We were excited to catch word a while back now that the fine folks that cooked up Foodprint NYC – Nicola Twillley and Sarah Rich – were exploring future locales to extend the foodprint series. Thankfully, Toronto has proven productive enough territory in which to host the second edition. And even better is that it is now less than 48 hours upon us – starting promptly at 12:30pm on Saturday, July 31.

Foodprint Toronto is hosted at the Wychwood Artscape Barns (601 Christie Street, Toronto). For background, there are two great interviews of the organizers and their intentions over at Pruned and another at Azure.

The foodprinters continue their themes cultivated at the first edition including: zoning diet; culinary cartography; edible archaeology; feast, famine, and other scenarios. Though of course now it is applied to the Toronto / Canadian agro-context and food climate. So many possible discussions and conversations: How does the most multicultural city in the world respond to the challenges of food and diversity? How do food imports compare to other North American cities? With Ontario as the bread-basket of Canada, how does food movement infrastructure operate? What policies are in place to support the scope of that movement? Simply to understand a comparative geo-food pulse between NYC and TO would be fantastic.

Lola Sheppard will be on a panel, as well as several good friends and colleagues: Robert Wright (Associate Professor of Landscape, University of Toronto), Chris Hardwicke (urbanism.org), John Knechtel (Alphabet City), Shawn Micallef (Spacing / murmur)… in any case, here is the fantastic lineup of panels and speakers.

Below are some teaser images from a studio at University of Waterloo on the Toronto Greenbelt, called Productive Territories: Grey, White, Green Belts. The studio brief states:

In 2005, Ontario passed its Greenbelt Act, which protected 1.8 million acres of farmland and green space, with the intention of limiting sprawl, the destruction of green space and prime agricultural land. In the same year, the Places to Grow Act was passed, which identified 25 urban regions which must to achieve certain densification targets. In the context of the Places to Grow Act, one might read within the Greenbelt Act a somewhat nostalgic vision of the relationship of city and nature, the former threatens the latter. Nature is seen as something to be preserved, while the city evolves.

[Agriculture / Livestock locative and quantitative map from University of Waterloo, Greenbelt studio.]

There is no doubt that the Greenbelt Act was crucial, and that it has indeed been identified as one of the most successful Greenbelts in the world, both because of its scope and the because of the quality of lands it protects. And, there can be little doubt that Toronto’s suburban sprawl indeed continues to threaten our open landscapes, and in this regard is socially, economically, and infrastructurally unsustainable. The question arises, however, is any development in, or at the margins of the greenbelt, conceivable? Most significantly, many of the cities targeted in the Places to Grow Act contain what is known as the White-belt, rural lands within each community’s jurisdictional boundaries, that are not protected. Most of the cities have slated these lands for development, with the exception of a few such as Markham, which have declared the desire to protect a large percentage of these lands to maintain a food-belt. The studio’s investigations will position themselves precisely at these boundaries, between urban and rural, between domesticated landscape and one less so – between the grey, white and green-belts. The studio attributes new roles to the architect – not simply problem solver, but cultural, environmental and spatial detective, bringing to light the forces (economic, cultural and environmental) at work within a given geography, and the physical networks at the service of these forces.

[Hydrology of the Greenbelt, from University of Waterloo, Greenbelt studio.]

[Soils and soil transfers, from University of Waterloo, Greenbelt studio.]

[Other Greenbelt characters: Quarries and Gravel pits, from University of Waterloo, Greenbelt studio.]

And here is a great map made by Ingmar Mak in a 2007 studio we ran (click for larger size):

[Subway map replacing stops with primary food items in that area, by Ingmar Mak.]

Editors Note: File under Feedback: Architecture’s New Territories, an InfraNet Lab seminar at Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design / University of Toronto. Guest post and images are by Juan Robles.

———–

The ongoing processes of trade and communication that now integrate the 21st century regional economies have created numerous territories of abundance. Among these spaces the maquiladora landscape, in the northern border of Mexico, has seen the greatest change in the last 50 years. From a manufacturing sun-belt territory limited to an area 20 kilometers south of the U.S.-Mexico border and saturated by U.S. investment; to an industry gaining strength across the Mexican country from Asian and European investment and reorganization.

