You are on page 1of 1




emblematize the city’s official future. Under siege from angry homeowner and environmental groups protesting out-of-control development, and anxious to bolster his image for the 1986 gubernatorial race, Mayor Bradley established a corporate-dominated blue-ribbon committee to prepare a ‘strategic plan for Los Angeles’. Coming on the heels of the Los Angeles Olympics (a landmark in the current booster cycle), the committee was able to mobilize an unusual degree of attention from Los Angeles’s usually divided elites (including, for the first time, representatives of Asian capital). The resulting report, L.A. 2000: A Cit/Jor the Future (1988), has become the manifesto of a ‘new regionalism’, aiming to forge a unity of vision between mega-developers and the haute intelligentsia.156 Interestingly, the report’s epilogue (by historian Kevin Starr) reminds readers that the last ‘coherent’ Los Angeles, that of the 1920s, found ‘community on a civic level’ because it ‘had a dominant establishment and a dominant population’.157 The report clearly implies that because of the decline of the Anglo herrenvolk - i.e., the absence of a dominant culture group in an increasingly poly-ethnic, poly-centered metropolis - a ‘dominant establishment’ is more essential than ever. While explicitly warning of the ‘Blade Runner scenario’ - ‘the fusion of individual cultures into a demotic polyglottism ominous with unresolved hostilities’ - the report opts for the utopia of the ‘Crossroads City’: ‘an extraordinary city of cities, a congregation of liveable communities’.158 Although it repeatedly points out the total failure to create a social infrastructure to integrate new immigrants or old poor, the social justice dimension of the report consists basically of low-cost, cosmetic programs with an occasional, half-hearted allusion to the daunting scale of effort required. The central thrust of the report is an emphasis on ‘growth management’ to be implemented through rationalized regional government agencies supported by state environ­ mental planning and a regional ‘goals consensus’. Symptomatically, the Southern California economy is depicted as a happy black box generating endless growth. There is no consideration whatsoever of possible contra­ dictions within this perpetual motion machine. This optimistic, technocratic vision of Los Angeles entering the new millennium received unusual intellectual reinforcement eighteen months later with the publication of Kevin Starr’s whiggish history of the city’s Promethean past: Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s