Where am I?!?!?!

Brandscapes and Brandfests essentially convey the same idea when it comes to the consumer. That idea is the image (or branding) a company produces and how it goes back into the consumer. Both are also extremely influential sorts of advertisements to people of all ages. Younger people might be attracted to some sort of brand because the commercials and other forms of advertisements appeal to their generation. Wherever we go, there is brandscapes, brandfest and etc. and it becomes part of our social norm. This is what brand are out to accomplish, and that is to create a direct and indirect relationship between the brand, item, and most importantly, the consumer.
The reading by Sherry also talked about Niketown in Chicago and this bought back memories on my first visit to Niketown in New York City. The Niketown in NYC has two different functions, and that is selling items and to display various things such as memorabilia from other famous basketball players like Dr. J or even a imprint of Shaquille O’Neill’s hand. It’s as if the store has a double function. I remember that I almost got confused of where I was when i frist entered the Nikestore because I always ended up asking myself "where am I?" This idea also applies to other stores around NYC that contain this “double function” program (Disney Store and F.A.O Swartz). The images and branding of Nike has been all over us and you can’t get away from it. Nike’s image of sports has been subliminally imprinted into our brain. Whenever I think of sports, no other sports brand comes into mind firs than Nike.

Making Connections

The reading "Brandfests: Servicescapes for the Cultivation of Brand Equity” was tailored to the experience of the participant. The article was addressing “brandfests,” or events organized by a specific brand for its loyal customers. These events were analyzed for their success in creating environments that were suitable for not only customer enjoyment, but in creating memories that enhance the bond between customer and product. The same can be said for architecture and how every architect is aiming to create an experience in their design that is memorable for the inhabitant. During the design process the architect is trying to visualize how someone would feel existing in their designed space, how this person would react to one floor pattern versus another. Architecture and branding share a very similar goal; that goal is to provide a memorable experience for the customer. This interaction between consumer and provider is what makes any one person form opinion and enable them to make choice. Why buy one product or enjoy one space more than any other? You prefer one over the other because you had an experience that was not necessarily only memorable, but exciting or informative or unfamiliar. This idea of designing a space that will create an experience for the consumer can be compared to what is going on with DestinyUSA. The project is not only a mall for people to purchase items; it is an experience in sustainable design. Of course the goal of the mall is to make profit, but at the same time they will be educating the public through a memorable architecture all revolving around the health of our environment. This project will further prove how architecture can be used as an informative resource that has the ability to engage with the inhabitant on more than just a physical level.

Branding a Brand new Brand

I simply must begin by seconded Ian’s comments. “Get people hooked on a product and provide them with exit barriers so that they can never abandon their product, and watch the bottom line get fatter.” (Ian Nicholson) Also, give them the feeling of experiencing risks of all kinds while what is actually happening is simple a façade for something that is safe and entirely under control. “Brandfests" is disgusting yet horribly accurate in most aspects. These readings just seemed like one façade under another. How literal too, as in our constant conversations about big box architecture and designing spaces like those Disney creates; spaces with a stage, backstage, and wings. Well, this staging is absurd.

We begin by discussing the way that a town becomes a brand. I question, if we have gotten to this point, then what isn’t a brand? I understand that a town is advertising itself as a seafood or produce center, but then isn’t every city going to try to brand itself in a similar way. Does the not happen naturally? What’s next, branding a “brand” with a person? After I asked myself that question I found the new Gatorade Tiger “It’s in him. Is it in you?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WenTKxRxIAk)

It all just seems so fake. Take risks? Are these individuals who attend these brandfests really taking physical risks, in the comfort of their brand new “brand” of Jeep.
It’s never about the brand. It’s about the risk, right? It’s about being a “badass.” It’s about doing something ridiculous and exciting. But after all that “The first principal of perceived risk for the brandfest is that there should be some. The second is that it should not be overwhelming.” (McAlexander 384) So in reality, all these brandfests are about pretending to be taking risks. Ok, so there are also apparent social and financial risks that can happen, but it seems to me that all risks involved are made less risk-like with the help of brand loyalty. The brand is there to reassure. It is there to calm, comfort, and unite! Yet again we find more façades.

McAlexander goes into depth about how certain locations for these brandfests have nothing to do with natural beauty of the place but everything to do with the brand uniting a group of people. To put it plainly, it is rather annoying that a brand must exist to bring people together. But rather than get angry I’ll try to think this through. When making friends, what traits does one look for? Interest in the same music, movies, etc. Essentially one looks for interests in the same products and the same activities.

