|
|
||
|
The Celebration Controversies Celebration is perhaps the most prominent and certainly the most
controversial of the second-generation New Urbanist communities. Along with Controversies have swirled around Celebration since its inception,
eliciting two full-length books (“The Celebration Chronicles”
by Andrew Ross and “Celebration, Celebration had a very long gestation, indeed a prehistory. Its genesis was in the late 1960s when
the Disney Corporation purchased some 27,000 acres in central EPCOT was to embody the most advanced planning techniques; indeed,
it was the kind of futurist vision possible to contemplate only in the
heyday of the space program ( Disney’s unexpected death in 1966 halted the process, and the
generation of administrators that followed him, either lacking the vision
or perhaps having the good sense not to attempt an urban experiment at such
a scale, shelved everything but the name.
EPCOT was eventually built as another theme park,
or more precisely, a turn-of-the-century-style world’s fair of
the sort where different countries are represented by surrogate pieces of
their architecture, food, artifacts, and inhabitants in native costume for
the delight and instruction of the visitors. EPCOT does this rather well, but it is
not a community intended for habitation, let alone a demonstration of
visionary urbanism. The idea died for a couple of decades until the advent of yet
another generation of management — the present one under Disney
Corporation CEO Michael Eisner.
Eisner assembled a staff that was, arguably, the equal to Walt
Disney in vision. He set about to
fulfilling the potential of the company, including the revival of the idea
of building a model city. Eisner’s first step was to restore to Some say Celebration would not have been undertaken were it not for
the need to maximize the value of Disney’s enormous land
holdings. After every conceivable
idea for theme parks, hotels and office parks had been allocated, there was
still substantial territory left over.
Another, more intricate story involves a geopolitical scenario where
two additional interchanges on I-4 would open up this sector of the Disney
holdings for development but only if a project as appealing as Celebration
was to be proposed.3 Both of these
are plausible scenarios. The latter,
if true, was a brilliant strategic move, as two exits were duly granted
— one for a new entry, in addition to a major new toll way connected
directly to the airport (The Greenway).
This sort of move is no less than a responsible development company
would make in the vast game that is the urbanization process in the Even beyond the prehistory and the elaborate permitting maneuvers,
the incubation of Celebration was unusually protracted, taking over eight
years. This was due to the careful
consideration of every aspect, and perhaps also to excessive caution with
the marriage between the then-impeccable Disney reputation with the tainted
trade of The design process was not only long it was also elaborate. To create Celebration, a new design team
was assembled. Peter Rummell had been brought in to head Disney Development
from a career with Arvida, the most prestigious
of At this point, the project became submerged in the permitting
process (by all accounts well handled by Tom Lewis with attorney Bob Rhodes
in charge of environmental issues).
When it emerged for detail design years later, the team stood
as: Robert A.M. Stern with Paul
Whalen as project manager; Jaquelyn Robertson
with Brian Shea as project manager; and EDAW, the
firm charged with the landscape plan.
(The town center was a separate competition with Stern, Robertson
and Gwathmey/Siegel invited. The Stern plan won and it was refined in
conjunction with Robertson.) It is
this team, with the addition of Ray Gindroz of UDA, who contrived the urban
and architectural controls, that was responsible for the final design. Despite gracious acknowledgement by Tom
Lewis, DPZ did not participate, except indirectly through the influence of This team’s master plan, currently being built out as planned,
finally broke ground in 1994. Like
all New Urbanist towns, Celebration includes a wide range of mixed-use and
residential building types, a network of walkable streets, and at least one
town center. Development
entitlements include 8,065 residential units; 3,100,000 square feet of
workplace; and 2,125,000 square feet of retail, including the main street
shops. The question of whether
Celebration is a New Urbanist town is no longer under debate since it
fulfills as complete a checklist of the Charter’s principles as can
be found in any New Urbanist project.
