Building for Us

One of the biggest complaints from those on both sides of the big box debate is the architecture. Hardly a soul would say they are aesthetically pleasing nor designed to last. The cookie cutter design is what is easiest for the developer and what takes the hardest hit aesthetically on our communities. The malls of the eighties no longer exist. We now have car based centers focused on the parking lot rather than the person behind the wheel. It’s a model evident in every regard of these projects.

If the projects are so great then why are there PR folks working on selling their project from the project’s inception? Why do they find it necessary to hand out cookies, granola bars and bottled water at our city council meetings? Why do they sponsor petting zoos at the fair?
Why not save their money and build a better project? Despite these bleak times we have excellent prospects growing here. The SMART train is coming- is this evident in any of the large scale developments slated for Petaluma? NO! What about our emerging “locavor” reputation. We are so fortunate to live in an area where we could sustain on what is grown and produced within mere miles of us- is this evident in any of the large scale developments slated for Petaluma? NO!
When PR folks come to city hall and tell our council what they are willing to build and what just isn’t feasible for a community of our size then we have a problem. Either our community is too small for their project if they can’t afford to build it right or their project is too shoddy for our community.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.