Say what you will about the sprawling urbanism of Los Angeles, there are some phenomenally cool projects coming straight out of the city’s smoggy heart. From the prodigious Treepeople to the irreverent Fallen Fruit, Angelinos are not only embracing the natural world, they are proving that it can thrive in the middle of a concrete jungle.
The latest in this string of creative urban renewal projects is
Not a Cornfield – a 32-acre environmental art project and brownfield restoration by architect and artist,
Lauren Bon. In early July, Bon planted a million corn seeds in this plot, which is located near the edge of the LA river, just north of Chinatown. Today, the corn is nearly 12′ high, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation is in the process of designing the historical park that the site will eventually become.
As a large-scale earth sculpture, Not a Cornfield is laden with symbolism, from its seemingly paradoxical location to the use of corn, which stands as a metaphor for the evolution (and devolution) of agriculture and civilization in the Americas and beyond. Bon intends to carry on the legacy of radical art with her project, hoping to inspire “reflection and action in a city unclear about it’s energetic and historical center.”
At the end of the growing season, the corn will be harvested and moved to another site where it will be dried, displayed, and eventually used for the production of biodegradable containers. The land, which was designated as a state park in 2001, will be developed into a public park, which is slated to be complete and open in 2010.
+ www.notacornfield.info
Thanks, Rebecca!
Now that’s something you don’t see everyday in the L.A. blandscape. More! More!
i think the big arty idea of this cornfield is a big waste of creative energy and monetary resources. instead of building and maintaining a cornfield that will soon be destroyed (to make way for a permanent historical park), why not use all those cornfield dollars (somewhere over $3 million) to create a number of small, permanent urban parks, gardens, and playgrounds for a larger number of people to enjoy for a long period of time?
Hi, Naysayer
While I do not have training or deep knowledge in the cleanup of hazardous and polluted sites, it is my understanding that the corn planting and cultivation of this site was actually integral to the brownfield cleanup that was required in order to turn it into a park at all. (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/basic_info.htm).
Of course I couldn’t tell you what the cost would have been to clean up the site in more conventional ways, but I’d venture to guess it wouldn’t have been significantly lower, and would have prevented that land from being a publically accessible, interactive community site during the last year.
Typo nitpick: it’s “Angelenos”.
Actually Sarah, the site was certified as free of hazardous contaminants before the state purchased it. No additional cleanup was necessary.
Not only was the $3 million cost (foundation $, not public) a waste of money that could have gone toward a more sustained public benefit, the cornfield project delayed the state’s construction on the project at a time of rising materials costs. This means that the taxpayers will end up paying more for the same infrastructure or will get less of a park for the same budget. And it delayed the implementation of the park for more than a year, so the people who might have enjoyed the park lost more than a year’s benefit. Overall, I think the intentions of the project were probably good, but the results were not.
Julie – I’d be interested in talking about this more with you, knowing the source of your information, etc. Could you please email me?