[Even though the biggest concentrations of maquiladoras are found at the border, these territories of assembly are found all around Mexico.]

[Of the top 100 maquiladoras in Mexico; 66 are owned by companies from the U.S., 7 from Japan, 2 from the Netherlands, 1 from Germany, 3 from Canada, 1 from Singapore, 4 from Korea, 1 from China, 1 from Sweden, 1 from Sweden, 2 from France, 1 from Australia, 1 from Taiwan, 1 from Finland, and 5 from Mexico.]

With maquiladoras mainly producing electronic equipment, clothing, plastics, furniture, appliances, and auto parts the industry has grown from under 2,000 factories in the early 1990s to over 3,000 maquiladoras concentrated along the major border cities of Tijuana, Nogales, Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, and Matamoros.

[The growth of the maquiladora industry along the U.S. - Mexico border and the increase in export goods and labor across the main border towns has created a unique interdependent but unequal economic sister-city relationship between the paired metropolises.]

These plants began as part of a Mexican Border Industrialization Program in 1965 to solve the problem of rising unemployment along border cities caused by the end of the Bracero Program in 1964 when close to 180,000 Mexican farm workers were left without work. At its peak it employed over 445,000 braceros while the current maquiladora industry employs over 1.3 million Mexican workers. The intention of the maquiladora program was to clean up the border, attract more tourists, and create more jobs, not knowing that the new manufacturing landscape would bring numerous socio-political, economic and environmental problems to the region.

[Since the maquiladora industry offers thousands of low-skill jobs, the border has been a magnet to Mexican workers seeking economic opportunity for decades. The opportunist nature of this industry creates an industrial ecology of trade, supported by and supporting millions of migrant workers living in shanty towns around the industrial parks while industry logistics are controlled on the U.S. side.]

Unlike the typical manufacturing industries in the U.S., maquiladoras are labor-intensive assembly operations that import materials and equipment on a duty-free and tariff-free basis for assembly under the condition that the assembled product is exported out of the host country. These plants are mostly owned by European, Asian and U.S. corporations who take advantage of more lenient industrial development regulations and exploit cheap labor in close proximity to the U.S. market.

Located 2.5 hour from the Long Beach Shipping Port, Tijuana had full advantage to become the biggest manufacturer of electronics in North America, especially the production of color televisions.]

Maquiladoras export 90 percent of the assembled products to the U.S. with the electronics industry having the largest share of exports concentrated in Tijuana. The previous organization of these industries had parts shipped in from the country of origin, assembled in Tijuana, and exported to the U.S.

[In the late 1990s Tijuana became the Television Capital of the world producing over 14 million televisions and monitors per year. While Mexico’s share of world television production grew from 1.7 million in 1987 to 25 million in 1998 and continued to grow to a peak of almost 35 million TVs in 2003.]

In response to the recent economic crisis, especially seen in electronics, the industry has created new clustered maquiladora parks in the primary NAFTA distribution-based border cities. This was a strategy to make the assembly industry more efficient in order to compete with strong competition from China’s Special Economic Zones. At the turn of the century, Mexico saw close to 500 plants close and move to Asian competitor countries but has recently seen an increase in investment due to the rise in shipping costs.

[The reorganization of maquiladora industrial parks creates a new system of sub and main maquiladoras which bring the parts manufacturers and assembly plants close together while following the rules of the maquiladora program.]

The use of a cluster system started attracting part suppliers to be closer to the assembly factory. The parts that would originally be shipped from overseas have begun to be manufactured by overseas-owned companies either in Tijuana or San Diego. Each plant is an independent company that works closely with the other plants to support new just-in-time production strategies in order to increase efficiency and reduce costs. The new strategies have made the border industry more efficient but have failed to respond to the socio-economic, political, and environmental conditions that continue to surround it.

Could a new type of industry cluster provide more efficient, social, or productive trade ecologies? Would larger more integrated versions of this cluster system redefine development trends along the U.S.-Mexico border? Could the clustering of different industries along a larger territory linked by a rail system create a more efficient industrial ecology that responds to the poverty in these cities?

