In contrasting the writings between Antony Sutcliffe and Mckibben’s writing, infrastructure in terms of roads and energy is depicted in relation to other form of infrastructure that are not typical of a conversation concerning architecture. There is an implication that infrastructure is part of a system where these components are interdependent of each other and whose ramifications effect other parts of the system. For example Sutcliffe describes the usage of roads as a principle of economics; supply and demand (pg. 24). In some cases he depicts the success of a certain mode of transportation or infrastructure as being dependent on economy and not on innovation. “In other British cities…the horse car, with its fares substantially undercutting those of the omnibus, took over from the omnibus to provide the main means of urban mass transport.” (pg.26) Politics also according to Sutcliffe played a role. Due to the speeds limits imposed by authorities, the usage of the omnibus was hindered (pg. 28). Sutcliffe’s attitude of the emergence of infrastructure is based on having the right conditions. He describes these conditions when speaking about
We can see a similar understanding of infrastructure and the variables that effect it in Mckibben’s writing for the New Yorker. Phrases that he uses in relation to infrastructure are “Energy Fuel’s staking program, oil prices, B.L.M, Arizona-wilderness bill” just to say a few. But what is most surprising about the article was the view the writer took in juxtaposing nature and infrastructure as symbiotic elements connected through chemistry, science, and numbers. Most of his descriptions of energy are precluded with an idea of largeness, typically described through numbers and strong words like “force”. For example he writes “as a rock is being blasted…hauling ore to the surface so it can be trucked to a mill in
No comments:
Post a Comment