Is it even possible for us to interact without product involvement? Last week Amelia showed a video of students dancing in a store, trying to have a good time without paying or playing the consumer. And though this act was successful, the store was on the verge of calling security and shutting this all down. So past a few minutes of freedom, is this really free? This is how I feel about branding. You can’t even go see your favorite artist without being slapped in the face by advertising. Just the venue alone exists purely as a means of selling a product while masquerading as a place to bring people together. The Wachovia Center, Izod Center, Campbell’s Field, Coors Field, etc. are all prime examples. Even team names are lost and creativity and regional pride are thrown out the window for branding. The best example I can think of is the New York soccer team which has been renamed “Red Bull New York.” Even though fans typically call them the “Red Bulls”, you can see in the title and on their jersey that they are just the “Red Bull,” exactly like the drink. They are only an Australian produced energy drink. They are no longer a soccer team.

And Ian’s comments about “what social group isn't a granfalloon?” worries me yet again. I often wonder how I can see non-commercialize things still popping up. I often hope for shared identity around something that cannot be bought and sold, because I do agree. When our society is built up on items that can change hands so quickly and easily, why should we expect relationships built on that unsturdy ground to remain strong.

Ultimately, I propose that any individual must be entirely removed from something to not experience the branding of America. That individual must either be removed from it, like the “Allegory of the Cave” or must be oblivious too it. As for those of us, not so fortunate to be oblivious in some way, our only way out, is to work and live in the consumerist society long enough to obtain enough capital to purchase a large farm, live on it, build your home with local materials, blowing your own glass for your windows from nearby sand somehow, drinking water from a stream, feeding on the animals, plants and vegetables on our property and making clothes from the sheep’s wool and cotton that would have to be grown. Oh and to make that work, you made need 20 hands or so, so be sure to have a lot of children. Also, expect to live a shorter life than the rest of society because you can no longer take Tylenol, Advil, Motrin, etc. And after all of that, you can only provide for survival and for your family’s survival, because the minute you sell any of your “products”, you sell out and you have fallen back into the viciousness that is commercialism.

And just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4&feature=related
Commercialism backfires when Chevy lets anyone create and post a commercial for the new Tahoe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmyi-aGq6ZE
A Target Commercial that is telling the audience “I don’t know why you say good buy” as if strangely criticizing themselves and saying their products are not a good buy, so why shop there. Oh, I know why, because they have catchy jingles and pretty pictures that are disguising them.

Were did you get THAT from?

As we read these weeks readings, we begin to see and understand how advertising and image are parts to the companies ultimate goal of developing and maintaining a brand. It goes beyond just reaching out to consumers and getting them to buy your product, it is about establishing relationships between the consumer, product and company. Referring back to Paco Underhill’s observations of people shopping and him being about to predicting what kind of deodorant people use is a helpful way for me to understand statements like “the most important message the brandfest can convey about the brand is its fit with owners lifestyles and relevant role identities” (391) and “That a person can develop a relationship with a possession” (388). As much as companies establish specific demographics and target audiences, consumers are identity with certain companies. People like identifying with products. A good example for understanding this is the i-pod. What does it mean to have an i-pod? Why have other company not been able to break apples domination in the music player industry? One reason has to do with the identity having an i-pod give back to the consumer.

There is one caveat, which the reading subtly mentions. For the most part the more exclusive and in demand the more likely it will be able to establish a brand and in turn a consumer identity. Once this appeal is lost and consumer’s identity “unwanted” association (either people or impressions) with the product then it loses its allure.

As a result brandfest, Niketown and Coke factories have all been created in order to maintain this demand and uniqueness. This raises questions of when will the unique become the norm and when this threshold is crossed what will happen?

Missed Opportunities?

This week's readings on brandfests and brandscapes threw into stark contrast for me the utter lack of these experiences I've found myself in. To be frank, the NTC sounds like a excellent tourist attraction and I will almost certainly go there if I find myself in Chicago. The closest I've come to experiencing anything like a brandfest or brandscape actually came to me: a Taylor Guitar traveling road show at my local music store, about five miles away from my house. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this was an event that brought together people with a common interest (playing guitar), yet instead of following their guidelines of setting rules like 'you need to own a Taylor guitar to come', they opened the exclusivity to simply people who play guitar. I believe this to be more effective when you're trying to get people to become interested in a company than limiting to people already interested in a company, and it certainly didn't create "dissonance" that I happen to play a Yamaha.

