Caution: Private Property

“…reasons law and geography have remained so uninterested in each other. By comparison, if these two fields have remained distant, architectural theory and the law have barely acknowledged each other’s existence.” (Lonsway 348)

Walt Disney was a genius. He has always been associated with animation and making children around the world happier and even bringing out the child in adults, but his business side often remains hidden. I know we have discussed this colossal monster that is the Disney Empire, but once again, I find myself amazed. 50 years ago, he was doing things that only now companies are beginning to do.

He really pushed new ideas that had huge architectural implications. His idea of creating a buffer zone of purchased land around the entertainment center was a great way to avoid “suburban sprawl butting right up against the edge of the entertainment destination. It makes Disneyworld a true getaway. Not to mention, the many ways Disney got around private ownership technicalities while also avoiding issues with legalities in the state of Florida were very clever. I don’t think any company up until Santana Row has really pushed the ideas represented in Disneyworld as well as Walt Disney did. How clever to obtain full control while giving the appearance that the control is in the hands of others. When Disney set up a community which required a voting population, it seemed like a fair democratic system, when in all reality the only voters were Disney employees. Disney took Mob Tactics and instead of using a restaurant as a front, he used a big playground.

The entirety that is Disney also does such a fantastic job at implementing Lonsway’s next point. They put up a façade of public while truly they are entirely private. When I read Lonsway’s writings about this issue of Public and Private I thought about the “Privately Owned Public Spaces” Project in NYC. Through this system private companies looking to build on a specific site are able to get around certain building restrictions if they claim to offer a P.O.P.S. For example, if a Day’s Inn wanted to construct a hotel, they could get around set-back restrictions if they offered a percentage of the site up as a public space with 24-7 access. Often however, these spaces go under-managed and are not open 24-7. The companies use them as a front to appear like they are providing for the city while they are not.

“Extrapolated, this argument suggests that no matter how ‘accurately’ a private venture is symbolized as a public one, its private status is incontrovertible, based ultimately on the private contract of property ownership.” (Lonsway 351) Under this concept, even if something looks public, or as much as it may even perform like an actual public space, it is private when it comes to legalities. So, then I postulate, if someone were in a P.O.P.S. in NYC and was injured, could they then sue the owner of the property for lack of upkeep on equipment? Or as a counterclaim to that argument, could the private company in reverse then sue the individual for trespassing on private property?

Ultimately, I feel like spaces such as these P.O.P.S. or company towns like the one in the Marsh case, even if they appear public, need to have asterisks under the welcome sign that say “This town is privately owned by the Blank corporation and thereby private property.” Yes, it is ridiculous, but in today’s sue-happy society you, as both an individual and a corporation, need to cover your bases. In a society where individuals need a note on a cup of coffee saying “Caution: Contents HOT!” we obviously need new signs saying “Caution: Private Property!”