead, you're
redeveloping Pruitt Igoe's site. Right there is the first issue: the site itself. It's a ghost town. Despite the fact that what was
formerly known as Pruitt Igoe is less than two miles from the Gateway Arch, most of the lots are actually vacant, it looks
more like some back roads in West Virginia instead of one of a major city. This severely limits what can be done here.
Right now, the problem with St. Louis is suburbanization, and the Pruitt Igoe's site will have to fight through some
suburban space before it connects to the downtown, so initially it seems very tempting torepeat a few of the mistakes of
the past. When Pruitt Igoe was conceived, it closely resembled many of Le Corbusier's ideas for planned city space that
was realized to great success in other public housing projects like Stuyvesant town in New York City, and given the large
amount of empty land, that kind of plan would feel right at home here. But that's not a good thing in this case, and Emily
Talen would agree that instead of blending with or simply changing the surrounding shell of a neighborhood, it would
have to define it.

Talen and Larson both have their own objectives here. Talen is going to focus a lot on encouraging Place Diversity, where
Larson is going to put a lot of emphasis on space efficiently and encouraging a high population density. Given the limited
space to work with here, I'm going to assume that we have full control of the original lot right down to policy and that we
have the full faith of the City of St. Louis at our disposal. Given the current state of the site, the city's interests, and the
preferences of the design team, we're going to have a few main objectives: build safe, affordable, housing for the citizens of
St. Louis, increase the population density, improve the economy, encourage mix used space, use space efficiently, and do it
all in the interest of place diversity.
What's the plan? Here it is. The plan for the new Pruitt Ingoe is going to be its own micro city, cartoonishly so. The
buildings in the complex are going to range from fifteen to thirty-five stories, and are going to follow the cities general
design trends and will each make an attempt to be different from each other. Most of the public space is going to be
located at the core of the complex, with a park, town square, and pedestrian friendly walkways above/below traffic. Stores,
cafes and similar commercial entities are going to want to be placed towards the core and the complexes southeast end, if
not by planning, then by market forces. That would lead the remainder of the exterior space to be reserved tomore
specialty stores, and it's likely that the North side will have a higher concentration of office space where businesses aren't
dependent on passerbys on the street. While the complex's main function is affordable housing, since we are focusing on
place diversity, we are going to need to provide mixed income housing. In order to do that, the apartments cannot be
designed with a one size fits all policy, literally, so the floor plans of apartments need to be designed to promise housing
options that are appealing towards middle class and wealthier residents. To simplify designs, whatever income separation
by apartment evaluation is going to extend to a floor-by-floor basis rather than building to building. The bottom seven
floors at maximum are for commercial space or large features like schools, the remaining will be residential. Considering
that the buildings are taller and closer together compact than the old Pruitt Igoe, there will certainly be more housing
units available in the new complex, likely far surpassing the original three thousand units. Considering the much higher

unit number, the goal for the number of low income apartments should the full three thousand, whatever additional will
likely be middle to upper class. But in order to accomplish the "expand Downtown to this point" objective, the complex
needs to be able to invite people in. People who live even from outside of the new Pruitt Ingoe should want to come
towards its core and its externaldesign should be inviting and accessible, rather than some monolith of concrete.
So how is this plan better? Quick disclaimer here, it's also pretty bold. There's a high chance that the whole mixed income
housing thing might not get off the ground, but if it does, land value is going to go up and developers are going to want to
build on the empty lots which should still be cheap enough to produce an easy profit. Pruitt Ingoe is now a cultural hub
and a working model of place diversity. It's compact, efficient, and should be developing its own economy, enriching the
lives of it's citizens alongside their wallets. A major issue with the old development was the amount of space the buildings
had from the surrounding neighborhood, but encouraging high density see it's spiritual borders expand outwards. While
the low income housing units are likely still going to be subsidized by the government, rent from both the higher income
and commercial units are going to enable the city to break even, or perhaps be able to use a profit to invest in other
projects. Of course, the low rent benefit would also likely extend to the higher income units as their rent isn't as dictated by
profit and property values, so they'll still be getting
a good deal despite subsidizing the other units. If I
am correct, Pruitt Ingoe 2 should be the jewel of
St. Louis' urban revitalization and an example to
public housing and urban planning across
America.
http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/urban-history/

Response to Frederick Law Olmsted
Displaying his plan at the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, Frederick Law Olmsted stated that “Buffalo is the
best planned city, as to its streets, public places, and grounds, in the United States, if not the world.” What was the basis
for this claim? Would Olmsted still make that claim today? Why or why not?
I don't think Olmsted would make the same claims about Buffalo today. Sure, his plans still mostly remain and they're still
fantastic but it's also been a hundred and fifty years since he made that claim. Now, I can't make the claim of what the best
planned city in the world is, but that title no longer goes to Buffalo. For example, we have a highway interchange that cuts
directly through downtown Buffalo that constricts its development like a iron ring
around a tree trunk. Then there's the transit system. While the metroand buses are
pretty good by most city's standards, you still need a car to get around Buffalo which is
pretty inefficient and makes it harder to increase the population density and reduce
urban sprawl.
When Olmsted claimed Buffalo was the best planned city in the world, he was talking
about a city ahead of its time. Unfortunately, times change, and Buffalo fell behind
after the Erie Canal dried up. Buffalo at the time was revolutionary in it's street
planning and park systems, but it's not the only city that has these anymore, it is one of
many. And I'm sure that there are some cities that do it better. Also, Olmsted's claim
was also made with a nineteenth century mindset that would not be as attuned to the
current needs and developments of American society, so a city planned for the twenty -
first century would today hold the claim to the best planned city in the world.
https://www.aoc.gov/capitol-grounds/frederick-law-olmsted

