// Week 9 _ Reading Note//

In Temporary Contracts by Ellen Dunham-Jones she argues that how our society is controlled by corporate that usually only care about short-term profits, without caring about the long-term effects they cause that defines our post-industrial landscapes.

Dunham-Jones describes that there is no interest to reinvest into existing properties and buildings, thus making the suburbs of the city to continually grow outwards from the inner city and downtown. The first suburbs are now decaying, while new ones are been built on the edge of the city. This is creating empty inner cities while the suburbs are active, defining the landscape of our age. While at the same time, the expanding suburbs are swallowing away the farmland - because it is cheaper to build on - thus decreasing the amount of fertile grounds. What happens if we keep taking up farmland for suburban development? Why do we have no interest investing in downtown and the inner city again?

Dunham-Jones specifically targets Wal-Mart as a corporation with a negative effect on the landscape. It destroys local businesses when located in smaller communities and possibly could destroy the tax base, which she gave the town of Nowata. Wal-Mart treats everything as disposable assets, from its land to the store to its employees. It is as if they do not want to have any responsibility when things do not work out. Why do small communities always Wal-Marts in their region? Are they forced?

In the post-industrial landscape our landscape are shaping by the transaction of two eras. Is the changing landscape heading in the right or wrong direction in the longend? As of right now it appears we are heading in the wrong direction. But is there a way to fix this?