6 Comments

  1. Danielle M. Sabelli

    Letters look sooooooo awesome!

    Idea expansion – what if, in addition to “make this better,” we also documented its counterpart location, which stands as an improvement and mark it as such.

    I.e. In addition to Michelle’s park location, for “make this better” we should demarcate a similar location (that has been privy to some successes) as “better” like Atkinson Park. In it’s final photographic incantation we can have the unloved locations, “make this better” alongside the somewhat loved locations, “better.”

    I think this might offer insights that reference the type of potential these forgotten places have or what they can become in this city. As such, these insights could also highlight the limitations of certain places within the city by acknowledging a less than satisfactory high point or zenith. However, this type of “is this the best we can do” discourse may provide a jumping point from where we can begin to re-imagine that particular place.

    • I definitely think that there’s a lot of room with this project to think about what we’re actually addressing and what we hope to see come out of it. Is it enough to hope to spark conversation or should we be going further?

      I think the idea of pointing out the “better” counterpoints to some of these places can provide that insight to the limits we impose upon ourselves here, and in that we’ll find a lot to talk about for sure.

      It is the limits that seem to play such a large role in defining a place.

      What I hope we can talk about is just what sort of thing better looks like, and how the process of getting to better can look a lot different than how we might initially imagine. Better doesn’t have to mean tidier, or fixed up, or more developed, I think what we’re hoping to get at with this work is the idea that better (if I can borrow Steve Lambert’s language for describing utopia) is a direction rather than a destination.

Comments are closed.