Response to Walter Hood’s Work
Identify something that should be memorialized either on UB's campus or in your hometown. Imagine that you are the
person who will oversee this project, and that you are using Walter Hood's 'triad of investigations' as your approach to the
project. What would your landscape intervention commemorate/memorialize? How will you use Hood's 'triad of
investigations' to design a new landscape intervention? What do you imagine that the design will be? (Either written or
visual descriptions are acceptable).
Back in Smithtown, one of the place I'd like to visit as a kid was Sweetbriar Nature Center, a non-profit wildlife
rehabilitation and education center. It's 54 acres in the middle of suburban sprawlwhere the only significant development
are the historic buildings on the site, beyond that, it's just nature. The problem is, there's nothing drawing anybody in. The
entrance to it is a dirt road connects to Landing Avenue in such a way that it wouldn't catch your eye unless you're looking
for it. Using the triad of investigations, it would be valuable to memorialize the entrance, turning it from just a dirt road
along a busy street toan inviting path indicative of the history and culture of what it leads to.
http://sweetbriarnc.org/

Response to the Brookes
The abolitionist poster, the Brookes, is an iconic image that often is included in exhibits that explore issues of race and
power. It was commissioned by Thomas Clarkson in 1788, and the Committee of the Abolition of Slavery used it to inform
and shock the public. While some consider the poster as an important component of the abolitionist campaign, it recently
“has been strongly criticized by some individuals and groups of African heritage as providing a very limited view of the
history of the transatlantic slave trade, resistance and abolition (Hudson 2007).” The lesson here is that how a viewer sees
an image is dependent upon his/her social, economic, and cultural position. Keeping this in mind, find another iconic
graphic that addresses racial issues and post it for others in your group to view. How do you interpret the graphic? What is
its meaning? Now imagine that someone from a racial and cultural background different than your own is looking at the
same graphic. Briefly describe this person. How might s/he interpret its meaning? How might this differ from your
interpretation? What are the possible reasons for these differences? (Consider the three assessment principles mentioned
in the article to help you: a technology of vision, an instrument of empathy, and a symbol of control.) (NOTE: Limit your
response to less than 250 words.)
Another iconic graphic that addresses racial issues is the one the March on Washington for Jobs and
Freedom pin. It depicts a hand shake between two people, one black and one white, and is meant to
show how the goal of the march is to work for a future where blacks and whites are equal. Somebody
with a different background then me, like an African American, would probably view the graphic
similar to how I do, but would probably have stronger emotions connected to it than I do. The reason
for the emotional difference is that the idea of racial prejudice is less of a thing to be read about and
more of a reality for him/her and his/her ancestors. I don't have that connection because me or my
family are not a part of any racial/ethnic minority groups that have been oppressed in this country to
any significant degree, and I was also born in a very white town where I've never seen it in action.

Response to Charles Davis and equityXdesign's Work
Critique either the MLK Memorial or the National Museum of African American History and Culture using
equityXdesign’s core beliefs and/or design principles. (Use the beliefs or principles that are most relevant to your
critique rather than all of them.) (NOTE: Limit your response to less than 250 words.)
While the Martin Luther King Memorial is a fantastic piece of work, it does conflict with some of equityXdesign's design
principles. Both of the conflicts stem from the memorial's slight misrepresentation of history by the architects by inflating
the role Dr. King had in the Civil Rights Movement. Don't get me wrong, he was an extremely important figure, but he
wasn't the soul of the Civil Rights Movement happened, he was the face. The soul belonged to not singular person, but to
the millions work volunteered, worked, and even died to see future where the dream they shared with Dr. King came true.
Those millions are missing from the memorial, along with the presence of other significant figures in the quest for civil
rights, like W.E.B. Du Bois, Rosa Parks, Andrew Goodman, or Malcolm X? Instead, the monument only focuses on Dr.
King, referring to him alone as a stone of hope out of a mountain of despair. What does this say about how we look at the
past? And, more importantly, what message are we sending to future generations? Throughout the national mall,
monuments of great men may be confused for Greek Gods. But they're not Gods, they're just people, and they were all able
to make a difference by taking action, something that Dr. King stressed during his own life. If the MLK Memorial was
designed for a more equitable future, it would have
sent the message that when millions band together,
they can change the world.
https://www.nps.gov/mlkm/learn/building-the-
memorial.htm