In addition to all sorts of Taylor-brand prizes and discounts, the 'show' was an intricate demonstration of how Taylor guitars are made and tested (presented by the factory workers) and what sets them apart from the competition. As a selling pitch, it worked extremely well, and the opportunity to play $8000 guitars for even a few minutes sure as heck made me want to 'convert' to Taylor guitar playing, and if I had $8000 to spare, I probably would have bought one of those guitars right on the spot (especially since they usually go for $10,500, wow, I'd be saving $2,500!). Even the 'risk factor' was present, as the showmen gave a few mini guitar lessons to those of us playing, hoping to help us improve our technique in mere minutes, and later jamming with everyone. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this gave a personal quality to a large company and gave me fond memories that I now associate with whenever I'm in a guitar store or see someone playing a Taylor.

What's the main reason I went in the first place? It was convenient and fit into my schedule. Like UEC's, I wonder if the future of branding might be less 'destination' and more locale oriented, as if the 'show' was more than five miles away, I probably wouldn't have gone. However, like Disneyland, NTC seems to be such a destination that it's pull will probably remain strong for many years to come, but with 'convenience' taking more and more of a hold on everyone, I wonder how long NTC can truly survive...fifty more years?...twenty?......four?

Hello. My name's Jim and this is my wife Debbie. We met on the Honda Highway of Love.

Costumer Loyalty. Get people hooked (psychologically) on a product and provide them with "exit barriers" so that they can never abandon their product, and watch the bottom line get fatter. Like almost everything in our consumer society, I find "brandfests" (apparently, the most successfull "Brand Equity" ploy conceived of to date) to be both pitiable and laudable. They provide a major social event that has the potential to change people's lives, but that event is in the name of addicting that person to a brand, a corporation, and its attendant image, and those friends and discoveries you've made while taking your Jeep off-road are nothing but devices engineered to keep you coming back to your welcoming local Jeep showroom.

But that's the culture in which we live. It makes sense that humans in a consumerist culture would "find themselves" and forge life-long friendships at a fetishistic gathering meant to further entrench their consumerist way of life. Social networks are fuelled by common experiences that bind certain groups together, but when those experiences are hollow, contrived, produced by ulterior motives, then how strong can that social group really become?

Kurt Vonnegut referred to such groups as "granfalloons" in his novel Cat's Cradle. "If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon" (Vonnegut). A granfalloon is any proud society or group who's existence is based on a shared identity or purpose that is actually meaningless. Vonnegut cites "the Communist party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company, the International Order of Odd Fellows - and any nation anytime, anywhere." I would argue that social structures created at Jeep Week, Nike Town, or any commercial piece of our culture would fit into this category.

But then, what social group isn't a granfalloon? In our society EVERY piece of shared identity or purpose has been commercialized and effectively evactuated of any real substance. So where does meaning in our interpersonal relationships come from? I don't have the answer, and (I'm pretty sure) Nike doesn't have it either.

the nike museum

In John Sherry’s visit of Nike Town Chicago with the two industrial designers, he is introduced to the concept that the NTC is much more than a simple retail store, but that it is a museum in its own respect. The fact that it is of the same caliber tourist attraction as Chicago’s other main sites, the Museum of Science and Industry and the Art Institute, says a great deal about the impact of this Nike store. The store is able to accomplish much more than any other retailer that sells Nike merchandise; it showcases the pieces in a way that would lead an observer to respect the quality and originality of the good.

More than just showcase the Nike Merchandise, the store succeeds in teaching the average consumer as well. To the athlete, the store highlights the newest and most innovative shoes, apparel and equipment that any serious player should have. In addition the store acting as a teacher, the consumers can become the teachers as well. “Look at all these parents showing their kids around; they’re teaching. Just like a museum” (Sherry 111).