[Using the maquiladora cluster concept, the new border bundles whole industries into separate special economic zones between the U.S. and Mexico where one industries outputs can be used as inputs for another. The desert environment along the border is exploited to create new solar farms that would generate the energy needed in these zones.]

Also from the Feedback seminar:

Bloemenveiling Aalsmeer, Fei-Ling Tseng

Festival season is starting. In particular, we are excited about a slew of films that are part of the Canadian International Documentary Festival, nicknamed HotDocs, that runs April 29 – May 9, 2010 here in Toronto. With so many fascinating accounts represented in this edition, we thought it best to profile them here, for safe keeping. The tales we have selected chronicle landfills, clean energy wars, and land use ambiguities.

Waste Land, directed Lucy Walker (UK / Brazil)

[Waste Land, directed by Lucy Walker, shows May 1 and May 5.]

Lucy tracks artist Vik Muniz and his work with pickers of recyclable materials in Brazil’s Jardim Gramacho, arguably the world’s largest landfill site.

Land, directed by Julian Pinder (Canada)

[Land, directed by Julian Pinder, shows May 2 and 9.]

Burnt-out baby-boomers, Sandinistas, and ex-lefty capitalist developers clash in a wild-west showdown over land in a bucolic Nicaraguan seaside town.

Gasland, directed by Josh Fox (USA)

[Gasland, directed by Josh Fox, shows April 30 and May 2.]

Flammable tap water, mysterious ailments, poisoned land and livestock, Sundance prize-winner Gasland exposes the environmental calamities and cover-ups caused by natural gas drilling.

Into Eternity, directed by Michael Madsen (Denmark, Sweden, Finland)

[Into Eternity, directed by Michael Madsen, shows May 5 and 7.]

The scientific minds behind Finland’s massive underground nuclear waste storage facility, Onkalo, where radioactive waste must sit untouched for at least 100,000 years to neutralize its potential danger, are probed in Into Eternity.

Wistful Wilderness, directed by Digna Sinke (Netherlands)

[Wistful Wilderness, directed by Digna Sinke, shows May and 8.]

The island of Tiengemeten is getting a makeover. Originally tamed to serve as agricultural land, its now being left to the elements to revert back to wilderness. Filmmaker Digna Sinke documents 15 years of transformation.

Tankograd, directed by Boris Bertram (Denmark)

[Tankograd, directed by Boris Bertram, shows May 4 and 7.]

Chelyabinsk, Russia, once the site of a top secret Cold War atomic bomb factory, is now the most radioactively polluted city in the world. Its residents live with the consequences of catastrophic leaks and dumped toxic waste as cancers, auto-immune diseases, and undrinkable water flow freely. But the city most foul sprouts a most unlikely growth—the vibrant, inspiring Chelyabinsk Contemporary Dance Theatre.

Dreamland, directed by Þorfinnur Guðnason (Iceland)

[Dreamland, directed by Þorfinnur Guðnason, shows May 2 and 4.]

With its hydroelectric and geothermal power surplus, Iceland’s clean energy initiatives have attracted heavy industries whose pollution decimates natural vegetation. A tale of sabotage from the frontlines of the green revolution.

I Bought a Rainforest, directed by Helena Nygren and Jacob Andren (Sweden)

[I Bought a Rainforest, directed by Helena Nygren and Jacob Andren, shows May 2 and 4.]

Jacob Andren, like over 400,000 other Swedish children, remembers raising money to help save a rainforest. Twenty years later, wondering if his efforts made any real impact, he visits Costa Rica to see whether this piece of land remains preserved.

They Come for the Gold, They Come for it All, directed by Pablo D’Alo Abba and Christian Harbarak (Argentina, Chile)

[They Come for teh Gold, They come for it All, directed by Pablo Abba and Cristian Harbaruk, shows May 6 and 8.]

In a small town on the border of Argentina and Chile, the residents of Esquel are conflicted over a lucrative bid from Canadian mining company Meridian Gold. On the one hand, the mine will provide much needed work for residents, half of whom live below the poverty line. On the other hand, the gold and silver extraction requires large amounts of water and cyanide.

