Public Housing Policy in the USA

Public Housing Policy in the USA Public Housing Public housing, introduced at federal level in 1937, provides for low-cost housing through public financing by means of publicly owned and managed multi-family developments. Several cities began providing public housing prior to the 1937 Housing Act, through local programs of their own. Furthermore, it was these kinds of local programs that helped mold the model for the federal program. Public Housing was environed to be a solution for homelessness, but due to several problems with residents and owners it was not as successful as planned. Although there are multiple themes and topics related to public housing and its poor success this paper will solely focus on 6 themes that are critical in understanding the history and advancement of public housing. These themes are in regards to the population it was aimed for, financing, federal public housing authority, local public housing authorities, design, and urban renewal. Public housing did not originally aim to provide housing for the â€Å"extreme† lower-class, it was actually aimed towards select members of the working class. More specifically, public housing’s original design intended to serve the needs of the industrial middle class, who were temporarily unemployed or lacked adequate employment during the Great Depression.[1] After the Second World War concluded, many individuals and members of the working class were able to purchase their own homes by utilizing low-interest mortgages via Federal Housing Administration (FHA). However, discriminatory practices took place through these benefits. In their study, sociologists Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, demonstrate the discriminatory nature of these practices. These benefits were targeted, for the most part, towards non-Hispanic whites and consequently helped move non-Hispanic whites into the suburbs, while simultaneously keeping blacks.[2] Although Massey and Denton’s study focus on the segregation of blacks other minority groups were also affected and segregated as well. Regardless of what minority group an individual belonged to, public housings were segregated and the higher end ones were mainly exclusive to whites while the lower end ones were mainly exclusive to minorities. Public housing has also been viewed and portrayed as a solution for homelessness. According to urban planner Peter Marcuse’s study, many planners, architects and social workers had a more moralistic view because they believed that adequate housing was a necessity in order to improve the quality of life for slum dwellers. Furthermore, they viewed public housing as means of aiding the state in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that decent and affordable housing was available for everyone in the United Sates. Early examples of unequal housing were the terrible conditions of the tenements where many immigrants lived, which inclusively disgusted many early reformers. As previously mentioned, minority groups lived in terrible public housing and in order to put an end to this the early reformers initiated demolition of the poor conditioned tenements, they also got rid of the design of interior rooms containing no windows, lastly they also bettered air circulation and added more lighting to public housing. The main issue with the terrible qualities of these tenants was that they led to dangerous and unsanitary living conditions. Within time, however, housing commissions were set up in many major cities in order to improve the quality of public houses by imposing regulations on landlords.[3] Landlords were therefore now being held responsible with providing adequate living conditions for all residents regardless of ethnicity and immigration status, which was consequently a major improvement in comparison to the previous lack of regulations and treatment of minority based public housing. In 1937, after a long struggle in Congress, the first national housing legislation passed. In addition to providing low-cost housing, the housing legislation also improved the deteriorating economy by providing construction jobs. Public housing was never actually thought of as being a long-term or permanent home for the poor. The actual purpose of the act was â€Å"to alleviate present and recurring unemployment and to remedy the unsafe and insanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of decent, safe and sanitary dwellings for families of low income†[4] A modification was actually made to the original legislation in order to be accepted by congress which was the addition of â€Å"alleviation of unemployment† as of the main purposes of the act. This housing meant to house low-income families, which congress defined as, families who could not afford to build adequate supply of decent, safe, and sanitary residences.[5] The 1937 National Housing Legislation essentia lly intended to alleviate public housing of unsafe and insanitary living conditions. Tenant screening received support from advocates of public housing because they believed that in order to for housing developments to be successful, residents needed to be employed. According to Marcuse, when public housing was first constructed, qualitative tenant screening was the norm. But, by the 1950’s and earlier, very strict tenant policies became enforced. These strict tenant policies included that large fines for property damage were imposed and unwed pregnant women could be evicted. Other criteria included that families were required to possess two parents, the head of the household needed to be employed, and families needed to have some record of good housekeeping skills. Visits were inclusively made to future tenants’ previous homes in order to see if they were suitable candidates. Occasionally checking up on public housing developments to make sure the units were being adequately taken cared of, was another common practice.