These Nike Stores that exist in various cities other than Chicago work to showcase their products around the world. They exist as a series of “museums,” that not only allow people to observer and admire their products, but also to test the items for themselves.

nudging your way into history

When visiting NikeTown in Boston, just a few steps past the door is all it takes to realize, as Sherry points out, that this is not a store, but a museum. It functioned much like a corporate museum would, trying desperately to legitimize its place in Boston’s prized local sports history, with bronze castings of Marathon runners crossing the finish line and Celtics jerseys lining the wall. This tactic of localizing a global enterprise is fairly clear; it facilitates the consumer-company relationship described by Sherry, and indirectly caters to the lofty goals and aspirations of the athlete. To the aspiring athlete, Nike becomes a tangible conduit through which to access success and notoriety, much like an art museum tries (albeit in a much less overt and overbearing way) to inspire by showing the work of the “best of the best.” For me, where the disconnect between store and museum happens is in the interactions between the consumer and NikeTown. On my visit, I was warned several times by vigilant employees that photography was not permitted inside the store. The proscription of photography seems logical when considering a museum atmosphere, where ambiance and the experience of the museumgoer are held as sacred, not to be disturbed by flash photography. In NikeTown, however, prohibiting photography seems to make less sense. The corporate image of Nike is one which would appear to encourage the association of “hype,” traditionally linked with sports events, to the unveiling and exhibition of new products. Photography is a means of fabricating excitement and interest in a subject that otherwise may not exist. This, in conjunction with the eager crowd surging into NikeTown to see the latest in athletic wear, is capable of giving the NikeTown Museum all the publicity it needs.

Breaking Free

Ultimately both brandscapes and brandfests attempt to produce atmospheres which target the modern day consumer; all while attempting to build extraordinary experiences which challenge the social and emotional norm of consumer products. Niketown in Chicago proposes a symbolic experience designed “to evoke in consumers a range of synergistic thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that encourage active engagement with its servicescape” (Sherry). A direct correlation can be seen between brandscapes/brandfests, and the idea of assigning a celebrity theme to a restaurant. Very similar to restaurants and museums which depend on an element of entertainment to suffice consumer needs and interests, brand name vendors such as Nike and Jeep are forced to immerse themselves within the ‘brandscape’ realm of advertisement.

Brandscapes/brandfests are powerful advertisement endeavors proposed to challenge the shopping norm, while at the same time architecturally respond to the contextual landscape in which they reside. While the exterior of NTC is designed to “conceal its internal wonders”, the interior mimics that of the town square, which “stimulates the feeling of strolling outdoors through a small-town shopping district” (Sherry). Niketown in Boston also reacts to its urban fabric by recreating the different stages of the Boston Marathon which can be experienced throughout the store as one travels around the main circulation armature of the space. In regards to brandfests, McAlexander comments “careful orchestration of a brandfest places the brand at the center of consumer activity in contexts that are relevant, or even central, to key aspects of the consumer’s identity” (McAlexander). Often the environment which a store or brandfest establishes can be convincing enough where consumers are willing to travel just for the experience to broaden their horizons and potentially break free of the shopping norm.

We "love" you You should LOVE us!!

The concept of creating a relationship between a brand name and the consumer has been a technique of marketers for many years. In recent years, the concept of organizing events surrounded around the experiences and the status of affiliation with a select product has proven affective as a marketing technique. With Mcalexander and Schouten’s analysis of Camp Jeep we can see the theme of entertainment play a dominant role in the advertisment of their brand and product itself. Similar to the idea of the UEC that we have previously studied, the incorporation of a relationship based on an atypical experience (outside the daily routine) can provide an opportunity for loyalty and trust between the consumer and producer. It can also provided an added incentive to return, or in the case of a retail chain, the incentive to spend more time in and around the products. As stated by the authors, “Reicheld and Sasser report that reducing customer defections by 5 percent can boost profits by 85 percent.” Numbers of return such as these can not be overlooked and the successfulness of incorporating entertainment into the sales of a brand name can not be denied. Brandfests do not limit themselves to the specific location in which they are held. They subsequently “leak” into our lives through nearly all forms of media such as television, movies and magazines. These, more normative forms of marketing, have become the primary vehicles for building the elitist status that is associated with many brandfest events. The bragging rights and sense of personal growth that seems to come from the involvement of these events are subconsciously engraved in our minds by constant media attention and the ties that are made with Hollywood excitement.