You can access the complete listings–time, locations, details–here. Enjoy.

It is a typical North American scene: the hulking iconic residue of 20th-century industrial farming sitting there mocking any would-be re-user. Demolition costs are considerable enough that across North America, these monoliths have sat there vacant, unused, and on very few occassions adapted and appropriated. And here is an opportunity for just such an occasion. Emerging Terrain, an organization founded by landscape architect Anne Trumble, is taking on just such a case. At the intersection of I-80 and I-480, a series of 62 sequential interlocked concrete silos forms a massive wall (gate?) at the east end of Omaha. At 180 feet tall, the assembly has undeniable presence, and forms a wall to the some 76,000 cars on I-80 daily.

[New silo skins as represented by Min|Day Architects.]

The Stored Potential competition is seeking proposals for gimongous 20 foot by 80 foot images to reclad the silos rippled surface. The potential for this to trigger development, reuse, and launch a new life for this massive form is potent. Proposals are due May 15. Images will be selected through an open call for submissions, printed to the scale of the enormous structure, hung to wrap the concrete cylinders, and celebrated with a giant dinner on-site at a table for the length of the elevator. If your image is selected, "after residing on the Omaha elevator for 3-4 months, the banners will travel to three other prominent vacant elevators throughout the state." Not a bad way to provoke visionary development and reuse. Get the competition brief PDF here [900k].

I am reminded here of Reyner Banhams homage to these hyper-functional (though mono-functional) masterpieces in his 1989 book A Concrete Atlantis. Banham argues the inherent comparisons between  North American industrial building and the classic modernist architecture of the International Style in Europe. (MIT Press generously offers a sample PDF here. [5.15 MB])

What would you do with curving skin of a silo? How can your idea be both 2D and 3D? How will the massive scale of the image perform and communicate and to whom? How do you look backward to the history of these efficient farming monuments and yet forward to their inevitable new future use? Will they ever represent anything other than nostalgia?

Looking forward to seeing the entries in May!

[NL Architects, proposed reuse of the silos on Zeeburgereiland, Netherlands. via Bustler.]

[NL Architects, Zeeburg silos interior void is used as a faceted climbing tower. via Bustler.]

The increasing speed that climate change is impacting our globe, coupled with slow transformations of lifestyle and policy to radically reduce GHG emissions, have prompted many climate change scientists to (re)consider Geoengineering, A.K.A planetary climate-engineering, to rapidly cool the earth.  Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have surpassed 385 parts per million, rising above the limit of 350 parts per million that many scientists consider to be the threshold for maintaining a stable ‘natural’ climate.  Despite the present interest in global warming, current studies reveal that we are still pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – approximately increasing the levels by 2 parts per million each year.  Geoengineering – an option that was seldom considered viable, is now being acknowledged as a potential solution, or Plan B to climate change.  One of the reasons for this (beyond the grim reality of carbon levels) is that geoengineering could potentially be very cheap.  Many now argue that geoengineering is an economic alternative to ‘buy us time’ to develop zero-emission technology in a cost effective manner.  While most scientists agree that the reduction of GHG emissions is the fundamental solution (Plan A), they also admit that geoengineering may one of the few options to address future climate change. Ronald Prinn, a professor of atmospheric science and the director of the Center for Global Change science at MIT, explains why climate scientists have started to change their minds about geoengineering in this video.   Put simply, we have come too far and engineering our way out of this situation may be our only choice.

[Comparison of various Geoengineering Strategies via newscientist.com]

For years, geoengineering techniques were only to be found in science-fiction novels, and not put on the table as possible options.  Now, as geoengineering is being reconsidered, we realize how little we know about the atmosphere and climatic changes.  This has already prompted research and a report on Geoengineering by the UK’s Royal Society, as well an American report, instigated in part by President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren.  Even the IPCC’s report touches on geoengineering in section 4.7, stating what many scientists firmly believe – geoengineering focuses on the symptoms rather than the cause.  The purpose of this nascent research, however, is to wage the various options of geoengineering, understand how to implement them, and run models to gain insights on their potential side effects.  There are several schemes currently being cooked up by scientists to geoengineer our climate that fall into two basic categories: (i) Solar Radiation Management and  (ii) Mitigation techniques, such as carbon sequesterering.  While several of these initial ideas are seemingly sci-fi in nature, they are becoming increasingly plausible solutions to address climate change.  Step 1 is to understand atmospheric systems more precisely and Step 2 is to figure out how to manipulate this system.