Controversies, though, have emanated from sources other than the
purist New Urbanists: the entrenched
development industry, for one, perhaps fearing that Celebration’s
success would change the rules of the game; and for another the avant-garde
academic establishment, absolutely terrified that such a conservative
design could actually result in a respectable, socially responsible
community. From these sources,
skepticism continues to be produced despite “the facts on the
ground.” The facts are that Celebration is one of the most intricate and
accomplished examples of urban development since the 1930s. The diversity of housing in close
proximity at Celebration breaks new ground as it includes rental apartments
and rowhouses, all seamlessly integrated with single-family houses and
quite expensive mansions. This ideal
is a risky marketing proposition for developers. Few New Urbanist towns do as well, while
conventional suburban development does not even acknowledge the
possibility. The large, mixed-use
town center also includes apartments above stores, a school, a branch
college campus (Stetson University) and a hotel, as well as useful retail
and restaurants (not one a national chain), a bank, a church and plenty of
office space. It includes a cinema
attached to a late-night bar and an ice cream store. The town center is associated with a lake
along a public waterfront drive.6
The lake is part of a simple and elegant drainage system along a
central canal that is both a beautiful civic element and environmentally
responsible. There is a golf course
accessible to the public and shared visually by all as it is fronted by a
public drive rather than privatized by backyards. But Celebration is certainly not flawless. In terms of the housing, there were two
errors made: one relates to the
marketing, the other to affordability.
As to the first, there are not enough townhouses to meet
demand. This is a common mistake
among the New Urbanist The second error in the housing provision is social and also one of
public relations. It involves a Beyond these criticisms, the plan itself makes several important
improvements to the A trivial controversy was made prominent by a New York Times
article and must, therefore, be addressed here. Its details are vaguely remembered, so
only a generalized taint remains regarding an oppressive Disney
paternalism. But the healthy
investigative instinct of the journalist does not mean that the reporting
was anything but ideologically driven.
There was a protest led by some Celebration parents against the curriculum
of the town’s public school.
Their dissatisfaction was presented by the Times as a civic
failure of the community, but it is actually the symptom of something
else. That residents coalesce around
a gripe is a manifestation of healthy community life (see Baumgartner,
“The Moral Order of the Suburb”) and the outcome is revealing
of the actual balance of power.
Celebration’s residents were more conservative than the
developers and did not appreciate the An interesting and valid set of questions regards the retail
component. This one is debated
principally within the development industry. It concerns a main street that was fully
built-out very early in the project, providing the commerce to serve the
community before the population was there to support it. Several of these shops have failed. This has caused some to question the
decision of building retail at all or, more cogently, to question its
location for the main street is placed at the center of the community and
away from the traffic flow of the highway that passes by its edge. Because of Disney’s wealth, some
assume the surviving shops must be heavily subsidized. This is not so, as shown by the fact that
a few of the most sentimentally compelling have gone out of business (a
bakery, a bookstore and a bicycle shop).
Indeed, the shops are centrally managed; the merchants are recruited
proactively as is the case with any modern shopping center. The subsidies are no more than incubator
tenants receive in a conventional shopping mall as the management helps
them get a start in business. These
“subsidies” are about to end at Celebration, as is standard
practice. In any case, the main
street in a New Urbanist community should not necessarily be considered a
profit center; it plays the role of the principal amenity. It is the marketing equivalent (and
equivalent line item on the budget) of the clubhouse and guarded entry of
the conventional suburban housing pod, from which no developer expects to
make a direct profit. Be that as it may, the main street in Celebration was placed at the centroid of the community, where it does not have
access to the economic energy of the regional traffic but where it provides
“walk to town” convenience to a significant number of
residents, especially children. The
criticism that the shops should not have been located internally is valid
in economic principle; along the highway they would certainly have been
successful from the very beginning.
However, had the shops been so located, the regional traffic may
have overwhelmed the smallish main street and undermined its role as social
condenser of the community.8
The result could have been that of Seaside, where the town square
has become a regional destination.
