Privately subsidized public space

I interpreted “Junkspace” as a critique of malls – the word “junk” itself isn’t exactly flattering. He says its unqualified to even be called architecture, that its essentially a cheap, poorly-executed “regurgitation” of previous architectural styles – and I totally agree with him. I could immediately picture the cheap, tasteless shopping malls, shopping centers, and way-too-big roads around where I live in Georgia.

But in class we discussed how the intentions of so-called “junkspace,” which were to build vibrant public space, just funded by private developers, which reframed my critique of these kind of spaces . Maybe instead of junkspace, it should be called something like “failed attempts at privatized public space.”

I started to contemplate the concept of privately owned public space, as I feel like there have been a lot of critiques of this idea in the media lately, especially with the opening of Hudson Yards in NYC and Salesforce Park in San Francisco in 2019. Both projects have met HIGH opposition for being owned and designed by large corporations: that they are too “branded,” are only accessible to affluent people, and too utopian.

I completely disagree on all of these fronts for both projects. I visited both projects this year, neither of which had any type of financial barrier of entry. They are both located in dense urban areas, so they’re easily accessible by diverse groups of people. They’re both beautiful projects that expose people to good design (unlike “junkspace”) and bring vibrancy and enjoyment to a place. Who wouldn’t have fun climbing the vessel? How can you not love the dense, diverse greenery on the top of a bus station? In both cases, the developers are offering something to the public that would otherwise just sit as, well, “junkspace.”

*Coincidentally enough my friend sent me this article after class yesterday about Salesforce Park. https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-floating-utopia-of-salesforce-park