Response to Article on Sports Branding
Recent controversies about sports branding focus on ethnicity. The Washington Redskins team is just one example of the
larger controversy, but it receives the most public attention due to the name itself being defined as derogatory or insulting
in modern dictionaries, and the prominence of the team representing the nation’s capital. Should sports team branding
designers use ethnic references (Fighting Irish, Boston Celtics, Atlanta Braves, etc.)? Why? Why not? What are some of the
complexities of this issue?
For the most part, I really don't have a problem with sports
teams being named after ethnic groups, provided that the groups
referenced are ok with it. Considering the Redskins, the Indians,
and the Reds, Native Americans are justifiably upset with the
name and associated branding, so those shouldn't exist. On the
other hand, the Fighting Irish and Boston Celtics aren't subject to
the same kind of outcry, they're actually beloved. I've got some
Irish blood in me, and all my relatives on the Irish side are huge
fans of Notre Dame and the Fighting Irish. At the end of the day,
it's really all about consent; if the references don’t offend anyone
(or even celebrates an ethnicity), it sounds fine to me, and could
very well add to the identity by becoming a part of the culture.
http://inthepastlane.com/why-notre-dame-originally-opposed-
the-name-fighting-irish/

Response to "Visualizing Gender" Chapter
In their chapter “Communicating Gender,” Maya Ganesh and Gabi Sobliye discuss twoprimary visual advocacy
approaches: 1) get the idea, and 2) stories in data. Find a new example of either of the two visual advocacy approaches to
gender issues, and post it in this thread. Cite the source.
First, identify the approach. Then explain how the designer uses the approach to communicate a gender issue. Is the
approach effective in this example? Why or why not? How could this graphic be improved?
This graphic has made its way around the Internet for a while now, I couldn't find the original, but I can swear on my life
that this originated from Tumblr. The graphic is intended to help people "get the idea" about what feminism is since it has
still remained a rather divisive word despite that the majority of Americans believe in
equality of the sexes. The approach is effective in its simplicity and that its target audience
is found in two completely different extremes. On one hand, we have the people who look
at some facets of the modern feminist movement and get the impression that feminism is
about hating men, but the other target audience is actually the "feminists" who really do
hate men and create that strawman (or strawwoman in this case) that people love to attack
so much. There really isn't much to improve about the graphic, since it gets across the
point pretty welland adding more can risk cluttering the message.
www.tumblr.com

Thread 2: Response to Bathroom Bill
Last year, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law a bill that repealed local LGBT anti-discrimination laws,
and required people to use the bathroom that corresponded with the biological gender written on their birth certificates.
This prompted massive backlash. McCrory stated, “You know, we all have to make adjustments in life. And we’ve had the
proper etiquette situation for decades in our country, and all of a sudden through political correctness we’re throwing
away basic etiquette.” Just this past Thursday, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill to repeal the law while
placing a moratorium on nondiscrimination measures.
Should people be required to use the bathroom that corresponds with the biological gender written on their birth
certificate? State why AND state why not. In other words, to receive full credit for this question, you need to present an
argument for both sides of the issue. As a designer, how would you solve this gender dilemma? Use the SEE-IT method to
respond to this question.
Why
Requiring that people use the bathroom that reflects the gender printed on their birth certificate is a necessary precaution
to protect women and children from sexual harassment from men who are adopting the identity of transgender to get into
the women's bathroom. In addition, the two genders use separate bathrooms for a reason, so it is important to keep it that
way.
Why Not
People should be allowed to use the bathroom that they feel most comfortable in and the government should not be
getting involved unless there actually is a sexualharassment issue (at this point, there is not). In addition, the bill's
withdrawal of other LGBT protections proves this to be anti-LGBT legislation and stands to cost North Carolina billions of
dollars from businesses pulling out of the state.

Solution
This is the kind of issue where on the scale of the United States really is a waste of time to be concerned about.
Statistically, 0.3% of the nation is transgender, and this law goes out of its way toact against this segment of our
population. Transgender people have been using the bathroom they identify with for a while now and it hasn't been an
issue up until this law was passed. Building new gender neutral/transgender bathrooms would also be of immense cost for
an incredibly small problem. Transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom they choose, bearing in mind that
they should respect the privacy and concerns of others beforehand. Also, if privacy is a concern, the gap in bathroom stall
doors should really be the concern here, it's
bothered me for a long, long time.
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2016/04/head-to-head-are-bathroom-bills-beneficial-or-unnecessary

Response to Hidden Ways
Author Steven Flusty categorized five types of disciplinary architecture that perpetuate what he calls urban
spatial injustice: 1) stealthy, 2) slippery, 3) crusty, 4) prickly, and 5) jittery. Go out into the city of Buffalo, and
find/photograph two examples from the list of five. Identify what type of space you’ve photographed and why
it might discriminate against a specific population. Identify the location where you took the photograph, and
make certain that you are in at least one of the twophotographs.
These photos were taken in downtown Buffalo, one underneath the highway cutting through
the downtown, and the other on PearlStreet. The photo under the highway is an example of
crusty space, the land is public, but it's blocked by fences around most of the perimeter (you
can see one on the left) and in order to park underneath, you have to pay for it. This hurts lot
of different groups, like low income commuters, and the homeless who typically use the
bottoms of highways as places to sleep safe from the rain. If you want to take it a step further,
the entire highway and the system that it is but a part of is a huge creator of crusty space in itself because of their
tendencies to divide neighborhoods in urban areas across the country, which is awful for the urban poor that are confined
to their downtrodden communities. An example of Jittery space can be seen in the picture of PearlStreet where there is a
police security camera on the lamppost. This is the kind of urban design feature that impacts everyone in the affected
space, which can be actively monitored at all times. I'm a pretty big privacy advocate, and I believe that the rise of mass
surveillance under the guise of national security is an attack on one of our most important liberties: the ability to keep
your business to yourself. I know it may sound like I should be wearing a tin foil hat here, but mass surveillance is one of
the hallmarks of a police state, in which the ruling class uses the government and its laws to keep the rest of us down, and
nobody is safe. Sorry I forgot to include myself in a picture from downtown, I'm kind of an idiot and forgot about that part.