It Goes Both Ways

Branded environments are becoming more populous. I feel that there are two ways branded environments come about. One, the direction based on the reading, is the brand is established and the environment comes secondary to further support the brand and keep it alive; some brands that have used this direction are Nike, Coca-Cola, MGM and M&M. But the other one that I would like to more explore is the opposite, the direction in which the environment is established and the brand follows, examples being Rainforest Café and Build-A-Bear; I also feel Las Vegas achieves this on a certain level. One could question the effectiveness of direction number two, stating that it is not as successful, but it also has to be realized these notable brand experiences belong to older brands, not the new babies of the environment-brand. It is also good to note that in the environment-brand approach, people will be more likely to make in store purchases, such as in the Rainforest Café and Build-A-Bear because there are no distributors of their products that can offer markdowns or sales, their products are only sold by them. The Rainforest Café, for an example, also mark up their food prices, because they can. Why? The experience, because no where else can you sit in a room with fish tanks, waterfalls, moving animals, vines overhead, while it thunderstorms every fifteen minutes?

Something New and Different

As Americans gained shorter and shorter work weeks with it saw an increase in income, a push towards a lifestyle with increased leisure was able to emerge. The Urban Entertaiment Centers as described by Rubin, Gorman and Lawry in, “Entertainment Returns to Gotham,” were the direct result of innovations, entrepreneurs and an increase in money flow. Consumers have a constant desire to see and experience new and exciting things all the time, which is the reason why the UEC’s continue to evolve today.

As innovation and technology continue to grow, what used to seem impractical in the entertainment community has now become a reality. These entertainment stores not only function as a place to go for shopping but also as an activity. In comparison to the mentioned Niketown, many toy stores now not only function as a store, but also as an amusement park. The ToysR’US in New York City contains its own Ferris wheel.

As these stores continue to grow and evolve they also function in bringing in countless consumers to an area that may have been lacking beforehand. As is the case with DestinyUSA, the mere addition of retail stores would not draw people to the area, but it is the inclusion of the many entertainment venues that will draw people in to see something entirely new and different.

Condensed Architecture

“Part real estate, part entertainment venture, urban entertainment centers are a novel development product that will soon make an appearance in cities across the United States.” Rubin 59
”means of revitalizing downtown retail and cultural areas and as a strategy for bringing residents of the region into the city for shopping, eating, and recreating.” Rubin 60

Ultimately, what do people want?
It seems that they want everything in a smaller and smaller and closer and closer space.
People want “a blend of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment options that can achieve a higher performance profile than these first-generation festival marketplaces or themed retail projects.” Rubin 62

But what does this mean for architecture? Before this concept of the mall became so popular, architecture was about a series of small interior spaces scattered across a large exterior space. The drive toward Urban Entertainment Center’s and large urban centers in general is what created our current architectural situation in which we now have that same series of small interior spaces but compacted into another, slightly larger, interior space. Space is being condensed. Architecture is condensing.

On page 9 of Wolf’s “”You are now entering the Entertainment Zone” he argues that movies in multiplexes having multiple showings make it more of a destination. I strongly disagree. I was recently speaking to the developers of the Westcott Cinema renovation on Westcott Street in Syracuse and they talked about how previous film showings in the theater, there would be an average of 6 people a night over a course of 6 weeks seeing a movie. But, if they made one night only they would sell out and it becomes more of an event. I have to agree with this; if you make something into an event and there is limited time to see it, the audience feels as if they must see it when it’s out! But if something is always playing, you keep telling yourself, “ow, I’ll go next week” until it’s not in the theater anymore and then you say, “well, it’ll be out on DVD in a few weeks so I’ll just rent it”, and then you don’t rent it, but instead stumble upon it a few months later, or less, after its release on cable and say, “oh, I really wanted to see that” and so you finally watch it. Just in my lifetime I have seen films go from taking nearly 1-2 years to go from the theater to the video store and now some movies are still in the theater when the movie is being release in video stores. Because entertainment can be accessed closer and closer to the individual and less and less movement and interaction needs to happen the individual is not going out. The novelty of seeing a movie on the big screen has lost all effect, because now, it seems that the benefits of home theater out weigh those of public theater. The quality at home is better, you can watch when you want, and you can pause and rewind at any moment and now we live in a society of people who use DVR and Pay-Per-View.

My point is that Wolf’s argument for the mega-mall is precisely mine against it. I think the true part of the megamall is more what Rubin, Gorman and Lawry were saying about having multiple amenities in one location. That is the benefit people are seeking by going to UEC’s. It is not quite about novelty anymore, especially when the same chain stores appear in every mall. It is more about the convenience of everything under one roof and I think most places realize that, because they are capitalizing not solely on forgotten novelty items but rather on new novelties surrounded by reassuring stores in one convenient location. Wolf finally gets at the point when he mentions the aspect of the recreation of the small town. People want to revert back to the small town, but now it is on the scale of suburbia.

