Call for Papers: Infrastructure in Times of Crisis. Imagining and Designing Worlds That Reflect Climate Change
Proposals for completes articles should be sent by e-mail before 25 February 2025 to the Cahiers de la Recherche Architectural et Paysagere (CRAUP)’ editorial office: craup.secretariat@gmail.com
For more information, contact Aude Clavel on 06 10 55 11 36 or by email
The dawn of the 21st century has been described as an “infrastructural turn” by many humanities and social science researchers. The spectrum of disciplines interested in “infrastructure” as a field of study has significantly increased, going beyond technological or functional dimensions to question the political, societal and cultural impacts. This break with the Prometheus myth and promises of infrastructural modernity reveal wide-ranging adversities and inadequacies whether endured or challenged.
Over the last two decades, repeated crises of various kinds (ecological, economic, energy, etc.) have continuously underlined infrastructural vulnerability, along with its strategic role (robustness) in responding to these situations through the short, medium and long term. Infrastructure has also been associated with new values, virtues and capacities, intended to contribute to a more sustainable, equitable and responsible future. Do these new “promises” create yet another type of “infrastructural turn”?
With this in mind, the present issue takes a closer look at the changing design practices of spatial discipline actors, given the infrastructural challenges sparked by crises.
Beyond movement control infrastructure
Imagining cities and territories with regard to movement (of people, goods, energy, or information), along with the changing character and speed thereof, has permeated and often dominated the history of architectural and urban production in the modern industrialized world. Physical infrastructure has fed this imagined narrative, both in terms of time and scale, by distinguishing itself as being designed and built to interconnect populated areas spatially and over time—i.e., highways, railroads, etc.—or to adapt natural environments to human activities—i.e., dykes, bridges, dams, etc. Further, their conceptualization is a long-term process, involving irregular phases that are inevitably flexible to various territorial developments and periods. As such, they must contend with contexts in which there exist factors that transcend the technical entity or system itself, constantly shifting and of a cyclical, structural, hypothetical or unknown nature. Moreover, the ever-present vision of exponential growth has rendered them devices for territorial and environmental control, giving rise to extensive systems and artifacts designed to exploit, integrate or channel these movements. Such infrastructure defines scales of intervention that challenge modern forms, whether superstructures or megastructures, in their capacity to serve societal purposes. Other infrastructure was described as a “megamachine,” according to Lewis Mumford, considered as social and political systems in social science disciplines, comparable to the technological systems in the fields of architecture and urban design. How can various disciplines reappropriate material and societal infrastructure as a field of investigation?
Crises as a Way of Rethinking the Role of Infrastructure
The ecological, economic and social crises of the early 21st century have prompted us to rethink the role of infrastructure in the movement of goods, living things, energy and information; specifically, in terms of society’s core values (i.e., eco-responsibility, energy conservation, or accessibility) and transformed considerations (i.e., coexistence of living organisms, social interaction, or health safety). As a result, designers must adapt their knowledge to the growing and shifting uncertainties of the contexts in which infrastructure is planned, as well as to the manifold pressures it faces. Characterized by their indefinite timeframes, recurrence and peaks, crises have become key concerns in many designers’ approaches. We posit that these developments are renewing infrastructural design principles and practices, especially by reintroducing narratives, imagined worlds and fictional representations into design devices. This opens up spaces for reflection and exchange with the various players involved, incorporating these crisis-specific factors and displaying them to generate greater understanding. These principles are increasingly being adopted when it comes to mobility infrastructure. In Europe, for example, researchers and designers are exploring ways in which extreme circumstances can be used to rethink urban and regional planning, founded on ideas of an “unthinkable future.” Similarly, in Japan, excessive transport networks are being challenged by the demographic crisis, leading to alternative ecological narratives depicting an immediate decreased metropolitan future. In other words, designers may once again be using probability as an operative device, to portray possible or potential future scenarios whether basic or extreme. But what about other types of infrastructure?
This call for proposals invites authors to submit articles in line with one or more of the following three themes, exploring the relationship between existing or imagined infrastructure arising from climate-related risks.