Great numbers of outsiders do support the relatively cosmopolitan
mix of merchants at Besides, a close study of the plan shows that there was really no
other choice. The highway, where the
town center could have been, is cut off from the community by a second,
limited-access expressway. As it is,
this awkward residual area between the two regional thoroughfares is where
the employment area is planned. Four
office buildings by Aldo Rossi and a hospital by Stern are complete, and
others that will provide the balanced employment are currently planned for
construction. It does continue to be
a problem that these workplaces, cut off by the tollway,
will not be within walking distance of “lunch” on the main
street; but there is no better solution available than the one that was
implemented. Celebration’s is
what we call an “unlucky site,” in this respect. The tenuous economic situation of the main street is another
manifestation of the citizen’s relative power. Disney could assure the success of the
shops by introducing the main street to the infonet
that distributes the millions of tourists to its various venues. Celebration could easily have become part
of the visitor’s itinerary.
While the merchants sought it, the residents did not wish it, and
the Disney Corporation complied against its own best financial interests. Beyond these controversies, there are lessons to be learned from
Celebration’s corporate management.
For example, the main street maintains four restaurants at different
price points. The most expensive is
a “white tablecloth and wine” operation suited for special
occasions, while the most economical one will feed a family nicely without
undue hardship. This is not the
usual situation. Following the
dictates of highest and best use, most Celebration is controversial in other ways related to
management. One has to do with its
political implications; the second has to do with its physical results. Management, such as there is in Celebration, is usually tagged by
critics as “private government. ” This
critical term cleverly implies secession from the travails of American
democracy. This is not so. The property owner’s associations9 of Celebration are actually an additional
layer of government willingly engaged by the residents. It does not preclude the usual overlay of
county, state and federal government.
In fact, the Celebration associations are not unlike 200,000 other
property owners’ associations common to the post-war suburbs.10 Associations
are municipal governments by contract.
At the time of purchase, future residents agree to abide by a stated
set of rights and responsibilities.
Is this more restrictive than moving into a city subject to a
municipal code one has not been reminded to examine? And what of the unquestioned commonplace
of being born into a government? How
fair is that? One day, as is the
case with virtually all such developments since the 1920s, I expect that
Celebration will be incorporated as a municipality, with the association as
its basis. What exacerbates the Celebration governance controversy is that, in
this case, the current controlling entity is an enormously powerful
corporation. I experimented with
this relationship three years ago by purchasing a lot in Celebration and
designing a house to be built on it.
Coincidentally, I went through a similar process for a house in my
hometown, the city of In the end, Celebration must be assessed the way all urbanism should
be assessed — not by photos and short visits (which suffice for
architectural criticism), but by inhabiting a place for a period of time.1 1 Does the community improve how the day is
lived? Does it accommodate the ebb
and flow of life? I spent several days in Celebration sampling the quality of the
morning coffee, the kind of groceries and newspapers available at the
market, and the “third place” atmosphere of the eateries. I even tested the police and maintenance
functions by engaging in mild civic misbehavior, such as throwing trash on
the ground and vandalizing parts of the urban furnishing.12 I joined seniors and kids
gathering, and I experienced how late at night I could hang out (martinis
were available till midnight from a satisfyingly flirtatious bar girl next
to the movie house). Celebration
tested well in such ways, and particularly well when compared to
developments of equal age, which is how urbanism should be evaluated. I don’t know about The other controversy over controls is architectural. It centers on The Celebration Pattern
Book, conceived by Ray Gindroz and UDA. This document is of a different order
altogether from the First, to the complaining architects, one would have to respond: Why
is it that there are no complaints of repression when a single architect
designs all the buildings, however, when a design is distributed to scores
of architects that would not otherwise be involved there are problems? This concern is a knee-jerk reaction and
compels no further attention, but there is an interesting question
regarding a tradeoff in quality.
Many creative possibilities are precluded by codes, but so is
substandard performance and kitsch.
It is a truism that, by raising the bottom, a code inevitably lowers
the top. A code operates like a sine
curve controlling symmetrically the oscillation between the brilliant and
the dismal. While no building in
Celebration rises to the level of the best buildings at A code itself is a neutral instrument that can be adjusted, but it
cannot eliminate the exceptionally bad without limiting the exceptionally
good. The application of The
Celebration Pattern Book has led to a general run of architecture that
is uniformly good, but not more.