[6] The Federal Housing Authority developed several policies and programs as a response to difficulties with congress and to cope with presidential administrations. Problems with congress began with the first housing act, because it funded fewer units than it was designed to. According to law and real estate expert Michael Schill, the act only funded capital costs and expected rental income to cover most of the operational and maintenance costs.[7] Congress however wrongfully blamed rising costs in public housing to poor management. The real reason for rising costs were actually due to old buildings needing to be refurbished, high inflation, and increasing expenses. High inflation took place mainly due to tenant incomes declining. Financial problems also escalated with a small affluence of public housing construction between 1969 and 1970. The need to fund construction and other physical needs to public houses had a negative economic impact on residents, especially during that time becau se they’re income was significantly lower than usual. Public housing authorities were consequently left with a nearly impossible choice of raising rents, decreasing services and maintenance, or doing both. In January of 1973, the Nixon administration sanctioned a freeze on most federal housing programs. However, according to R. Allen Hays, Nixon and his advisors later viewed public housing as a tried and true program which is why the freeze was shortly lifted and Section 8 was created. Section 8 intended to replace both low and moderate income subsidy programs, ultimately it was intended to avoid too much exclusion of people of very low incomes and too much density of very low income individuals. The impact of section 8 was not a successful one because it was the low-point of subsidized housing production for the entire decade. It was not until Carter administration’s that subsidized housing construction rose. Although Carter had many unsuccessful initiatives, public housing was an obvious exception because during his administration housing programs reached high levels of production.[8] One dispute in favor of public housing was that it couldn’t be entirely removed becaus e of humanitarian and social cost reasons. Not even Congress could bring itself to completely abolish public housing. Public housing was crucial in not only providing housing for people in legitimate need but it also proved to be economically beneficially because it meant less vagrants and also created a greater circulation of wealth. However, in means of being economically beneficially, it was not as successful as it was in providing housing. This was in fact one of the only things public housing was successful in, because it suffered from many other problems. Furthermore, Local Public Housing Authorities also suffered due to rising rents and reduction of services. This took place during the 1960s and it displeased many tenants which created a series of rent strikes, which eventually concluded with the Brooke Amendment being added to the 1969 Housing Act. [9] In 1971 the Brooke Amendment provided operating subsidies to housing authorities to pay for losses and deficits and also capped public housing rents at 25% of the household’s income. Also, in order to qualify for admission, tenants’ incomes were required to be less than 80% of the area’s median income. Low-performing housing authorities continued to struggle, because their neglect led to the need of many repairs and modernization being needed. These housing authorities delayed maintenance needs and did not adequately fund modernization. Also low percentage of the rent going wards operation costs had a negative impact of public housing. Lastly, the solution of the housing authorities was a poor and greedy one because instead of increasing the percentage they increased the rent, which only led to the continuation of maintenance problems and buildings rapidly perishing. Beginning around the early 2000’s, the majority of the federal housing dollars began to be used for tenant-based housing vouchers, known as â€Å"Housing Choice Vouchers.† The way it works is the recipient pays 30% of their income towards rent and the voucher covers any difference there may be between what they paid and the rental price of the unit. According to Carole Walker and David Varady’s study, these vouchers have failed to satisfy the need of the public to have affordable housing.[10] One of the reasons why these vouchers have had little success is because individuals with vouchers have difficulty finding a public house because landlords prefer to rent to unsubsidized families because they can charge them higher rents. Poor design of developments is another problem that many public housing residents faced. Many public houses had no ventilation and windows in their interior rooms, which made meant that these public houses had rooms filled with unsanitary air. There was also a poor amount of light, which signified that man of these rooms were very dark in the sense that they had no windows, proper air flow, and adequate lighting. These houses resembled mental institutions more than houses. Families could therefore not thrive in in that environment because it was a very neglected and gloomy environment.