Andrew Dribin, “The Wilderness Years of Chicago” he is an architect Chicago Wilderness trying to create a culture of ecoconsciousness politics and science that exacerbates the nature-culture distinction “Has Chicago Ever Been Modern?” tall grass prairie, oakwood lawn, Lake Michigan--all kinds of ecological systems 1994 foundation of Chicago Wilderness no definitive starting point of environmental politics of Chicago early 1900s Henry Cowles 2010 international year of biodiversity “biodiversity is life / biodiversity is our life” E.O. Wilson biophilia discontent that is scientific, moral, aesthetic 1: “a return to natural origins” eighteenth century 2: vision for the future 3: antithesis to people vs nature attitude Cowles taught at Chicago as a founder of ecology; developed notion of habitats,
succession and landscape then Victor Shelford who wrote on animal ecology May Watts, Reading the Landscape of America; Illinois Prairie Path John Mchale, The Ecological Context. Inland Architect, 1970, “The Ecology Theme: A Threat to Architecture?” by Douglas Schroeder growing antagonism to modernism restoration vs preservation; restoration projects at Fermilab North Branch Prairie Project of Steve Packard William Stevens, Miracle under the Oaks on Packard The Alliance to Let Nature Takes Its Course (Atlantic) crisis of belief: ambivalence towards people who think of themselves as separate transecendentalism problems; threat to exotic, invasive, modern wilderness as where man is not politicizing nature rather than just objectifying it; a fact is only a fact because we are concerned about it [me: he thinks modern] Wolf Lake, Indiana why restore natural communities when the distinction is divisive “wilderness” has a scientific appeal how do we even know about biodiversity; they need to be answered not just by science facts response by Anna Johnson the Nature of Illiniois; crisis of belief, objectifying and petrifying it with buffalo but without people many of us ask a key question: how is relation to the past to inform our future? first assume that our current state is leading to bad results the current state of affairs can’t stand goal of restoration: returning the land to its native beginnings including the removal of exotic species a static and distant point on a timeline nature becomes the moment of origin; the only way to return is a complete reversal rejection of the modern (which is a highly modern gesture) our attempt to return makes us go farther away nature has been going on already in downtown Chicago area of greatest biodiversity has arisen in an area largely influenced by the growth of industry perhaps we aren’t divided from nature Liam: the common conception of the restoration movement isn’t about returning to nature seeing myself with a broken leg; restoration of that leg to its first state Chicago Wilderness is hard to understand, like the notion of God, everywhere and nowhere not just one thing but an affiliation of organizations; architects could sign up! question: health can be very normative, what we take is the optimal situation restoring the quad to eight stories of glacial ice; or 1850-ish, largely underwater the target of health moves and changes valorizing a particular moment of an ecosystem an even more complex question: wilderness isn’t a viable term but it is politically useful so we should keep it? [that’s a big question for me; the trouble is if we think facts are only facts when we care about them, then eco humanism becomes about finding the best advertising language, “branding issues” as the speaker just said] language as always doing something (bad) to things question: these changes are within the logic of capital answer: Marxism is a powerful critique but where’s the practicality question: can a Latourian politics emerge? answer: obviously I’m informed by Bruno Latour. things have a politics to them, so that architecture has a bigger role than we even thought there are people in Chicago who are doing interesting stuff but there’s no big picture yet this paper was more critical than constructive because I don’t yet understand what to do with Latour’s ideas Liam: cows and succession as a dynamic process restoring something that is dynamic over time
No comments:
Post a Comment