02.27.24

This past week, I've been looking at Insurgent Public Space, by Erick Villagomez, Projective Ecologies, by David Fletcher, and Infrastructural City, but Kazys Vernelis. Recommended, by Brian, they relate heavily with my topic of interest regarding the usage of interstitial spaces leftover by developments in cities. I learned that these place in Insurgent Public Space are called "residual spaces", and there's many different classifications for these kinds of spaces. I've been looking at using the spaces below automobile infrastructure and between this oversized infrastructure in general. 

Insurgent Public Space

The intro to the chapter I read about reclaiming residual space begins with context that leaving land to leftover usage is a contemporary problem. Historically, we haven't had this issue because land is generally devalued in its current state versus medieval periods initially, every part of land was utilized in one way or another for it's value. 

It's interesting in this way then, that might there be a return to this medieval way of thinking? I don't really know where land is inexpensive right now that's in a desired place to live. However, it doesn't seem we get the most use out of land at the moment in prime places in cities. This is due to zoning and other regulations of course, so maybe the issue is primarily a legal one in most cases. I'm not entirely sure. 

Regardless, while this was already inherent as an idea, I think it's interesting how the author pointed out that low land utilization is something wealthy people take advantage of while poorer people cannot. Those with little to no money are left to develop through improvisation and necessity, which over the course of history has brought many innovations and new ways of living that are still culturally relevant today.

While in this reading, it appears the idea of utilizing spaces below road infrastructure have been considered to develop, or to create parks in order to filter air pollutants, I think it shows there is valuable, but cheap unwanted space, to develop as a means to an end. 

The reading then continues to speak about how derelict urban residual space takes little to no money for simple revitalization. Opposite of this, I wondered how might more money could benefit urban residual spaces in a more developed city that didn't seem to be derelict, but that could maybe use improvements here or there. Not entirely sure what that looks like.

I did think however, an idea discussed about "outdoor rooms" developed in Charleston, SC was interesting considering unintentional intimate outdoor space was created between homes through local legislation that mandated short setbacks between buildings.

Projective Ecologies

The author begins this text by admitting the Los Angeles river is no longer a natural phenomenon. It's a controlled, designed, and channels other things, ideas, and materials other than just water. 

The LA river as more of an idea of movement than an actual moving body I think has helped me reconsider my ideas regarding infrastructural integration into everyday lives. I'm not saying I have any concrete ideas just yet, but I think it's reframing any thoughts I have in a new way.

Especially in the ways of misunderstood and layered ownership of the LA river. Many entities maintain and look after it, even the public utilizes the basin in many ways, housed and unhoused. It's a multi-use area of interest.

This reading consistently hits the points of opportunity. Opportunity is huge for the LA river in many ways when considering the layered uses and meanings it takes on. For example, the river has more water flowing in it now more than ever, which technically makes it a definite river, however, the reason this occurs is due to pollution and dumping which creates more volume of water/liquid in the river. While this is definitely not good, the author then reports that many new kinds of ecologies downstream are able to exist in the river that haven't existed before. While the idea that natural order is taken over by the effects of human greed and waste, the author recognizes that sometimes maintaining and adapting a resource that once had a previous use for something entirely different is better than completely restarting and hope things go back to the way they were.

The author claims, "We must expand our definition of nature." Which fair, but easier said than done!

Regardless, these ideas touch on my point I made initially in MODI, that some cultural staples of America are here to stay, the automobile infrastructure included. While these ideas aren't necessarily making a clear avenue to take in terms of modifying the built environment just yet, this reading especially helps cement and validate ideas I've been having in regard to my capstone.

The Infrastructural City

I focused on two readings from this book about counting on change in cities and understanding Los Angeles as a linear city, referencing Le Corbusier's theories of urbanism. 

The chapter discussing the linear city begins by understanding some context for the issue at hand that I found interesting. 

Over time, Wilshire Blvd. in LA had initially been a residential street with homes lining it but succumbed to the forces of the automobile when westward expansion of Los Angeles occurred toward the ocean. This began the transition of this street to a road, and then to a commercial center, not a residential one. 

I think the ability for an uptick in movement within a city to redefine understandings of place through modification of zoning has value to my capstone. There's already practices to reduce traffic flow on larger roads by turning them into street-scapes designed for the human scale. I think I'll keep this idea in mind moving forward. While the newly created density on Wilshire isn't necessarily negative, I think any development needs to be responsible for the relocation of people within that space, and how people move within that space.

The chapter concerning change in property use overtime was also compelling due to the implications of relationships made or broken, or the creative ways people have developed land around them for their benefit.

A lot of these changes discussed, like creating a whiffle ball court between two neighbors and negotiation with the LA Department of Water and Power, as this court would actually benefit the hill the court was being built next to for drainage and access.

This case study is means to understanding, again, that at least LA is a city of opportunistic developments that can be studied as precedent. There's many ways we can infrastructurally change the built environment around us that doesn't just contribute to a sole benefactor.

Additionally this chapter discusses the emergence of a local LA landmark, an oil derrick of the Venoco Oil Company, that was loud and an eyesore, but was able to turn into a community project and source of pride. This derrick was forced to be covered with acoustic paneling to dampen the sound of drilling, and this paneling was then used to as a canvas by a local non-profit that wanted to highlight childhood cancer, using the derrick as a billboard. 

Object as billboard is an interesting topic to me, and is one I've even thought of that could exist in a post office-environment and post-Covid world. I was thinking about the reuse of skyscrapers and their ability to market products to those in cities. I even thought about it a step further in some dystopian context, that what if massive concrete shells were used as a means to advertise to people in any place in a post digital era, if that were to happen. 

Topic Restructuring and Methods?

Taking away from my readings, I'm wondering what it would be like for buildings, or roads to take on additional functions. While this isn't a brand new topic, I wonder if it makes sense for buildings to act as roads, or roads to act as viaducts for anything. I'm starting to think about things in this way. Nothing concrete. But ultimately, how buildings as infrastructure not only provides a unique solution to the problem of residual urban space, but how unique identity can be created through a potentially new typology of the build environment. Layering usage is and has been and will continue to be the answer for a lot of societal problems in the future, and maybe I could contribute to this through case study, or some other typical traditional research.

Interesting Project

When searching, buildings as infrastructure, I found this thesis that discovers the potential for buildings to act as water towers. Focusing into Manhattan, it's understood a lot of buildings collect rainwater for use. However, it looks like this project reconceptualizes 432 Park Ave. into a enormous water tower and simultaneously a vertical farm. This claims to reconsider how community social equity is balanced, using a symbol of the ultra wealthy to provide infrastructural, cultural, and agricultural support to the rest of Manhattan.

https://soa.syr.edu/live/profiles/1105-infrastructure-redefined