[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Yellowstone Up Close and Personal Chat Page Version 1.60 ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Ballpark Frank (66.58.238.35) on 12:53:04 07/23/12
In Reply to: Mission 66 posted by michael in tucson
Most of my family and friends make deprecating remarks about Mission 66 architecture, and I think I understand the "why". They compare it to the works of Robert Reamer and other early parkitecture luminaries, and find it wanting.
I have a different perspective, one which I will share with anyone willing to listen.
First, one needs to understand the underpinnings of the Mission 66 project. It was a federally authored undertaking to infuse our national parks with facilities and other improvements to attract and accommodate visitors in the post-war era. The project evolved in the early to mid-1950s. It was an ambitious ten year program to upgrade infrastructure in the parks. The impact of the automobile had barely been felt, before the double whammy of the Great Depression and World War II drastically reduced park visitation. With the post-war economic boom, and a population tired of having to go without for almost two decades, there was an incredible reservoir of pent-up demand. Mission 66 was designed to meet growing needs.
Sure, there is no comparison between the garish bright lemon yellow or flaming orange vinyl benches is common areas and the subtle, dark tones of the wood employed in earlier parkitecture. I won't argue that. What I find fascinating about Mission 66 is that it is (1) an architectural snapshot in time of a bygone era, and (2) it reflects something vitally important to me that has only happened once in my lifetime, i.e. a significant investment in visitor-oriented facilities in our national parks. There has been NO other comparable project since the 1950s. Yes, we have seen one presidential administration or another dedicate some budget dollars to upgrading items of deferred maintenance, and the Americans With Disabilities Act FORCED improvements here and there, but that is about it.
Those of you who know me well, or have witnessed my periodic rants on these pages, know I have strong feelings about what I see as the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service overweighting one side of the "Dual Mandate", meaning there has been progressively more and more emphasis on preservation, and less attention paid to the enjoyment of the resource. I would apply an analogy of the ongoing conflict in the healthcare industry over palliative care versus preventive medicine. My argument, one of many, is that if you provide for enjoyment of the resource, visitors will be more appreciative of its special nature, and more willing to support preservation. Many Interpretive Division personnel "get it", but administrative pinheads in Washington, D.C., do not.
I still buy into the old tag line for a P/R campaign launched by the NPS years ago, "Parks are for people". Wilderness areas are a different type of public land, and avoid the inherent conflict of the Dual Mandate. I see a need for both types of entities.
The park visitor in me embraces Mission 66!
Ballpark
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Yellowstone Up Close and Personal Chat Page Version 1.60 ] [ FAQ ]