Analyzing Schindler’s Architectural as Regulation

          In “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design of the Built Environment” Sarah B. Schindler’s point of view for “architectural regulation is that departing from tradition by focusing on architecture instead of ordinances and social norms” (Schindler 1953). She also argues the influence architecture has on the judgment of poor people and people of color.   We rarely notice every detail of the architecture of our environment, many things are made for a reason not always for decoration. As Sarah mention the armrests of a bench on a park are there to avoid people from taking naps, especially homeless, but many people would have thought it was there to separate the seats.

      Schindler’s regulatory role of architecture “The built environment does not fit within the definition of “regulation” as legal scholars traditionally employ that term; it is not a rule promulgated by an administrative body after a notice-and-comment period. However, the built environment does serve to regulate human behavior and is an important form of extra-legal regulation” (Schindler 1944). When it comes to making architectural decisions there is a lot of exclusivity. Planners sometimes make decisions without taking under considerations the effect it will have on the residents, consequently this decision simplify the prevention within cities. Lessig’s examples is a great way to understand ways in which the built environment regulates, “That a highway divides two neighborhoods limits the extent to which the neighborhoods integrate. That a town has a square, easy accessible with a diversity of shops, increases the integration of residents in that town. That Paris has a large boulevard limits the ability of revolutionaries to protest. That the Constitutional Court in Germany is in Karlsruhe, while the capital in in Berlin, limits the influence of one branch of government over the other. These constraints function in a way that shapes behavior. In this way, they too regulate” (Schindler 1947) Lessig recognize the role of physical architecture but doesn’t concentrated on it. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s concept of “choice architecture” and “choice architects” acknowledges that the person that control and create the decision has an influence over it since a “neutral” design doesn’t exist.

            There are many ways building environment that are design to exclude people from accessing a community. One example Schindler mentions of architectural exclusion is when Robert Moses “set forth specification for bridge overpasses on Long Island, which were designed to hang low so that the twelve-foot tall busses in use at the time could not fit under them” (Schindler 1953). Obviously Moses purpose for this was to prevent access to the low-income groups, for the benefit of upper and middle class since they owned cars. Schindler also discusses how some upper class neighborhoods excluded public transportation.

            Schindler believe that even though walls “are generally put in place by private developers to keep out those whom they do not want to access their communities, local governments have the power to prohibit these barriers. And while some cities have taken action to actively outlaw gated communities, most have not” (Schindler 1958). For there to be a stop on exclusionary techniques like physical barriers to access or transportation infrastructure people have to stand up of human equality, sufficient citizens could make a change. Architectural decisions should consider the rights of each citizens of the community.

Works Cited

Schindler, Sarah. “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and     Segregation through Physical Design of the Built Environment.” N.p., 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2016

 Analyzing Fleming’s Placelessness of Political Theory

        In the article “City of Rhetoric”, the author David Fleming has political theory argument it states that each citizen should be treated equally regardless of the worldly status, also it explains how a balance between each individual’s right and the politics authority is very important for a respectable political party. In his theory Fleming explains that an individual isn’t defined by its race, class, religion and gender. There is no better way of saying this, “We are all situated human beings with specific attributes; and bracketing may not be good for any of us. We all have bodies, we all grow up speaking certain languages, living in certain places, and occupying certain positions in the world. We are all from somewhere and affiliate with some groups more than others. Our political philosophies should not deny these “irrational” attachments; they are constitutive of who we are, of our very human being” (Fleming 22). Fleming explains two dominant traditions of modern political though: Republicanism and Liberalism.

    Republicans believe in a self-governance of their own communities and that politics is essential for our everyday. Fleming mentions John Pocock’s way of understanding republicanism, “the development of the individual towards self-fulfillment is possible only when the individual acts as a citizen, that is, as a conscious and autonomous participant in an autonomous decision-taking political community, the polis or republic” (Fleming 25). The problem with the republican tradition demands too much because it’s a conservative trend. Some republican can be classified as radical are against David Fleming’s political theory. In other hand, Liberalism, focuses on everyone’s own well-being. This tradition believes in equality of all human beings. The belief of the Liberalist is that everyone should be treated the same and that each individual’s happiness, freedom and life style has significance.  Fleming compared republican and liberal traditions when he stated: “To facilitate that project, the group needs not so much constant participation by all in public life, or even common assent to particular beliefs and values, as it does laws, procedures, and institutions that guarantee fairness and dictate as little as possible in the way of substance. Liberals therefore show less interest in qualities of character among citizens than republicans do; in fact, they sometimes seem to want to “citizen-proof” the state so that it does not depend on the virtues of particular individuals” (Fleming 26). Basically he stated that republicans concentrate excessively in politics and politicians, not in individual rights, whereas liberals concentrate in public ordinary life and not in the politics or politicians. We can see how republicans and liberal fail in their opposite strength. It’s important to acknowledge that even though the traditions aren’t alike in some aspects, the trends part with the democratic political view, “Despite these differences, however, both ideologies claim to be democratic and to support self-governing communities constituted by their members’ freedom and equality; both place a premium on debate as the mechanism of that self-government; and both recognize the role of a healthy public —a “coming together of equals”—in countering tyranny” (Fleming 26).

           When facing both ideologies democracy is a big problem, we can see limitations around a group of people that are equal to one another but in some aspect superior to outcasts. These types of communities need to understand that as Martin Luther King Jr. said “Civic identity is a matter of heart and mind rather than body or status; and citizens know one another by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.” (Fleming 20). The community needs to be involved in the government for them to get what they want and to protect their individual rights. Restating what I said in the begging; a balance between each individual’s right and the politics authority is very important for a respectable political party.

Works Cited

Fleming, David. City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in   Metropolitan  America.  SUNY P, 2008.