Response to People Like Us
After almost two decades of public assistance, Tammy Crabtree took herself and her family off the welfare rolls. But her
job cleaning bathrooms at a local Burger King barely paid the bills. Crabtree wanted to do better and hopes to go to college
and become a teacher.
Imagine this scenario. You are a designer who works at the well-known firm, iPD(Integrated Planning and Design). You
work on a team with planners, urban designers, policy designers, architects, and social designers. You have been tasked to
develop/design a way for Tammy Crabtree and her family (and others with situations similar to Tammy’s) tomove
themselves out of poverty. What will your team to do to help Tammy and her family achieve their goals? What approach
will your team take to address this difficult problem?
One of the major challenges of creating designs and policies to help families like Tammy's is that when they don't want
assistance but clearly need it, they're extremely difficult to help. One of the things that Tammy mentioned is that she isn't
looking for handouts, and there is a lot to admire in someone who doesn't want to be a burden on others. There is an angle
here, and it's to establish that instead of getting a handout, the community is making an investment to give her a chance to
improve her life because a town is only as strong as its weakest link. In other words, express how the populations benefits
from her receiving help and disassociate her situation from the situation of those whole are simply content to live off the
government. This can all be done on the state and county levels, and here is what my team and I would do.
The first thing to improve her life is to get her some decent transportation. This could be a bike, something for her to help
repair her car and get a license, or we could develop a ride sharing program where she can join others nearby for the
commute. Considering that her commute likely takes six hours out of her day, cutting that down to just forty minutes can

give her plenty of time to either work for another five hours per day or spend that time at home with her family. I'm willing
to bet that the more time she gets to spend with her home will lead her to want to improve it, so she should be provided
assistance on garbage disposal and access to a tool library.
A lot of the information she could use to improve her work situation could be provided by her county/state's
department(s) of Labor/Job and Family Services, so it is really important that she is pointed in that direction. With that
information, she could perhaps find a job that pays better than what she has now and her kids could too. If they don't exist
already, consulting services should be provided to follow up on Tammy and give her guidance on what to do next. At this
point, her standard of living should be
improving, and most of this change will
have been the result of her actions, not
any straight up government assistance. If
she's still on board at this point but not
entirely convinced that she isn't being
some kind of freeloader, remind her that
she and her family are being moved
towards a situation where they aren't
just self-sufficient, but now they can
contribute back into society.
The last major step here is what dreams
are made of, and that's a quality education. Starting this fall in New York State, kids from families will be able to go to any
state run university if their parents make under $100k a year. While Tammy's kids certainly fall underneath that category,
Tammy herself may not qualify, so I say we should do a step better and make higher education tuition free so that Tammy

can become a teacher. College isn't for anyone, and based on her oldest son's talk about where he wants to go to school, the
emphasis he put on the time it takes toget a degree rather than the content of said degree implies to me that college isn't
quite right for him, and he should look into trade schools, many of which are public institutions where he can get a good
job right out of the gate. Again, it is important to remind Tammy that she isn't receiving a handout, it's an investment
made by her community to create a stronger one where nobody is left behind.
Ultimately, as far as cost effectiveness and "handoutiness" is concerned, this is about as good as we can get here. A lot of
these services already exist, it's just a matter of direction Tammy towards them. However, this is by no means a
guaranteed fix, it is entirely dependent on what Tammy does here, but if she really wants it, she can realize her dream of
being a school teacher.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/ladder.jpg

Response to Carroll Article: “(Re)forming Regent Park: When Policy Does Not Equal Practice”
The development of Regent Park is phased, and there are severalmore phases to the project. What actions could be taken
to ensure more social integration for the older people living in the ‘new and improved’ Regent Park?
Social integration is all about mixed housing. Now I can totally understand how lumping together the upper,
middle, and working class could put off the first two from getting involved, but the problem could become a non-issue
through design, even when you add additional provisions to help the elderly. The first priority is that the easiest access to
anywhere should be given to the people who have the hardest time getting it, so seniors should be more highly
concentrated near transit and retail centers. Now, this shouldn't be seen as a "let's lump all the old folks together" move,
but a "we're giving seniors with mobility issues priority for these apartments". Entire floors of buildings shouldn't be
comprised entirely of seniors either, they should be given the option to be mixed in with young professionals and families
too, providing them with a greater sense of community. any income separation in a public housing complex certainly
shouldn't be defined by buildings, but by floor at most. Integrated floors should certainly be around too, and all members
of the building should have access to the roof garden. Another issue phase one had with seniors was the laundry room
issue. Not only were seniors located in the tallest building on site, they had to go to the seventh floor to do their laundry.
In my opinion, small laundry rooms should be on each floor, and should be used by the designers as a convenient way to
make use of any excess space. A small foyer type space by the elevators could also do well in establishing a sense of
community.
There is actually a lot of potential in the use of space in the roof garden. It's worth noting though, that the roof
garden should not be seen as the park system for the complex but a supplement whose use is limited to the building's now
mixed income residents. Turning the space into a public forum and providing room for tenets to garden themselves
(included in their rent) would do well to enhance the sense of community and the pride people have in it. Events should be

