I really enjoyed the reading assigned for Tuesday's class. I loved how Mike Davis's piece, although analyzing historical influence on geomorphology, produced discussion on Edmonton's future.
The class discussion during this portion of our studies proved to be a nice change of pace. However, the "pretend" disaster developed in Tuesday's discussion did not delve into the issues and intricacy introduced by Davis.
In class I had suggested that self-sufficiency in a communal sense (including private building projects and businesses, such as the new arena district, that would be able to self-produce power) would be a positive way to counteract or assist in preventing future disasters. Although this efficient utilization of resources promotes a more fluid connection with nature, it seems any sort of modern infrastructure impedes and restricts nature.
Davis points to these issues intertwined with humankind's desire to control nature.
An on going battle which sees nature rarely win (and often only due to human aggression).
"At either end of the scale, natural energies are capable of opening breaches that can quickly unravel the cultural order."
Davis points to the creation of a city as a continual effort to "manipulate nature" instead of working with nature. This concept is fascinating to me.
Born in Edmonton, I rarely left the urban centre as a child. My mother was terrified of camping (I wish she wasn't) so my family rarely went. I grew up living in and loving urban spaces, concrete buildings and mass amounts of people.
This familiarity with urban space created a lack of understanding towards the underlying natural elements. Or perhaps this urbanization of myself created an opportunity to significantly recognize the constant struggle between nature and infrastructure.
I found it interesting to think of the edge of the North Saskatchewan river bank at war with the Telus Centre, Hotel Macdonald and the University. The river valley and river are restricted to their distinct areas and deviation from this norm traditionally results in punishment (a house falling into the river anybody?). Or perhaps this is a small attempt by nature to take back its space in ruderal fashion.
3 comments:
It's pretty interesting that you grew up in the city and still love it. I grew up outside of Edmonton -- not far outside, only in between the city and Sherwood Park -- and even when I moved to Edmonton, I was in the suburbs, so downtown was still just a jumble of buildings peeking out from the horizon.
I didn't really get a sense of downtown into my teen years. I didn't really understand the concept of "urban" until these years.
You and I have had different experiences growing up, it seems. Given this, I'm curious as to what makes one prefer the urban over the rural...
Born in Edmonton, I rarely left urban centres as a child. My mother was terrified of camping (I wish she wasn't)...so we never went. I grew up living in and loving urban spaces, concrete buildings and mass amounts of people.
That's really interesting, actually! When I was young, I spent vacation time with my family in the mountains -- Jasper, Banff; camping and skiing a couple of times, the glaciers up north once, hiking mostly -- and so, when I look at the nature that exists in Edmonton, I mostly feel like it's a poor imitation of what's actually out there. Which isn't to say that I don't enjoy walking in the river valley or along long stretches of grass under power lines, I'm just really aware of how different the experience is.
Whereas it seems like you're able to see urban spaces as a kind of nature, in the way that Davis talks about. Just based on how you talk about the city, walking around it, taking pictures, you have a level of comfort and fascination with urban space that I'm jealous of.
I am extremely comfortable in urban space, however my point was more directed at the relationship between urban space and nature which is often overlooked.
If Edmonton didn't exist than perhaps the experiences you had hiking would be just as remarkable in this area. It is as if infrastructure is built upon and thus suppressing the nature below. This nature shows signs of rebellion all over the city: small green spaces, tree lined streets and weeds breaking through sidewalk cracks.
It seems people use infrastructure in an attempt to control these natural elements instead of establishing a congruent relationship.
Hence the "This Means War."
I've never seen a city as a battlefield without weapons.....until now.
Post a Comment