Inspired by a note by William Menking about Chip Lord’s (of Ant Farm fame) new project, Miami Beach Elegy, (an urban portrait of the American city most immediately facing the issues of rising tides) I Googled the above term, used by me once before.
Which led me to a 2012 post, Littoral Urbanism: The Precarious Socio-Ecology of Urban Waterfronts by Steven Velegrinis and Woods Bagot. The authors argue
“These challenges require a new approach to waterfront development which recognises and embraces the ecology of water and sea level change in master planning of waterfront developments.”
Further as part of a “deep dive into Florida to coincide with the AIA Conference on Architecture in Orlando” The Architect’s Newspaper’s April 2017 issue, published two articles with a similar focus at the nexus of climate change and littoral urbanism.
For No. 43 / Shelf Life of Harvard Design Magazine, Clare Lyster (author of ‘Learning from Logistics: How Networks Change Our Cities’) wrote Storage Flows: Logistics as Urban Choreography.
Wherein she argues
“To fully comprehend contemporary mechanisms of flow, we need to explore the manner in which logistics shrewdly appropriates other external networks and spaces as a means to enhance its supply chain operations. For example, many logistical networks hijack familiar forms of urban infrastructure to further conquer the spatiotemporal gap between supply and demand. Piggybacking on other systems to optimize flow by collapsing supply and distribution into one seamless system has many implications for the city, changing how distribution typologies appear in the urban landscape and thus the landscape itself.”
Note: There are a number of spots where I assume “ow”/”ows” should be read, as a typo, as “flows”…
Also, no surprise that Alan Berger comes up. I immediately thought of his writings on the infrastructural leftover spaces or dross. The spaces/places where “Storage flows” happen. Transit through.
What is different today, in particular is the role of algorithms and digital flows.
Rod Barnett published an essay over at Places Journal. He begins with the observation
“Indigeneity is scarcely mentioned in the field’s seminal texts nor discussed in its conference halls and online forums….My project investigates how indigenous communities are represented (or not) in this process of contemporary American landscape-making.”
He then draws on the work of Brian Davis
“who places the modern practice of landscape architecture within the ‘long, sophisticated tradition of landscape-making in the Americas,’ thus establishing continuity and dissolving the boundaries between us and them, then and now.”
to make the case for transculturation, decolonization and an awareness of the indigenous experience as a continual contact zone, as guiding principles for Designing Indian Country.
On a related note, this recent piece by Annalee Newitz for Ars Technica digs into the medieval city of Cahokia. As I noted elsewhere, the piece led me to recall a great post (also by Brian Davis) from 2011 re: mounds as “precedent for responding to floods.” and a pre-Contact form of indigenous #infrastructuralurbanism.
Back in 2014 Diffusive Architectures explained The fallacy of the ‘urban age’ and why
“To properly see, understand, talk about, and strategise for urbanisation, we need new ways to describe and map these processes of concentration and extension, and the churning of use and habitation patterns. ..”
Plus, Courtney Humphries argued that By making “urban” synonymous with “city,” we miss the realities of where we live (ie: the peri-urban or suburban) and how our sprawling ways are changing the world. In other words,
“What’s very clear is that we need a language and a finer-grain differentiation of different types of urban life and urban ecosystems“
The discussion explores how/why/what’s next, in the span of the past few months, the conversation around Indigenous art and issues has come to the forefront of Canadian culture/politics.
Regarding the future of Canada, “Lets celebrate the next 150 years”
More via Q with Power via CBC Radio
The NYT reports that in Maine, Local Control is becoming a Luxury, that fewer Towns can afford.
Resulting in a movement towards deorganizing and the growth of unincorporated areas, which exist in other states, but in Maine account for half of the land.
Source: State of Maine via NYT
Reminds me a bit of shrinkingcities project. While the scale is a bit different, the drivers (economic reorganization and depopulation amongst others), are shared.