encouraged and held by the landlords and the space should be able to be reserved for special occasions (with the exception
of major holidays like Christmas, New Year's or Halloween).
The townhouses should also be redesigned. Instead of being accessed from the rear, the new buildings should be
designed to have the garage at the front with the main living space located directly above. By encouraging access in the
front, residents are provided with more options to interact with each other and build community ties. The added space in
the back could either be fenced off into backyards or turned into a garden walk or another sort of public space, it could go
either way.
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/12/14/regent-park-life-relocation/

Response to Enriquez TED Talk: “What Will Humans Look Like in 100 Years?”
For this question, we will focus on Juan Enriquez’ Life Twocivilization, which alters fundamental aspects of the body. We
are living longer than ever before in human history. Enriquez argues that, because of advances in bio-medical technology,
the possibility of living to 120 years of age and beyond is quite possible for many of us in this D+D class. Assuming that his
assertion is accurate, how do you think extended life spans will change our societies and built environments? What new
issues might designers face because of extended life spans?
In a society where one-hundred and twenty is the new eighty, for many people, they'll be spending half their lives
considered to be senior citizens. If we're living that long, we might start defining the post-one-hundreds as their own
separate category toseniors similar to how seniors are separated from middle aged. Assuming they haven't cured aging
yet, new cities, buildings, and products will be designed with seniors in mind as at least forty percent of the market so ease
of use is an absolute must. In addition, as the rate of scientific discovery continues to increase, new technologies and the
products that follow will likely be designed to be operated by individuals who already have knowledge of preexisting
systems. One could assume that using similar systems and UI on the user end could hold the development of these
projects back from taking full advantage of new technologies, but instead designers and engineers would be wise to design
new systems that are intended for long term use in the future rather than pulling obsolete ones from the past. This trend
could also incentivize the adoption industry standards for product design on the user-end, a trend that has been
solidifying in the tech industry. For example, recently a bunch of huge tech companies agreed to design future products
with USB-C ports, phasing out today's standardized USB ports. To provide and example of how industry wide this change
is, even Nintendo designed their new console using USB-C instead of designing their own port. Previously designing your
own port and the matching cables was seen as an additional revenue source (see all the dongles in the Apple Store and you
know what I'm talking about) but the practice has been fading out to decrease up front cost consumers have to pay to buy

the company’s products enabling for more customers over the long term with no significant additional cost to R&D and
supply chain.
In addition, living longer means that we'll be having a lot more people living with disabilities or other mobility
impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act has done a huge amount to help improve accessibility for the disabled,
but as we still have a long way togo, as evidenced by this video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhpUJRGrZgc). In
this video, Zach Anner & The Quest for the Rainbow Bagel, Zach, a man with cerebralpalsy, tries to make his way from
Manhattan to Brooklyn in five hours to get a famous rainbow bagel. During his journey, he and his wheelchair are
hindered at every turn, lips on the curb, gaps between the train and station, and potholes provide obstacles everywhere.
On top of this, there are so few subway stations
with elevator access, Zach has to take a ferry across
the river to Brooklyn. At the end of the day, a half
an hour trip for an abled body person that would
take a half hour took Zach six hours, and when he
finally reached Rainbow Bagel, there wasn't a ramp
to access the store so his order had to be taken
outside. While Zach is still young, his mobility
issues are certainly relatable to many of our
nation's elderly and as we continue to live longer,
accessibility is going to be a huge factor in urban
planning and design.
http://www.careerquest.edu/blog/2013/12/3-
benefits-working-elderly

Response to PPT, Smithsonian, and Roy
The two most frequently mentioned models of disability are the ‘social’ and the ‘medical’ models. The medical model of
disability views disability as a medical ‘problem’ that belongs to the disabled individual. The social model of disability, in
contrast, draws on the idea that it is society that disables people, through designing everything to meet the needs of the
majority of people who are not disabled. There is a recognition within the social model that there is a great deal that
society can do to reduce, and ultimately remove, some of these disabling barriers, and that this task is the responsibility of
society, rather than the disabled person.
In the Smithsonian online exhibition, the story about the superherohand, and Elise Roy’s TED Talk, you saw examples of
ways to engage disability that use the social model rather than the medical model. In the Disability and Design
PowerPoint, you were introduced to the concept of Universal Design (UD) (sometimes called inclusive design, design-for-
all, or human-centered design). Certainly, UD embraces the social model of disability. In this same PowerPoint, you saw
positive and negative examples of each of the seven principles of universal design.
For the Module 12 Thread 1, please select one of the seven universal design principles, and post photographs that show
both a positive and a negative example of the principle. Then address the following question: How do your examples
empower or disempower various people? Describe the specific features of the positive example and the specific features of
the negative example. Discuss ways that the positive example could be even further improved.
I decided to write about flexibility in use. This seems to me like a very difficult thing to design for and when it is
there we often times take it for granted. Take the iPhone for example. We can choose how we want to access the phone via
entering a pass code of any length we desire or use our fingerprint, set how big we want the text on screen to be, use voice
commands if we so choose, take it anywhere we want, hold it any way we want, use speaker phone when calling, elect to
use a video call instead, and even change what the phone can do by downloading any of the thousands of apps on the app

