I really quite enjoyed the Athens charter part in the course.  I may regret saying this but i actually enjoyed reading the Athens Charter.  I like that Le Corbusier actually made realistic guidelines, and there was very specific instructions as to what needed to be done to great the best city, the happiest people and the safest areas.  I really enjoyed the fact that there is a science as to what direction the buildings have to be facing so that the residents get the ideal amount of sunlight to make them the happiest that they can be.  I think that this is so important because of the seasonal affected disorder.  I think that in the dark days if there is still some sort of sunlight that many people would be less affected.  I think that this “master plan” could not only fix the physical community space, it could also fix mental problems.

Also the importance of green spaces.  I think that it is very important to have many green spaces especially with so many people living in high rises.  It is important to have areas that people can just be free and roam free.  It is an area that children can run and be free. But it also looks as if the nature has not been completely destroyed. There is some hope for the area, and it is not just a town of mass amounts of concrete.

For me I really I enjoyed the Athens Charter because of its practicality.

I have been thinking a lot during this class as to why the City of Kelowna and the City of West Kelowna seem to be so awkwardly planned.  The main reason that I can come up with is the lake.  Everyone wants to be near the lake or to see the lake.  Our lifestyle revolves around the lake, whither we know it or not.  The main reason people migrate to this area is the lake.  So around the lake there are more and more high rises going up so the amount of people that can be near the lake is much denser.  Also the houses near the lake are extremely expensive, and the lots are very small.  It is all about the view and the connivence of living right on the water.  And between the two cities there is one road that connects them, and that highway is really the only way to get around in the cities.  A driver pretty much has to either cross the highway or merge onto the highway to get anywhere.

This is a problem that I have with the urban planning of the two cities.  There is only one way to get around, and over the lake.  This seems like the worst type of planning. How is this convient or practical for anyone. What if the bridge just happened to get crumble and break. How would people get back and forth. There was no back up plan that went into planning that crossing.

For me, I took this class because when I went to change my schedule there was no other history courses that looked interesting and that were open.  In the beginning of the course I really did not give this class a fair shot.  I just kept thinking to myself, what is the point of this, there cannot be that much that goes into planning a city, and if there is how come every city that I hate lived in seems to be horribly planned out.  I do not understand how people are paid to make up these plans and either they are not carried out properly, or just planned so poorly.

I was poorly mistaken.  This class has opened my eyes to an extraordinary amount of thought and planning that has gone into planning every city.  The amount of people that have tried to create the ultimate master plan, is so numerous!

This class has 100% opened my eyes to the amount of planning that goes into urban planning.  I now drive or fly into Edmonton, Alberta, my hometown and see all sorts of different topics that we have discussed in class. For example green spaces close to high rises, how dense population is around water, and just in general where pockets of people live and make their homes.  Also I notice the monuments and the building as a monument.  The parliament building in edmonton is made to be a marvel.  Of course, it is older now and not so much amazing.  But you could see when it was built that it probably was this amazing feat.