Monuments: Spaces of Intended Public Use Vs. Actual Locations of Use

 Both Los Angeles and San Francisco created elaborate city halls, with the hope of establishing a city center and place of public use. However, the true landmarks, or monuments that actually captured the public’s attention and serve as a space where people spend their time are far more unsuspecting and are nowhere near as formal.

In the West’s hub of sophistication would you even believe me if I told you the most oft used “monument” to date is not the city hall with its elaborate domed ceiling and sweeping staircase but instead a tourist spot along the highway between Sacramento and San Francisco that is complete with…. Wait for it: a mini train.

 

San Francisco's City Hall                              San Francisco's Nut Tree 

California’s legendary roadside shop, Nut Tree, features 393,000 square feet of retail space, 140,000 square feet of office space, 216 apartment units, a 2-acre amusement park and a 3.4-acere event center. It includes an airport, a toy shop, a sophisticated gifts and notions shop, a bar serving imported beers and cheeses, an elegant restaurant and even an aviary.  The whimsical space trumps the San Francisco City Hall on public recognition any day of the week which begs the question, how do you create a monument, a location that helps to define local identity, without resorting to commercial tactics? How do you engage the visitor or resident without resorting to a mini railroad? Are monuments of actual use doomed to be cheesy theme parks forever? Is the public that shallow?

In the case of Los Angeles, their city hall is completely trumped by nearby Disneyland. Charles Moore, sarcastically or not, considers the play-acting that takes place there to be a successful response the public environment, “Disneyland it appears, is enormously important and successful just because it recreates all the chances to respond to the public environment, which Los Angels does not particularly have.” (99, Moore)  Los Angeles’s city hall, though a tall and dominant architectural feature in the city has failed to inspire invested public life within its walls. Commercial buildings are quickly developing around and looming over the structure, making it less and less distinct. Though the use of height was a valid gesture at making the city hall important and a catalyst for a bustling city center, it inevitably failed to inspire much life within or around the building. Which begs the question, why? What does Nut Tree and Disneyland have that the city halls are unable to convey? Above all it appears, no matter how cliché or superficial Nut Tree or Disneyland are, they both engage the public consistently. They seem to fill the public’s need for distraction, entertainment, indulgence and distraction.

So, is there a way to capture this attention and funnel it into a public building? Can the amusement park and the monument combine forces or are they too essentially different? As an eternal optimist, it is my hope that they can be combined in some way so that public interaction in monumental spaces is encouraged to its fullest. It is my hope that formal architecture can support public entertainment in a genuine way. It is also my hope that monuments are not relegated to be a rarely thought of, stained and aging statue or an empty city hall but a space where public entertainment and commerce joins forces with reverent spaces of public service.