store. The possibilities of what we can do on these devices and how we can do them is essentially limitless. And our
options of how we use it aren't just limited to the actual tech inside. Something that I see all the time is that you can tex t
any way you want. While my mother texts holding the phone in her left hand and punching in the letters with here right
pointer finger, I hold it in both hands and type with my thumbs. A lot of these modern day gadgets are a triumph in
accessibility and consumer choice.
Tocontrast this, an old rotary phone provides very little flexibility in how you use it. The only thing you
can do is call other people's phones, and they only way todo that is to property use the dial, which can be quite time
consuming if a number has a lot of zeros in it. In addition, the phone itself is also attached by cord, so you can walk it
around the house or even with you as you go about your day. It's still an accessible (and groundbreaking at the time) piece
of technology, but it's inflexibility is what led to its extinction at the hands of later models with buttons, answering
machines, and wireless connection.

Response to Survey, FIXED, and Stelarc
Our 2017 Design-A-Baby survey yielded the following characteristics as indicated by a majority of you:
 Sex: Male (47%)
 Hair Color: Dark Brown (22%)
 Hair Texture: Wavy (33%)
 Eye Color: Blue (26%)
 Race: Caucasian (36%)
 Height: 5’-10” to6’-1” (45%)
 IQ: 131-140 (20%)
 Memory: Excellent (43%)
 Athletic Ability: Excellent (43%)
 Weight: Average (79%)
 Disease Carrier: None (85%)
 Beauty: Somewhat attractive (46%)
 Empathy: Very empathetic (38%)
 Creativity: Very creative (37%)
Sounds like an all-around lovely person!
Currently, we have the technology for you to choose many of the survey characteristics in your future child, and this ability
to choose poses some ethical questions. Of course, we all want the best for our own child. However, as we move into a
more collective situation, we need to consider how the consequences of majority choices for children might change who we
are as a species.

In the film trailer FIXED, you were introduced to the dilemma of living in a culture in which the “science-fiction of human
enhancement” has become almost a way of life, from prenatal genetic screening to bionic body parts. In the video, “A Man
with Three Ears” you are introduced to an artist who is using current technology to move humans beyond their current
abilities. Last week, Juan Enriquez asked us if it is ethical to evolve the human body. All of these videos suggest that the
concept of disability ‘as we know it’ could cease to exist in the future.
This leads us to this week’s discussion question:
What lessons do you think we should learn from history when thinking about emerging enhancement technologies and
reproductive technologies? What are some of the possible consequences (both positive and negative) of being able to
design our bodies and the bodies of our children? What ethical quandaries do these technologies pose?
I can think a lot of big problems that these technologies can create but I'm only going to talk about the two that
really stick out to me. The first problem is that there is certainly going to be a huge amount of unequal access. While one
person can only afford a peg leg, another person can afford a prosthetic that would be better than a regular leg. Until
recently, disability has been something that affected the rich and poor somewhat equally. Sure, it's almost certainly harder
to bear for somebody who doesn't have much money, but for both parties, it sucks. You're still physically impaired, and
that's something that just happens; it's a fact of life. But it won't be forever, and the current technology is going to benefit
the wealthy much, much, faster than the poor. For them, physical disability will be an even greater rarity and could grow
into being another stigma associated with poverty. The issue gets significantly worse when you factor genetic engineering.
With that technology, we can build a human being that is genetically superior, and the first children to be made better will
come from the top of society. Imagine if after a generation or two, we have two classes of the normal populace and an elite
who can now claim genetic as well as monetary superiority. Social Darwinism is still very much a thing in the United
States; we idolize the rich and often times associate wealth with virtue. If it's survivalof the fittest, then wouldn't the fittest

