Book Review: The Infrastructural City
In 1971, Reyner Banham’s well-known book, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, offered an inspired version of what the city had to offer. Rather than deride the sprawling, car-crazy metropolis, Banham embraced the place, dividing it into four zones: Surfurbia consisted of the coastal cities of Santa Monica and Venice Beach; the Foothills referred to the wealthy areas of Beverly Hills and Hollywood Hills; and the endless sprawl that emanated from the sea and mountains was christened The Plains of Id. Connecting these three ecologies, was the forth ecology that most defined the LA psyche — Autopia.
For Banham, nothing defined the Angelino more than the freeways. He writes, “… The freeway system in its totality is now a single comprehensible place, a coherent state of mind, a complete way of life.” Unlike other large cities, Los Angeles required residents to partake in a daily, adrenaline fueled ritual, in which “the extreme concentration required… seems to bring on a state of heightened awareness that some locals find mystical.” Given Banham’s proclivity for characterizing LA through freeways, it’s fitting that the The Infrastructural City, a new collection of essays edited by Colombia Professor Kazys Varnelis, takes infrastructure as its starting point, positing that LA is best understood through an infrastructural looking glass.
Varnelis’ take on infrastructure goes far beyond Autopia. We get chapters on “Flood Control Freakology,” vanquished lakes, derelict oil derricks, and the soon-to-be extinction of LA’s famous palm trees. The networks of LA have become gargantuan, spanning countless physical and jurisdictional boundaries. Since no one controls them, they’ve developed a life of their own. Denying their perverse logic in an attempt to bring back “nature” isn’t just impossible but actually undesirable.
One chapter, written by David Fletcher, describes the history and functionality of the Los Angeles Watershed. To many environmental activists, the concrete enclosed LA River represents everything reprehensible about Los Angeles and the artificial landscape its residents have created. But to Fletcher, this 51 mile long “river” is better understood as a “man-made web of vascular networks.” Before the introduction of the channel, the river existed as a stream for much of the year. However, the trickle could quickly become an unmanageable torrent during thunderstorms. The flooding generated by these infrequent downpours rendered a large area around the river unusable. City officials, engineers (and developers) responded by building the massive, concrete channel we see today. To Fletcher, the death of the LA River shouldn’t be viewed as a tragedy, but should be respected as an engineering marvel akin to the Golden Gate Bridge.
The river has actually developed a unique ecosystem of its own. A mishmash of different flora, inadvertently imported from around the world, have reclaimed much of the river and form what Fletcher calls a “freakology.” Nature becomes machine becomes nature.
Another chapter, written by Varnelis himself, describes the “Invisible City” of telecommunications. Located at the end of Wilshire Boulevard is One Wilshire, a nondescript high rise containing thousands of miles of fiber optic cables. Varnelis describes the street in front of the building thus:
“Since the nineteenth century, boosters have claimed title to the busiest corners on earth for their cities… If, however, that title could be awarded on the basis of underground communications or the density of florescent paint markings, then (the) intersection of Grand Street and Wilshire Boulevard would win.”
The block serves as the main communications hub between “Asia and the Western World.” Furthermore, the construct solidifies the city’s dominance over communications and entertainment throughout the US.
Varnelis notes that, while Frank Gehry’s Disney Concert Hall has become the symbol of a re-emergent downtown, its significance pales compared to the importance of One Wilshire. Gehry’s sweeping gestures invoke the speed and sleekness of the new millennium, but the dynamism of the contemporary economy rests in the invisible network of cables that run through a bland skyscraper.
The chapter I found most interesting was one by Roger Sherman, in which the author documents various ways in which the amalgamation of different jurisdictions and private landowners have worked together to create unique urban places. One example has two neighbors, the Department of Water & Power, and the LA Department of Building & Safety working together to create a wiffle ball court. The author asserts that LA architects should view architecture as “a commodity–like everything else, tied first and foremost to speculation in future identity, and real estate values, rather than as a response to context.” Since most architecture schools teach designers to find inspiration in the physical realities of the site or in complex formal manipulations, this is a radical idea. Should architects abandon what we’ve learned and look at building the same way developers do? Or is it necessary to have someone behind the wheel that wants to create the best sense of place possible?
Overall, the book contains plenty of photos and diagrams in each chapter, while the writing is free from a lot of postmodern jargon. Kazys and company try to steer clear of the ideological battles that have driven debates about Los Angeles since Banham. If you’re looking for penetrating social critique or academic rigor (read: LA School of Urbanism), you could do better with Mike Davis, Edward Soja, or Michael Dear. This collection aims to steer clear of the old debates and operate within a new paradigm, analyzing the inner workings of specific networked systems.
The points and questions raised are especially applicable to our time. The federal stimulus package has begun pumping billions of dollars into infrastructure. Meanwhile, the California state government flounders in debt. The future of LA’s ecologies remains unforeseeable, but this book helps illuminate what exists now and what direction the city might take in the future.
>Written by d/visible contributor Kevin Clement .
