The city as theme park and the theme park as city: amusement space, urban form, and cultural change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amusement space embodies hegemonic and Utopian dialogue concerning urban conditions. Throughout the twentieth century, two rival urban visions have reigned: the Coney Island model, a chancy, participatory theatre where patrons can confront head-on current conditions; and the Disney model, a carefully planned setting where guests are made to feel comfortable and secure. The current ascendancy of the Disney model, evident in urban and suburban landscapes increasingly shaped in the Disney image, has attracted the attention -- and alarm --of critics who interpret this trend as urban planning with a 'sinister twist.' A case study of Disney's involvement with Seattle Center, originally the site of the 1962 World's Fair and now Seattle's premier urban park, demonstrates, however, that people actively challenge, negotiate, and reform the Disney model to meet their needs by infusing the space with traces of the rival Coney model. The suggestions Disney made for renovation of Seattle Center sparked a city-wide debate that centred on the roles of local participation, cultural sensitivity, and aesthetic design in urban space; Disney was found lacking on all accounts and eventually rejected entirely. Seattle's experience with Disney demonstrates that amusement space offers a rich terrain upon which people can dream about, and implement, urban change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".