[11] By the early 1940’s, high-rises was seen as a solution to provide an adequate living environment for tenants and also as a way to provide a better image for public houses. High rise buildings was glorified due to providing more spacing, but economically they were not as glorified because they were not exactly the cheapest form of public housing developments. High rises were more expensive in the long run than any other development because they provided much more units which meant much more operational and maintenance costs. They were also much more expensive and difficult to build which is why in some cases architects were unable to properly execute their original architectural/design plans.[12] Due to cost reasons and in order to encourage residents to better themselves, limits on unit amenities were enforced. One way which limits on unities were made due to cost reasons was how several services were no longer provided and how poor quality units were produced. Interestingly enough, Congress and housing authorities blamed tenants for the terrible conditions of the units when in reality it was mostly their own fault. Many of the services no longer provided were reliable elevators and some of the poor units produced had inadequate floor space.[13] This led to several security problems, which is why many housing authorities put the blame on the tenants, but in reality they were the source of the problem. Many public housing developments were also designed to be separated from the rest of the neighborhood/community. An example of this is how at times zoning policies placed buildings diagonally into the pattern of the street. A break in the street grid was also implemented in order to separate the public housing development from the rest of the neighborhood.[14] Due to its peculiar institutional look, many developments have become easily to identify visually, which has led to it being subjected to stigmatization and isolation. This is why its massive structure has been negatively critiqued. All these negative results were by no means intended or anticipated, it was a complete shock to housing authorities and architects, because the result it was supposed to produce was a benefit to residents. Residents were supposed to benefit from the design because they would be able to distinguish their residences from the rest of the neighborhood and be viewed as a symbolic building, but its separa tion from the community actually led to backlash. This was also only a logical result because if tenants are separated from the community they are not allowed to coexist with everyone else and provide a better image of themselves. By being isolated they only provoke a negative image of not wanting to be part of the community. Initially Site selection was completely under local control. However, this was a problem because local authorities carried on discriminatory site selection. Racial segregation was one of the practices they carried on in which a larger amount and the better quality ones were designated for whites over blacks and any other minority group. Local housing authorities also separated each racial into their own developments, i.e. some only housed blacks, some only housed whites, some only housed Mexicans, and some only housed Chinese.[15] A clearer example is the William Houses project in Brooklyn, New York which was exclusive to whites, and no other ethnic group was allowed to reside there. Another example is the Harlem River Houses project in Manhattan, which was built exclusively for blacks. This project was also built as a way to silence the demands made by the African-American community in New York for access to public housing. Urban renewal initiated in 1949 with Title I of the Housing Act, but proved to be problematic because it made it possible for large-scale slum clearance to take place without requiring that all cleared housing be replaced.[16] Law expert, Lawrence M. Friedman, emphasized in his study the dangerous aspects of slum housing and how it was crucial that it be illegalized in order to avoid further unsanitary living conditions which could spread not only among the slum housings but among greater society as well.[17] Actions would begin to take place with laws, however some of these laws were not effective. Title I for example did not mandate construction of low-income housing. Living conditions of the poor was largely disregarded due to the fact that it did not concern most of the population, since most of the U.S. population was middle-class. However, unsanitary living conditions could affect the greater population through the spread of diseases. This was one of the reasons why actions wer e taken towards slum clearance but unfortunately they were not effective and irrational. Gans documented a horrible example of urban renewal, a slum clearance project that took place in the West End of Boston, with little support from the neighborhood residents.