1. Exploring and representing infrastructural vulnerabilities
For urban planners and architects alike, thinking about infrastructure has involved figurative explorations of future scenarios, described as imaginary or visionary, emphasizing technical innovation, uninhibited aesthetics and even new societal models. More rarely, however, it has given rise to representations incorporating the limits and risks associated with increased and, especially, accelerated movement. Today, various crises and their aftermath have brought the topic of acceleration to the fore, along with existing pressure on mobility infrastructure and (how it affects) environments. Over the past ten years, the COVID-19 crisis and changing lifestyles have transformed the use of this infrastructure, highlighting tensions between its permanent nature versus its obsolescence. Contributions should explore the interplay between time and space, as illustrated by situations of infrastructural obsolescence, vulnerability and nuisance, leading to their dismantling in the wake of natural disasters or political decisions. Examples may include natural resource depletion, biodiversity collapse, increasing disasters (including health catastrophes), reduced mobility or, conversely, high levels of migration resulting from geopolitical conflicts. In these recurring and random situations conducive to vulnerability, do scales of time and space require new tools for reflection and systems of representation (scenario, fiction, narratives, etc.)? Expected contributions will be based on critical analyses of various kinds of infrastructural vulnerability, both historical and current, addressed through exploratory approaches and systems of representation linked to environmental issues. Contributions may also focus on technical (obsolescence, carbon impact, etc.) or reflective questions relating to vulnerability.
2. Infrastructural adaptation to risk
Since the 1960s, imagined apocalyptic societies have sought to alert and to exist, contrasting with those of a more progressive nature. Think of the ideas of architects such as Cedric Price or the Archigram group (Walking City, 1961). In the midst of the Cold War, with nuclear angst and ecological catastrophe looming on the horizon, these designers rallied an imagination radically at odds with the promise of growth, even to the point of suggesting the demise of the industrial world’s perennial infrastructure. Today, plans for infrastructural transformation, adaptation and disassembly are emerging in response to emergencies, in terms of migration, increased tourist flow and logistics. Regardless of whether they concern the creation, repair, alteration or dismantling of different forms of infrastructure (mobility, logistics, energy, ecology, etc.), do these devices present common and reproducible features? What design methodologies and forms of implementation are shared by architects, urban planners, landscape architects and actors from other disciplines? To what extent and how do the “new” fundamental values attributed to infrastructure give rise to a renewal of the design devices of architects, urban planners or landscape architects? Could forms of reversibility also be imagined to adapt to crises? In this respect, generalizations are to be expected. Based on specific case studies (contemporary infrastructure projects) that present alternate design and representation devices in time of crisis, contributions may also offer a new perspective on the history of imagined risk, as it relates to mobility infrastructure and the evolution of environmental issues.
3. Anticipating future infrastructure
Today, we must consider the role of imaginary worlds in design, as they integrate an awareness of extreme but very real phenomena, already at work. The majority of these imagined infrastructural projects have contributed to shaping representations of possible futures, applying supposedly controllable solutions to common timeframes and parameters involved in movement control, whatever they may be. Yet they have often overlooked the risk and uncertainty inherent in physical movements, whether massive or irregular, growing or shrinking, lasting or temporary. In this context, exploring imagined worlds or alternative forms of representation actively propelling infrastructural design will enable us to identify emerging practices. Which imagined worlds are at work when thinking about territorial resilience? The proliferation of risk factors and accelerating changes in infrastructural use have transformed territories and natural environments. It is now clear that climate-related extremes cannot be managed solely through new defensive infrastructure. What new forms of infrastructure will result from these situations? How does such anticipation come about? Who are the players involved, and what are the devices and forms of representation? How do they participate in renewing conceptual and possibly operational approaches to infrastructure in a more resilient environment? Does consideration of the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with emergency or extreme situations, whether real or imagined, create alternative forms of design and representation that envision a less anthropized world? Contributions should provide a critical reflection and analysis of projects that incorporate uncertainty factors as a means of anticipating future infrastructure. Examples include renewable energy (i.e., the use of waves and wind), infrastructure welcoming living organisms (i.e., biodiversity zones, restoration programs), and so on. Contributions may also feature anticipatory narratives (utopias, literature, fiction, etc.) depicting future crises and uncertainties. To what extent can anticipatory projects represent the future?
SubmissionDeadline
Proposals for full articles must be sent by email before February 25, 2025 to the editorial secretariat of the Cahiers de la recherche architecturale, urbaine et paysagère : craup.secretariat@gmail.com For more information, contact Aude Clavel at 06 10 55 11 36
Articles must not exceed 40,000 characters, including spaces. Accepted languages: French, English.
Articles must be accompanied by:
1 biobibliographical notice between 5 and 10 lines (first and last name of the author(s), professional status and/or titles, possible institutional affiliation, research themes, latest publications, email address).