[Cloud seeding and cloud brightening with salt water to increase solar reflection via wired.com]

Solar Radiation Management could take several forms, but the basic premise of each strategy is the same: to block or reflect solar radiation out of the atmosphere.  Proposals range from cloud seeding, to arctic ice harvesting (for its reflective quality) to large sun disks in outer space.  The first notable proposal, which is still under investigation today, was by the Soviet Scientist, Mikhail Budyko in 1974.  Budyko suggested the injection of gases into the upper reaches of the atmosphere would cool the earth.  The idea is inspired by the natural phenomenon of volcanic eruptions or massive forest fires that send sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere where it acts as micro-deflectors of sunlight.  Hovering 10 kilometers above the earth in the stratosphere, this sulfur not only reduces the amount of sunlight that hits the surface, it also creates a haze that diffuses the sunlight.  The most cited precedent for such an approach is the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, which released 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and cooled average temperatures by half a degree Celcius.   Current predictions estimate that between one and five million tons of sulfur would need to be injected into the stratosphere each year.  From rockets filled with sulfur to hot air balloon smokestacks from coal-fired power plants, there are several options on how to actually get the sulfur into the stratosphere.  One major issue with sulfur injections is that they do not address GHG emissions.  In fact, they require a continual supply of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere – and, as the earth is further heated – will always require more and more sulfur dioxide in future years.  The economic and resource investment would be continually past down to future generations.  Beyond the technical and unsustainable growth model of sulfur dioxide injections, scientists don’t know enough about atmospheric chemistry to predict exactly what will happen. Without percise climate models, there is little understanding on how this will affect rain, wind patterns and ocean currents.  And simultaneously, climate modeling is our only choice – as it is difficult to test several ideas without impacting climatic systems.  The unpredictable nature of the ensuing effects could be more disasterous than our current climatic crisis.  Others have noted that sulfate shields only work to block sun, and would therefore be less effective during the night and winter.  This differential climate would have several large reaching effects on the world’s ecosystems and oceans.  Oceans, in fact, would continue to acidify because the GHG’s would linger and build in the atmosphere.  Other climate models show that sulfur sunshades could also create catastrophic droughts (droughts were noticed for a year after Mount Pinatubo’s eruption).  With so many variables and little precision in climate modeling, sulfur dioxide injections may pose more problems than solutions, especially because they are cheap.

[Solar Shading - Sulfur, Clouds or Disks? via livingearth.com]

Mitigation Techniques include different forms of carbon capture and carbon sequestering.  Three of the major strands of research here involve (i) Phytoplankton Storage (ii) Artificial Trees, and (iii) Geological Storage.  Phytoplankton consume large amounts of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Filling the seas with iron – a favorite of phytoplankton – would encourage blooms that would absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide and transport this to the bottom of the ocean.  The dropping of massive quantities of iron into the ocean and promoting large scale phytoplankton production would have great repercussions on ocean ecosystems – repercussions that we cannot predict.

[The Ocean as a Mega-Phytoplankton Farm? via popularmechanics.com]

Other materials that can capture and store large amounts of carbon dioxide are being explored to augment natural processes.  One such trajectory of research is examining peridotite rocks, which form magnesium carbonate when they react with carbon dioxide.  Others, such as Columbia University’s Klaus Lackner, are exploring the production of ‘artificial trees’.  Lackner’s tree is able to capture a ton of carbon from the atmosphere each day.  What are these ‘trees’ made of?  For the most part, panels of an absorbent resin that react with carbon dioxide to form a solid.  Lackner’s prototypes suggest that a 10m x 10m area of panels could extract 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year.  Once captured, these filters can be cleaned with steam.