[18] This was especially shocking because it signified the removal of a community that appeared to be perfectly functional. What was additionally more irrational was how the renewal process would be quite lengthy and would leave large unproductive areas in the center of the city. Although actions were being made in order to clear slum housing, the process was slow and irrational. The 1949 Housing Act ordered for 810,000 units of public housing to be constructed. However, by December of 1951 only 84,600 units of public housing were actually under construction. This led to the creation of the 1954 Housing Act, which mandated that public housing be built solely in areas of urban renewal/slum clearance. Therefore, new public housing no longer increased housing supply, instead it replaced deteriorating housing. Furthermore, slum dwellers faced the problem of displacement because they had to wait for the new promised public housing to be fully functional. That is why investment in urban renewal increased, because of the decline of public housing construction.[19] To conclude, public housing was originally designed in order to provide housing for all low-income individuals and families, but as time went on the infamous question of the deserving poor was brought up and low-income individuals and families had to fit into certain regulations in order to be allowed to live in public housing. Public housing also faced many financial difficulties at the federal level due to difficulties with congress and presidential administrations. Financial problems were also present at a local level and were reflected with poor housing authorities and rising rents and reduction of services. The actual design of these public housings also proved to be problematic, and its most problematic feature were perhaps the segregation among them and the violence that arose from some of these. Overall, public housing failed to be as successful as originally environed, because in practice they suffered from overcrowdings, racial tensions, violence, poor management, and finan cial problems. Bibliography Bickford, Adam, and Douglas S Massey. Segregation in the Second Ghetto: Racial and Ethnic  Segregation in American Public Housing, 1977. Social Forces. 69, no. 4. 1991. Friedman, Lawrence M. Government and Slum Housing: Some General Considerations. Law  and Contemporary Problems. 32, no. 2. 1967. Hays, R. Allen. The Federal Government and Urban Housing Ideology and Change in Public  Policy. 2nd ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Gans, Herbert J. The High-rise Fallacy. Design Quarterly. 24. 1992. Gans, Herbert J. The urban villagers; group and class in the life of Italian-Americans.. New  York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Marcuse, Peter. The Myth of the Benevolent State: Towards a Theory of Housing. New York:  Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture and Planning, 1978. Milbert, Isabelle. Slums, Slum Dwellers and Multilevel Governance. The European Journal of  Development Research. 18, no. 2. 2006. Public Housing. Social Service Review. 11, no. 1. 1937. Schach, Janice Cervelli. Planning and Design of Public Housing an Evolution of Structure.  Landscape and Urban Planning. 39, no. 2. 1997. Schill, Michael. Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go from Here? 60 University of  Chicago Law Review 497. 1993. The United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and provisions of other laws and of  executive orders pertaining to the United States housing act of 1937, as amended. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Housing Authority, 1938. Walker, Carole, and David Varady. Housing Vouchers and Residential Mobility. Journal of  Planning Literature, 18.1 2003. [1] Bauman, John. Public housing, race, and renewal: urban planning in Philadelphia, 1920-1974. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987. [2] Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of an Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. [3] Marcuse, Peter. The Myth of the Benevolent State: Towards a Theory of Housing. New York: Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture and Planning, 1978. 248-263. [4] The United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and provisions of other laws and of executive orders pertaining to the United States housing act of 1937, as amended. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Housing Authority, 1938. [5] Ibid. [6] Marcuse, Peter. The Myth of the Benevolent State: Towards a Theory of Housing. [7] Schill, Michael. Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go from Here? 60 University of Chicago Law Review 497. 1993. [8] Hays, R. Allen. The Federal Government and Urban Housing Ideology and Change in Public Policy. 2nd ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. [9] Ibid. [10] Walker,Carole, and David Varady. Housing Vouchers and Residential Mobility. Journal of Planning Literature, 18.1 2003. [11] Schach,Janice Cervelli. Planning and Design of Public Housing an Evolution of Structure. Landscape and Urban Planning. 39, no. 2. 1997. [12] Gans,Herbert J. The High-rise Fallacy. Design Quarterly. 24. 1992. [13] Schach,Janice Cervelli. Planning and Design of Public Housing an Evolution of Structure. 1997. [14] Ibid. [15] Bickford,Adam, and Douglas S Massey. Segregation in the Second Ghetto: Racial and Ethnic Segregation in American Public Housing, 1977. Social Forces. 69, no. 4. 1991. [16] Public Housing. Social Service Review. 11, no. 1. 1937. [17] Friedman,Lawrence M. Government and Slum Housing: Some General Considerations. Law and Contemporary Problems. 32, no. 2. 1967. [18] Gans, Herbert J. The urban villagers; group and class in the life of Italian-Americans.. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. [19] Milbert,Isabelle. Slums, Slum Dwellers and Multilevel Governance. The European Journal of Development Research. 18, no. 2. 2006.