UECs

This weeks readings focused on UECs (Urban Entertainment Center) and all three authors go into detail describing them. While reading the articles, it seemed to me that the UECs are basically the ultimate destination center for people and that it is the main attractions center in a certain area. The UECs are places such as the Mall Of America, Destiny USA, South China Mall, and all the mega malls that have 50 million square feet (exaggerating of course) are the types of places which are UECs. They have multiple functions along with retail stores as they include things such as bowling alleys, water parks, roller coasters, and etc. Cities such as Shanghai, Las Vegas, and NYC are UECs in a much bigger context because they contain a variety of entertainment centers such as casinos, clubs, bars, retail stores, restaurants, and all the other stuff that makes people want to come to these cities. Also, the skyscrapers and lights all around also help bring in people as well. People behind the UECs are the architects, developers, and the entertainment retailers, are what makes the UECs successful in its own way.

I don't have a television

“More and more, if you are looking for common ground with family or colleagues, it will be in a shared entertainment experience…” (Wolf 38)

In “The Entertainment Economy” Wolf touches on how this growing portion of our economy has altered our means of relating to each other. One of the reasons people form relationships is through shared interests. Wolf states that “entertainment products put the mass audience on the same wavelength and, while engaging the emotions, they replace the sense of shared community that is disappearing in regular life” (38). It seems that because of everyone’s shared interest in entertainment, that particular economy has been able to infiltrate every part of, at least, the middle class American world. Supposedly, all of us can find common ground through our desire for entertainment.

He talks about the “daily grid,” in which we have slots of time that are dedicated to certain activities. Checking in on news and other entertainment outlets, which now have a price and are definitely commodities, occupies our free time.(note) We enjoy this stuff and are drawn to it, but we also partake in entertainment in order to talk about it with other people.

Sharing entertainment with other people feels rewarding because we are having fun or relaxing with others, but are we also sacrificing something by paying for it? Has our mentality really shifted towards an increased need for entertainment? Perhaps. If so, what have we left behind? Wolf argues that we were more concerned with objects in the 80s and 90s. Entertainment has always been around, but in different forms and at different levels. This interest in entertainment products has only been exaggerated and pushed on by those who provide them and by our own desire for diversions to occupy our free time.

Note: Is there fun without spending money? I knew some kids a few years ago who had a dance party in the Abercrombie store at our very own Carousel Mall. Video:
abercrombie fun without money

PICK ME!

Just open your eyes or should I say eyeballs and you’ll see advertisements and logos. From product placement to endorsements, companies are fighting for you; more specifically, for you to remember them. Just as companies fight for the best quality coffee beans or computer chips, they also fight for space in your mind. Companies know there is just so much we as consumer can remember and try to make sure there name, logo, product or slogan is remembered.

If we shift scales to UEC (urban entertainment centers) or even cites (Las Vegas, Orlando, New York) we see the same fight occurring. Where should I plan a vacation makes you think “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” or “Everything is bigger in Texas.” This fight for your memory has resulted into this entertainment bonanza. Everywhere you turn, from a local pizza shop to a UEC wants to become a household name. “Google it,” “Can I have a Kleenex.” Most corporations and destinations have changed or modified their names for this fight. KFC, fedEX, USPS, EPA, NBC, SU, CIA, LA, NYC, ATL…and so on.

The winner of this fight is the consumer. Remember when you had to pay for a email address? Well now you could get one for free with unlimited hard drive space. Wal-mart sells dvds and cds below the price they pay just to get you into the store.

The fight for a good public image has transformed into a fight for your attention and memory and there is no real reason why we should think this fight we be over anytime soon. It does make you wonder how far companies are willing to go and how hard are they going to have to fight?

