This weeks post is a response to Nicole Lambertson's Week 9 post.
Hi Nicole
I really like the way
you set up your blog post this week. The way you mentioned the article you are
going to use and followed up by your research on the Venice, after which you
connected the article with the lecture material, was a well thought out
strategy. I like the way you used Stuart Hall’s theory of the floating
signifier with the nature as a terrain of meaning: nature as aesthetic value
that symbolizes health and wellness and wealth/status. Not many people can
afford to live in a place like Archstone Venice that provides a "green
living" which will benefit their physical and emotional health. You also
used nature as a terrain of inequality by pointing out how Archstone Venice
does not focus on the scarcity of nature as a resource. I have to disagree with
that. The complex enforces the inequality, because when it "invites the
larger community to come enjoy its piece of happiness in green living" it
doesn't mean it invites everyone, only people who can afford it in that larger
community. In mega cities (global cities) like Los Angeles it is necessary to
have some "green living" spaces because of the many sites of
pollution and its increased vulnerability of environmental hazards. Archstone Venice sounds like a nice place to
live in and I agree that it will bring some piece of happiness in green living
to its tenants.
Overall I think you chose a great article and a place to
visit, and your analysis of the place was perfect.
Thank you for your post.
No comments:
Post a Comment