Impacts of Artificial Climate Modification Essay -- Meteorology Weathe

Impacts of Artificial Climate Modification Controlling the weather. The very idea of it sounds enthralling and, yet, terrifying. Take a moment and think about the endless possibilities. Imagine the scenario: Hurricane Katrina is headed straight for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The loss of life is unthinkable and the amount of damage is insurmountable. However, scientists have discovered a way to seed the hurricane, not only lessening its power but potentially redirecting its path. Hundreds of lives are saved and billions of dollars in damage are prevented. While extreme storm manipulation is a far reach into the future, the possibility to increase rain and snow fall and to suppress hail storms is a reality. However exciting the possibilities, there are still great concerns on how this awesome power will affect the world. Weather Modification (WM) began in the mid 1940s with three scientists at the General Electric Laboratory. Vincent Schaefer, Bernard Vonnegut, and Irving Langmuir conducted various experiments in precipitation management. Their studies showed that the use of dry ice and silver iodide in supercooled stratus clouds acted as â€Å"seeds† for rain and snow making. Simply put, seeding is the introduction of crystalline particles into a cloud to create ice crystals and water droplets that will become precipitation (Bridget, 51). These first series of experiments encouraged new rain enhancement and hail prevention projects throughout the world (List, 51). With the introduction of any new finding, there is a need for guidelines. In order to create a more universal, uniform, and organized method of researching weather modification, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) establish... ...cy Statement: â€Å"Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification,†. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 73, 337. Bridget, C. (May/Jun 2005). Changing the Weather. Weatherwise, 58(3), 51, 53. Howell, W.E. (1977). Environmental Impacts of Precipitation Management: Results and Inferences from Project Skywater. Bureau of Reclamation Department of the Interior, 58(6), 491-492. Solak, M.E., Yorty, D.P., & Griffith, D.A. (2003). Estimations of Downwind Cloud Seeding Effects in Utah. Report: North American Weather Consultants, Inc., 35(1), 1, 2, 4. Weaver, T. & Collins, D. (Nov 1977). Possible Effects of Weather Modification (Increased Snowpack) on Festuca Idahoensis Meadows. Journal of Range Management, 30(6), 451. List, R. (Jan 2004). Weather Modification- A Scenario for the Future. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85(1), 52, 56-57.

Francis Bacon and Brett Whiteley

Brett Whiteley and Francis Bacon Essay Question: Discuss the way Whiteley’s work; ‘Self Portrait in the Studio’ 1976, and Bacon’s ‘Figure in Movement, 1976’ show two very different approaches to practice. How have these artists used gesture, colour, and form differently in these works to explore totally different emotional and psychological territory? Francis Bacon and Brett Whiteley show two very different approaches to their practice. They use gesture, colour and form differently in these works to explore different emotional and psychological territory.The making of an artistic practice is based on the artist’s view of the things affecting and contributing to his society and perspective on the world. Differing styles in this depend on the artist and their intent in making their artwork which is evident in the two contrasting works of Whiteley’s ‘Self portrait in the studio’ 1976 and Bacon’s ‘Figure in m ovement, 1976’. They portray their views through a range of techniques. Artistic practice is the way in which an artist goes about their work. It refers to the conceptual and making processes of an artwork.An artist will find a suitable subject matter, develop skills and use visual codes and symbols to portray their ideas and concepts to hopefully trigger a certain audience response. An artist would want to be reflective of the society and world of that time to have the audience be able to connect with ideas and concepts they want to convey. How they make it and why they make it is a testimony to their different media, styles and techniques and also their use of the visual qualities and relationships as well as the influence of their global and personal world and other artists and their movements.Francis Bacon says that he is ‘deforming and reforming reality in his paintings’ this is evident in his work ‘Figure in movement, 1976’. Distorted features of the human form are typical with Bacons figurative style. Bacon stated that his aim was to ‘not make illustration of reality but to create images which are concentration of reality’. Subject matter is not something that Francis Bacon said he traditionally looks for but he was inspired by people like Muybridge and his photography of deformities and animal locomotion.In his studio he has collection of his works spread out on a table, ‘these things spread around the table are perhaps what more conventional artists would call subject matter’. He is also inspired by medical books of x-rays and diseases of the mouth which he interprets as beautiful and interesting. He finds dead carcasses of cattle in the butcher as one of the most vibrant colour palettes and