Planetizen cited an interesting article that was originally published in my local paper, the LA Times.
The article focused on the mall in Culver City, which is now owned by the Westfield Corporation.
The reason that I bring this up is because so often in my school readings the authors feel like any sort of corporate involvement in a project is on par with flag burning and/or human sacrifices.
But sometimes, I would argue, we cannot bring about major economic redevelopment without a major infusion of cash, ideally from a source who has a lot of it and doesn't mind throwing it around ie one who won't always be nervously eyeing the books.
I'm not advocating for the Disneyification of the entire developed and developing world. But sometimes corporate sponsorship is justified. They have the resources to dedicate to security, upkeep, and even that luxury, design. A bunch of small investors may not have the portfolio or priorities to invest in such things and a project may suffer from more of a piecemeal approach and disjointed final project. Westfield et al., may be a little on the "slick" side (see another example, Ed Roski's (who is also an USC alum) project, LA Live/Staples Center, but who can argue with revenue generation? And developers shouldn't be required to taste to everyone's whim and design aesthetic.
Las Vegas fills me with loathing and disgust, but I acknowledge that it employs a lot of people. The Staples Center invokes seizures on sight, but I like having the LA Kings play near where I live.
So it really 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'? Or should we live free (of corporate intervention) or die trying while trying to cobble together enough resources in order to execute a project on our own terms? With the closing question being if not thee, then who? It can be very lonely and more than a little, waiting alone on one's moral high ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment