INFRATECTURE. Mobility vs. Proximity.

[2M1] MOBILITY VS. PROXIMITY.

Lone Trucker

Generally speaking, the more developed man’s technologies have become, the more open and distributed his cities have become. Advances in transportation and communications technologies have led to increased sophistication in the networks that carry them; as with the simultaneous development of the steam engine and the iron frame, the vehicle and the vessel have evolved in parallel. This increased sophistication of networks has had a major spatial impact on cities. Take, for example, a cloverleaf expressway interchange compared with its simple ‘crossroads’ predecessor, or the international airport compared to the original landing strip. The increased spatial demands and idiosyncrasies of the vessel have developed with the increased speed, endurance, and capacity of the vehicle. These transformations have stretched and extended cities far beyond their original limits. (Communications technologies obviously have different spatial demands, but like transportation technologies, they have been developed to eradicate distance and make more efficient use of time.)

As our cities become thinner, and our travel (physical or virtual) more fluid, destinations become all the more important. Today we hunger for meaning and substance ("57 channels and nothing on"), and physical proximity has likewise become increasingly important. Contrary to what some have said, the spectacle has not died, but instead has expanded its influence. It would otherwise be difficult to explain the record numbers of attendants at movie theaters, concert halls, sports stadia, and conference centers, as well as the increasing capacities of the venues themselves. Technology has not replaced the spectacle; it has instead informed us about it, allowed us to get to it more quickly, enhanced our enjoyment of it, and preserved a record of it for our continued satisfaction. If anything, technology is pushing the limits of the spectacular, bombarding us with more information, greater speeds, and more opportunities for collective interaction than ever before. As a result, urban populations are increasing, and the influence of the megalopolis is broadening.

We are left with a strange quandary. Quantity is making us starve for quality. The forces of capitalism, in fact, would like us to mistake the former for the latter. Increased desire has led to accelerated satisfaction. Suspense is intolerable (whatever happened to foreplay?). We now crave more things, more opportunities for interaction, and more mood-enhancing experiences, with far less patience to wait for them. Desire has exploded our trade and communications networks, bringing us ‘just-in-time’ manufacturing, satellite teleconferencing with no perceptible delay, and relatively affordable supersonic flights. We simply want more of each other and the products we create, more often, and within a shorter time frame. The paradox, then, is that the city is expanding and contracting simultaneously. I’m not suggesting that traditional city centers are all becoming more dense; in many cases, other ‘centers’ have developed to replace or complement them. What I am saying is that mobility and proximity have increased in importance simultaneously, and that the two are intimately related. Thus, the centrifugal and centripetal forces of civilization are expanding at equal and opposite rates, leading to a condition of greater instability.

A Master's Thesis in Architecture at Rice University by Blaine Brownell.