interesting forms. In the background of the work there is a pig carcass which is evidence of his interpretation of beauty .He uses a mash of dark grey colours for the forms and a bright orange base with a black background ambiguously. In the work ‘Figure in movement, 1976’ Bacon based the conceptual idea from a book which had a line ‘The reek of human blood smiles out at me. ’ This provoked a strong sense of imagery which transformed in to his art and in particular this work of two distorted forms wrestling. He successfully depicts violence in to the work which has been fuelled from that line and the audience successfully receives it.Francis Bacon is seen as an artist who creates his work very unconventionally. He uses the unprimed side of a canvas as he became accustomed to it after losing all his money and using the other side of old paintings because he couldn’t afford new canvases. He does not do sketches before taking on a painting and feels whichever way his brush takes him is the way that he wants to go. He says that ‘I have an overall image that I want to do but it’s in the working that it develops’, and ‘I believe in a deeply ordered chaos of work. Bacon never attended an art school because he thinks ‘I would have been taught all those old techniques that I just don’t want to know, I wanted to find my own techniques. You can’t any longer make illustration because it’s done so much better by the camera and the cinema. ’ He has a habit of manically working paint into a canvas not only with a paint brush but with cloths and dishwashing instruments which adds to the frenzy of his work.Francis Bacon doesn’t put much emphasis on the meaning of his work but on the mood and feeling it creates, ’I do believe that today modern man wants a sensation really without the boredom of its conveyance, a cut down of conveyance as far as possible so you just give over to sensation’, though interestingly he says ‘I never feel anything when I do paintings there’s nothing to feel. ’ Many come away with the feeling of horror from a Bacon work b ut that’s not the intention ‘what horror could I make that could compete with what goes on every single day. Brett Whiteley’s painting ‘Self portrait in the studio’ won the Archibald prize in 1976. It was one of several Archibald prizes that he one in the ‘70’s. Whiteley was known for the topics of nudes, portraits, landscapes, still lifes of the female form, birds, and abstracts which all feature heavily in his self portrait of not only him but things that are dear to him and reflect his life and work as represented in the form of his studio. In this work Whiteley is trying to express that ‘yes, this is a mirror image of myself but I am not just Brett Whiteley, I am also Brett Whiteley who is part of this environment at this time. This painting is a testimony to what he loves and his working space in which he has created his career from and his artistic practice. He expresses this by including important elements of his life. Brett Whiteley strongly uses emotive qualities of colour. The whole painting is held together by the unifying prevailing quality of blue which is his signature colour. He is recognised for this colour because he is always referencing the water especially in this painting of his studio overlooking the harbour in Lavender Bay.This colour is also spread on to the walls and acts as a calming effect on the receiving audience. The colour is rich and bright to contrast with other points of focus in the room. The way he has developed the forms and shapes in the room are meant to convey the idea of man only being as big as any other point of reference. Whiteley reinforces this idea by making all focal points distorted and exaggerated. This is a celebration of his interest in female form and his figurative sculpture works.It is evident in ‘Self Portrait in the Studio’ that Whiteley has worked with slow, spontaneous gestures and worked back in to the canvas with scratches. The drawings of surroundings are minimal and simplistic and have been drawn with free loose lines to convey emotion. Whiteley says that ‘the best times when paintings are done when I’m not in charge of it all, if I keep my ego out of it there is kind of a pure flow of that recommendation and that solution of a kind of neat rightness that goes in as best and as accurately as one can.This approach contributes to the mood, feeling and meaning of the work and the sense of the way being an artist has impacted on his life. The small self portrait in comparison to his big studio also reflects how it dominates his life but is reflected as his most enjoyable escape. The painting also has a dream like feel showing his relationship with his art. Both of these two artists have very differently developed their practices.I think an interesting comparison between them is that Francis Bacon was always referencing death and in his documentary ‘The Art of Francis Bacon’ when talking abo ut how Egyptian art inspired him said ‘I guess they were always trying to defeat death by leaving images but it won’t really make a difference. We will all be dead. ’ And that one of Brett Whiteley’s famous quote is ‘Art is the thrilling spark that beats death, that’s all. ’ I think these two conflicting statements perfectly sum up the contrast they have in ideas and show how they explore emotional and psychological territory differently.