of the fittest not only survive but thrive? If you want an example, look to the swaths of people who supported Donald
Trump who voted under those assumptions.
This transitions to a second problem; if we can design our own children, are we limiting their free will? Zach Snyder
touched upon this in the film Man of Steel. In the film, Kryptonians were born exclusively in "genesis chambers" where
they would be genetically designed to fulfill a specific task in society. Jor-El, Superman's father was designed to be a
scientist and so he became one. The antagonist, Zod, was designed to be a soldier and he too fulfilled his pre-ordained role
in society. Kal-El (Superman) was the first Kryptonian to be born naturally in centuries because Jor-El, aware of Krypton's
imminent destruction, believed that his child should be able to decide his own destiny rather than being designed to serve
a planet that doesn't exist anymore. Zod in the film is then able to serve as a foil to Superman; Zod's purpose as a soldier
was to serve and protect Krypton, so when he failed at resurrecting Krypton by terraforming Earth, he went berserk.
Surely, if Krypton was gone, he no longer had a purpose. Superman lost Krypton too, but he wasn't bound by societal
norms and was able to easier overcome himself. This brings us back to the original meaning of Superman as the
Übermensch, the product of Friedrich Nietzsche's famous though experiment in which he theorized that mankind's
evolution will be spearheaded by individuals who not only break
through their own limitations, but society's as well. These are
important limitations to break through, and will be made
significantly harder if we are designed to suit society's needs rather
than discover ourselves who we want to be and what we are to do.
For further reading, see Aldus Huxley's Brave New World.
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/batman-v-superman-henry-
cavill-clark-kent-costume-1201254938/

Response to Titicut Follies
The state of Massachusetts tried to ban the 1967 documentary Titicut Follies, arguing that director Frederick Wiseman
had violated the patients’ rights by not getting written permission to film them. The case went to court, and Wiseman
argued that he had consent from their legal guardian, the institution. After a judge ruled in favor of the state, the legal
appeals carried on for several years: in 1969, Massachusetts allowed the film to be shown to doctors, lawyers, and health
care professionals; in 1991, a superior court judge ruled it could be released for the “general public,” as privacy concerns
were no longer at issue, so many years later.
Should Wiseman have been allowed to film the residents of Bridgewater Massachusetts Correctional Facility? Why or why
not? How might this film be of value to designers (communication designers, product, designers, architects, interior
designers, planners, landscape designers, systems designers, and/or social designers)? In other words, what might they
gain from this film that they could use in their work?
Wiseman should definitely have been allowed to film the residents of Birdgewater Massachusetts Correctional
Facility unless of course, he is giving the residents undue stress. While the patients may not have given their consent, if
they had one could make the argument that they are not in a sound state of mind, and therefore cannot give consent, so
nothing would be different. I might sound nice to want to keep the cameras away for the sake of the patients, but allowing
the press to document what life is like for residents in Bridgewater could very wellprotect them from abuses by the
institution that otherwise would be hidden behind closed doors. I'm no expert on any form of psychiatric care or assisted
living, but I know that some modern day nursing homes treat their residents horribly, so imagine the amount of
muckraking there is to be done in a mental facility fifty years ago! Providing transparency is in the patients' best interest s,
and an informed populace can push for and provide solutions for the problems that plague these institutions.

Designers can use the information collected to better design products
and buildings for the benefit of the mentally ill and future
psychiatric hospitals. Designing a facility from the ground up for the sick isn't
a unique concept, tuberculosis sanatoriums have been constructed to stop the
spread of the disease in urban centers and provide an environment for
patients to feel better, faster. One notable example is Paimio Sanatorium,
which was designed by Alvar Aalto to the smallest detail to provide a better
quality of life for the patients, down to the door handles designed to not get
caught on a doctor's coat. The reason these designs existed for tuberculosis is
because there wasn't as much as a stigma compared to mental illnesses, so
the needs of tuberculosis patients were allowed to be more visible to the
public eye. In order for designers to identify the needs of the mentally ill,
filmmakers like Frederick Wiseman should have been allowed access to these
institutions and cast these problems into the light.
Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titicut_Follies#/media/File:TiticutFolliesPoster.jpg

Response to PPT, The Architecture of Autism, Public Space
Prelude: Wolf Wolfensberger's seminal work "The Origin and Nature of Our Institutional Models" posited that
society characterizes people with intellectual disabilities as sub-human and burdens of charity, He argued that this
dehumanization, and the segregated institutions that result from it, ignored the potential productive contributions that all
people can make to society. He pushed for a shift in policy and practice that recognized the human needs of those with
intellectual challenges and provided the same basic human rights as for the rest of the population.
The Scenario: Imagine that you and your four children live in Amherst, New York in a $650,000 home at the end of a cul-
de-sac on the edge of a ten acre woods. The town has purchased a one-acre lot three houses away from yours, and plans to
build a group home for ten intellectually challenged adults.
As a resident of the neighborhood, would you support or oppose this proposal and why?
You've learned additional information about the residents of the proposed group home in your neighborhood. In 2013,
three of the ten intended residents exhibited challenging behaviors including screaming, public masturbation, repetitive
rocking, and echolalia (elective incontinence). However, these behaviors have not occurred since then.
How would this change your opinion about the construction of the group home in your neighborhood?
The residents in your neighborhood voted (14-3) toreject the town of Amherst’s proposal to build a group home in the
neighborhood. Town officials agreed that the home would not be built in your neighborhood if you and your neighbors
could develop a workable alternative.
What are some possible solutions that would allow the residents of the home to be provided with “the same basic human
rights as the rest of the population”?

