Comments on: a superproject void

By: the best architecture of the decade « Vews

the best architecture of the decade « Vews — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:43:51 +0000

[...] through the coming decade) is perhaps the best example of the continued relevance of the infrastructural “superproject” to emerge in the past decade. Nonetheless, we debated whether or not it belonged on this list [...]

By: the best architecture of the decade - mammoth // building nothing out of something

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:27:13 +0000

By: seemingly random digital scrawl… » Blog Archive » FantastiCity

seemingly random digital scrawl… » Blog Archive » FantastiCity — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:06:42 +0000

[...] Permalink – Not a super project void. [...]

By: Infrastructure + Networks + Security – City Block

Infrastructure + Networks + Security – City Block — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:40:11 +0000

[...] as faslanyc noted in the comments on a previous post, the impact of an infrastructure on the territory in which it resides should be [...]

By: infrastructural urbanism and fracture-critical networks - mammoth // building nothing out of something

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:12:10 +0000

[...] as faslanyc noted in the comments on a previous post, the impact of an infrastructure on the territory in which it resides should be [...]

By: rholmes

rholmes — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:21:21 +0000

I think you’re right that Uchitelle (at least the way he presents himself in this article) flitters back and forth between infrastructural nostalgia and the genuinely useful point that degree of dispersal and connectivity is a vital measure for determining the economic value of a large infrastructural project. But there’s currently a whole lot of nostalgia for vast infrastructures, so I didn’t think that particularly interesting.

Whether Uchitelle is clear about the distinction between the former and the latter or not, the latter remains an important point.

By: faslanyc

faslanyc — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:24:07 +0000

be-autiful shot of the hoover dam.

for me the projects should have been evaluated in two ways: “network/single-entity projects” and “scale”. Scale is obvious (the 2nd ave subway is a connector within NYC but only affects the city directly, not larger entities) and simply further separates projects according to the first categorization.

I think you pick up on this well, whereas the Times guy doesn’t draw this distinction (his first paragraph is an indiscriminate mix of both). One of the infrastructurist’s commenters picked up on the possible differences in “super-” and “mega-” projects. Perhaps Uchitelle is suggesting that superprojects are defined by noticible economic impact, especially over a long time frame (his article obviously frames the projects economically) whereas megaprojects are more defined by scale, and may have a focus of environmental, social, political, and economic effects in any order.

of course, I’m not sure about this. To some degree, for me, he’s just voicing sentiment (we used to be great! we used to build big things! we never build big things any more! Maybe we’re not great…).

in theory I am a proponent of what i would call “network projects” as they would tend to be defined by flexibility and resilience and am against “single intervention/entity” projects of the mega variety as they are defined by robustness and bigness.