Innovations and Inventions for the Hearing Impaired

No one person invented sign language; it evolved worldwide in a natural fashion, much the way any language evolved. We can name a few people as the innovators of specific signing manuals. Each language (English, French, German, etc) developed their own respective sign languages at different times. American sign language (ASL) is closely related to French sign language. In 1620, the first book on sign language that contained the manual alphabet was published by Juan Pablo de Bonet.In 1755, Abbe Charles Michel de L’Epee of Paris founded the first free school for deaf people, he used a system of gestures, hand signs, and fingerspelling.In 1778, Samuel Heinicke of Leipzig, Germany founded a public school for deaf people, where he taught speech and speechreading.In 1817, Laurent Clerc and Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet founded Americas first school for deaf people, in Hartford, Connecticut.In 1864, Gallaudet College, in Washington, D.C was founded, the only liberal arts college for deaf people in the world. TTY or TDD Telecommunications TDD stands for Telecommunications Device for the Deaf.  It is a method of coupling Tele-Typewriters to telephones. Deaf orthodontist Doctor James C Marsters of Pasadena, California shipped a teletype machine to deaf physicist Robert Weitbrecht in Redwood City, California and requested a way to attach it to the telephone system so that phone communication could take place. The TTY was first developed by Robert Weitbrecht, a deaf physicist. He was also a ham radio operator, familiar with the way hams used teleprinters to communicate over the air. Hearing Aids Hearing aids in their various forms have provided needed amplification of sound for many persons experiencing hearing loss. Since hearing loss is one of the oldest of the known disabilities, attempts to amplify sound go back several centuries. It is unclear who invented the first electric hearing aid, it may have been the Akoulathon, invented in 1898 by Miller Reese Hutchinson and made and sold (1901) by the Akouphone Company of Alabama for $400. A device called the carbon transmitter was needed in both the early telephone and the early electric hearing aid. This transmitter was first commercially available in 1898 and was used to electrically amplify sound. In the 1920s, the carbon transmitter was replaced by the vacuum tube, and later by a transistor. Transistors allowed electric hearing aids to become small and efficient. Cochlear Implants The cochlear implant is a prosthetic replacement for the inner ear or cochlea. The cochlear implant is surgically implanted in the skull behind the ear and electronically stimulates the nerve of hearing with small wires touching the cochlea. External parts of the device include a microphone, a speech processor (for converting sounds into electrical impulses), connecting cables, and a battery. Unlike a hearing aid, which just makes sounds louder, this invention selects information in the speech signal and then produces a pattern of electrical pulses in the patients ear. It is impossible to make sounds completely natural because a limited amount of electrodes are replacing the function of tens of thousands of hair cells in a normally hearing ear. The implant has evolved over the years and many different teams and individual researchers have contributed to its invention and improvement. In 1957, Djourno and Eyries of France, William House of the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles, Blair Simmons of Stanford University, and Robin Michelson of the University of California, San Francisco, all created and implanted single-channel cochlear devices in human volunteers. In the early 1970s, research teams led by William House of the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles; Graeme Clark of the University of Melbourne, Australia; Blair Simmons and Robert White of Stanford University; Donald Eddington of the University of Utah; and Michael Merzenich of the University of California, San Francisco, begin work on developing multi-electrode cochlear implants with 24 channels. In 1977, Adam Kissiah a NASA engineer with no medical background designed a cochlear implant that is widely used today. In 1991, Blake Wilson greatly improved the implants by sending signals to the electrodes sequentially instead of simultaneously - this increased clarity of sound.