This potential problem has been mitigated in Celebration by the
two-dozen commercial and civic buildings at the town center that are not
coded – at least not in the usual sense. For these, the old stable of Disney star
architects were invited and given the “theme” of the small
southern town. They worked together
in cycles of mutual critique to achieve the necessary compatibility that a
code normally assures and that urbanism requires. Thus, Celebration presents two patterns
of coding. The Pattern Book,
which prescribes at a level corresponding to the builder’s manuals of
the 19th century, and the organic method, common in the 1920s of
regionalist collegiality (which was later undermined by the manic
individualism induced by modernism). Some who object to the Pattern Book are correct in assessing
that one would not need an architect at all, and it is a waste to engage
one. This may be so, but it remains
an important instrument for those instances, all too common in the American
building industry, when an architect is not involved. In the meantime, we can look forward to a
new section, in use but not yet printed, which creates modernist patterns
for the forthcoming office buildings.
This will be added to the six traditional styles already included in
the Pattern Book. Another controversy (one of no permanent interest) regards the
quality of the construction. Some
early residents complained about what they perceived to be shoddiness. This is understandable but unfair. The quality at Celebration was similar to
that of the corresponding price points in competing developments. The dissatisfaction stemmed from expectations
projected on a Disney product.
Disney is perceived to be the creator of perfect environments, and
those that purchased did not take into account the realities of the After that difficult initial period, the national builders have
learned how to build traditional houses correctly, and they have also
learned that they are marketable, particularly when assembled on
traditional streets within a walkable neighborhood. These builders are now elsewhere
projecting New Urban communities, and many others are following them. The list is becoming longer, and it
includes some large companies. Many individuals who participated in the Celebration project have
gone on to influence the development industry. The subsequent achievements of the
designers are well known. Peter Rummel has since become CEO of the St. Joe Land
Corporation, with the largest real estate holdings in Celebration promises to become the most influential new town since Despite this projection, the question persists: Is it economically possible to build a
Celebration without the deep pockets of a Disney? The answer is yes; even the main street
is economically feasible. This is
demonstrated by a visit to Haile Plantation in
nearby Why, then, doesn’t The Celebration Company (or its current
parent company Disney Imagineering) continue in the business of building
new towns? The answer is
simple. For all its success, the effort
and time that it took to develop Celebration made it comparably less
profitable than producing a single Disney movie of even middling box office
success. It is not a rational
allocation of Disney’s resources to invest in further New Urbanist
projects. But for the rest of us, it is. Andrés Duany Endnotes: 1 This film was subsequently shown to the designers
of Celebration. 2 Eisner’s fascination with architecture may
have had its origins with Robert Stern’s design for his
parent’s 3 In 4 These early plans are on record in a history album
at the Celebration sales office. 5 6 Celebration is not a gated community. The security forces are the Osceola 7 I was pleased to find that, adjacent to a lot I
purchased for research reasons, were houses occupied by a black family and
a gay couple. This sort of random
occurrence is considered highly significant by those who reduce the
judgment of urbanism to quotas of diversity. 8 Besides, Route 192 is a brutal commercial strip
that would have destroyed the environmental qualities of the 9 There are two: a residential and a commercial
one. The former will one day be
entirely controlled by the residents.
The commercial association will likely continue to be controlled by
the Celebration Company. 10 These numbers do not include the management
associations increasingly common in inner cities, or the otherwise similar
condominium associations. 11 To their credit, the authors of these two books
lived in Celebration for long periods of time. That is why the books are worth
reading. 12 The result was gratifying: I was not arrested, and the damage was
quickly made good. 13 Founders’ Day: 14 For example, in the writings of Alex Marshall who
has been proven wrong over the years. 15 Tom Lewis may write a book on Celebration. He is so evidently proud of his (very real) achievements that one fears that it will be overly celebratory. |
||
|
|
|
|