There is no i in TEAM

The UEC’s discussed in the Gotham article are another great example of the necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation. From what I gathered from the article, the developers and the entertainment companies are the two major players. The developers have the connections on the setup/building side of the equation and the entertainment companies handling the furnishing of the complex. The high level of communication that must take place for a project of this size to be successful is something that every project could learn from. Isn’t it true that the more minds you have working on one task, the more resolved the product will be? Interdisciplinary interaction between major industries, i.e. entertainment and development, is the future of urban renewal. It is true that people are moving out of cities to more suburban areas, but these UEC’s should be successful in bringing a vast majority of people back to the city for their free time. The idea that people will be traveling long distances to these UEC’s ads another level of interdisciplinary communication between the city the UEC inhabits as well as the surrounding cities from with the consumer base will be pulled. A UEC is basically a conglomeration of everything fun for every age group, and interesting enough to hold your attention for 3-5 hours and make you want to come back. How could any of this be possible without a thorough investigation into everything retail by a multitude of cooperating organizations all aiming at a common goal; creating an Urban Entertainment Complex. I feel every discipline can learn from the reoccurrence of interdisciplinary work in retail and architecture.

extreme entertainment

The Urban Entertainment Center (UEC) is yet another parallel to Syracuse’s own Destiny USA. It’s interesting that this radical concept began in the early 90’s. When I visited places like Disney World as a child I was amazed by the surroundings that looked to me, like pages from popular Disney books and movies. Now it is interesting to read about the history of the UEC and the brains behind this forward thinking concept. When the article was written UEC’s were under development in 20 U.S. cities. At this rate it feels like one day every major city will at one level or another have its own Times Square. As a means of urban revitalization the UEC encompasses many aspects of a bustling city. It is advertisement, commercial, retail, and entertainment all in one. Bringing all of these aspects together is a logical and sustainable approach to design but branding these urban centers is a sour idea. What makes places like Time Square successful is it’s branding mix. Who wants to walk through a street corner and see that Nike has transcended the retail world to encompass restaurants, theatres, etc. If that were the case the UEC be reminiscent of a New Urbanist community. What the UEC has done is revolutionized the traditional town center by densifying touristy attractions. This radical concept is now popular culture and may one day be a standard building type in every major city. To highlight its success this typology should implement in all its UEC’s a diverse number of branding companies.

Step into the ZONE

In contemporary society, the name of the game has almost completely become ENTERTAINMENT. The music industry, the sports industry, the film industry, television, and radio have taken over the free time of most American families and have become some of the world largest and influential companies. In a close second place are companies that thrive off of American consumerism and our obsession with shopping. So, it only makes sense to combine their efforts and create Disney World like locations where the occupant can spend money and be entertained at the same time. The goal of all retail chains has always been to keep the customer in the store for the maximum time and to keep them coming back for more. What better way to do this then to combine their favorite pop star, their favorite movie, or their favorite television show with the experience of shopping. In the article “Entertainment Returns to Gotham,” the authors make note of the soon to be established Sportscenter in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, this location is now known as ESPN ZONE and has flourished as an icon of the UEC that Rubin, Gorman, and Lawry have analyzed. The visitor can step into the studio of ESPN and witness, first hand, the filming of Sportscenter while they enjoy a burger or play basketball with their friends on the multiple indoor courts. Similar locations have developed all over the globe and are leading the industry of both consumerism and entertainment.

Sign of the Times

The notion of history is one we generally associate with a linear timeline. But what happens when the worn-out, the defunct, the historical, is reincarnated in altered form? The manufactured authenticity of the festival marketplace raises questions concerning its placement within an existing context, both historically and physically. In either case, it is necessary to assimilate the object into an already existing framework – but does the newly-historical supplant the existing historic, or are both skewed?
It is useful to distinguish between this construction’s place both in context and in situ. The “fetishized authenticity” of the festival marketplace described by Goss might characterize a recreation of a model of the past in which, as described in Barbara Kirshenblatt Gimblett’s Destination Culture, “the object is a part that stands in a contiguous relation to an absent whole that may or may not be recreated.” In this case, the boundaries of the marketplace are called into question, because in essence the entire city and its history could become a backdrop for a single space, and hence be assigned a new meaning. In context, however, the festival marketplace, regardless of form, seems to feed on nostalgia gleaned from a multitude of sighs and “Oh, this brings me back [to way before I was born].”
And although I’m ashamed to admit it, Faneuil Hall is always the first place I go when showing visitors around Boston, and I almost can’t imagine a visit to the city without a trip to, or at least through, the “historical” space. While the marketplace may rely on a “sense of historic public life,” I think it serves a greater purpose in reinvigorating an area left by the historical wayside. History, in my opinion, is not what we remember, but what we choose not to forget.