Tobe perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't have been too enthusiastic about this proposal and while I still think I
would vote yes simply because it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't be happy about the idea and the rejection would likely
feel like a big relief. Finding alternatives for this kind of thing is pretty difficult because location is key, most people
wouldn't want to live next door to ten people with mental disabilities, especially when three of them are on record for
masturbating in public. The next best alternatives I can think of is either placing the group home on a large plot of land
where the residents won't disturb anyone or simply break up the one larger home into a few smaller ones. If the goal is to
integrate the residents into the neighborhood and society, having multiple group homes with only three or four people
living in each would prove to be good for the residents and tolerable for their neighbors.
Image Source: http://www.radarsign.com/traffic-calming-applications/neighborhood-speed-control/

Response to The Connection Between Religion and Urban Planning by David Engwicht
In his article, David Engwicht discusses the fact that religions (of all types) have played major roles in the
development of our cities. Today, places of worship are primary components of almost all urban centers. Author Lorne
Daniel writes “From their often active role in supporting people who live in city centers to their iconic influence on design
and use of space, religious structures tell us a lot about our history, our current needs, and where we might be headed in
the future. This is an aspect of our urban future that planners and urbanists should attend to.”
Identify a place of worship with which you are somewhat familiar. (If you are not familiar with any places of worship, do a
bit of research on one in your own city or town.) Show a photograph of this religious structure. (You may use photographs
from the web.) What roles has this place served in the development of your city/town? How has it influenced the design of
the area around it? How has its role changed over time? What roles could this place of worship play in the future
development of your city/town?
First Presbyterian Church of Smithtown is the oldest church around and has been a cultural center around town for
a while and a notable portion of the town's development took place around it. It's not the church I go to, but driving past it
reinforces the idea to how central it is. The church first appeared in 1675 but the land it sits on wasn't acquired until
around 1750 with the current building built by 1827. It's right in the middle of Main Street, directly across the road is the
Smithtown Library and just further down is the Historical Society where many of the town's oldest buildings still stand
well preserved. Going back to the church and moving the opposite direction, Main Street turns into Smithtown's main
economic hub, where the town hall and school district's central office can also be found while going even further the road
crosses the Nessaquoge river and splits in two along either side of the statue of Whisper the Bull. The church's significance
isn't only by proxy but I'm convinced that it played a role in the town's planning or at least the major roads. Main Street is
actually Route 111, and the church sits on the corner between Routes 111, 25, and 25A. Route 25 runs all the way to Queens
and at that intersection, it ends and turns into 25A, which is cuts through many of the islands most prominent cultural

centers like St. James, Stony Brook, Northport, and all the way to Riverhead. Because of the church's large graveyard, 25A
has to wrap around it, likely restricting where urban planners could have put it and the impact is certainly meaningful.
Image Source: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/112493597

Response to Prospects for the Future of Diversity and Design
Consider the quote in your syllabus from educator Michael J. Shannon: “Design, as vision in action--the
intersection of understanding and creation--is a universal human capability that can play a fundamental role in social
evolution, in the process that transforms resources, energy, and information to make our world.”
At the beginning of this course, we discussed the idea that we are all designers regardless of our profession or field of
study. We’ve asked some big questions along the way, and the conclusion section of our textbook raises additional issues
that require input from people who might not consider themselves tobe part of the formalized design professions.
Think about your own major and/or future profession. What is the
biggest challenge, problem, or question that your field needs to tackle
right now? What do you plan to do to address this challenge, problem,
or question either as part of your studies or professional life?
I'm currently majoring in Aerospace Engineering but I think
that I'd like to switch to Political Science. This whole thing is pretty
daunting for me, so I've been avoiding writing about it.
For Engineering my chief aspiration is (or was) to work on
rockets. It's always a challenge to make them bigger, faster, safer,
more reliable while not surpassing what is already a hefty budget.
Every detailmust be considered because if one single part fails, or if
the math is just a little wrong, the entire system can collapse and the
Image Source:https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/launch/#.WR0NlmgrLZs

mission will end in failure at the cost of millions of dollars, valuable scientific data, and possibly human life. In order to
design a successful rocket, the engineers developing it will need to put in thousands of man hours, work together as a
team, and get all their numbers right. It is a daunting task, and I know that if I continue down that road and I want to be
successful in the field I will have to push myself to quite literally turn my weaknesses into my strengths.
A degree in Political Science is much vaguer in its application but the two most important design aspects is to be
able to develop coherent policies or ideas and to be able to communicate these ideas effectively either through inclusive
discussion or propaganda. The first design aspect, developing ideas and policy are not too uncommon from rocket science.
When for example, writing a bill, you (ideally) want a well thought out piece of legislation to be put forward. It's important
to consider who will be affected, what those effects would be, what was the original goal, and does it achieve that goal at a
reasonable cost. The second key challenge is to then be able to communicate these ideas. If you're a lawyer that needs to
build a compelling case to defend or prosecute a defendant, you need to be able to convince your target audience, whether
it be the judge or jury, that your case is correct. Neither of these challenges are something that is easily doable but to
master these skills is something incredibly uncommon and goes a long way in the field.
Image Source: http://www.iifii.org/GovernmentMembership.aspx

ARC 211: American Diversity and Design: Matthew Drago

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a ARC 211: American Diversity and Design: Matthew Drago

Similar a ARC 211: American Diversity and Design: Matthew Drago (19)

Último

Último (20)

ARC 211: American Diversity and Design: Matthew Drago