[Rendering of Artificial Trees developed by Lackner]

The largest issue with attempting to orchestrate a climatic transformation is that we just don’t know enough about how our atmosphere works and the repercussions of our tampering.  Further, most geoengineering schemes require future generations to maintain such measures, with little end in sight.  Geoengineering also poses a political issue, as any response would affect the entire globe.  Because certain schemes, such as sulfate shading, are quite simple and relatively cheap to implement, they could be done by most nations, creating the seeds for future conflicts. Currently, no international laws or treaties would prevent a country from unilaterally beginning a geoengineering project.  Who would monitor such projects, and who should have a say?  The political administering of geoengineering is just as complex as some of the schemes.  Another issue is a social one – the present energy on climate change initiatives may slow if there is a belief that we can always find new engineering solutions to address unsustainable practices.  As it stands, the risks of geoengineering seem to outweigh any possible benefits.  Some scientists predict that we are about 40 years away from understanding this technology.  Once we do, Plan B may be less risky than doing nothing.

A great discussion on Geoengineering took place a few weeks ago on TVO’s The Agenda.  You can watch the episode here.

[Ed note: this work was produced in the Frozen Cities Liquid Networks studio.]

At 162,000 km (including the Arctic Archipelago), Canada is the country with the longest Arctic shoreline – ahead of its compatriots Russia, Norway, Greenland/Denmark, and the USA.  Arctic Nations have been racing to chart their respective under-water continental shelves, in order to claim the abundance of natural resources which lie beneath the sea bed.

Yet Canada has never been a nation known for its military might. Indeed at the moment, Canada has five icebreakers that guide foreign vessels through Canada’s Arctic waters and assist in harbour breakouts, routing, and northern resupply, but ironically, none that can operate all season. And the Canadian Forces Northern Area (CFNA), headquartered in Yellowknife, consists of 65 personnel, responsible for defending 4 million km2 of unforgiving territory.

Meanwhile, the Russians have been theatrically (and quite literally) planting flags in the arctic sea floor– claiming it as theirs. The CBC has a great documentary covering this arctic race.

[Unpacking the logistics of millitary control and oil extraction]

Aumanil, by Dan McTavish and Kevin Lisoy, of the University of Waterloo, takes as its premise that Canada needs to assert its military presence within the North West passage, for strategic and monitoring purposes. Yet the project also works under the assumption that Canada is unlikely to liberate the funds required for such an outpost anytime soon.

Aumanil opportunistically envisages the Canadian government  leveraging oil companies to create a new hybrid oil rig / military base.

[Aumanil: at the confluence of oil resources and global trade routes]

Lisoy and McTavish write: “the siting of Aumanil facilitates the direct collection, transfer, refinement and storage of crude oil extracted from the largest projected oil reserve in the North. The site also facilitates the active management, control and assertion of sovereignty by Canada of the resources and routes of the North.”

A permanently moored city replete with social, military and port infrastructure, Aumanil envisages a new Arctic settlement or Port-City, that shifts its programmatic weight from oil extraction and refining in its early phases, to military and port intensive use in a post-peak oil scenario.

Rig components

[Re-rig: from oil extraction to millitary port-city]

The project takes the basic components of the oil rig and reconfigures them to allow future flexibility, allowing Aumanil to remain economically viable. “As the oil functions leave the modules public amenities are introduced into the system. Food production, water desalination, energy management and collection become the new processes of the rig.

[From oil storage to green energy]

Both the industrial and social qualities of the rig have the capacity to change with external influences (Oil exploration, depletion of specific resources, the opening of the Northwest Passage), but as well with changing internal conditions ( ie. inclusion of families on the rig and a shift from temporal occupancy to more permanent habitation).

[Co-habitation: oil production and living units]

[Accommodations are modular so internal configurations may be reworked as social conditions change]

Lisoy and McTavish write: “Aumanil is an infrastructure in the macro and micro sense. The project is a projection screen, making legible the changing landscape of Canadian sovereignty, resource extraction and dwelling in the Canadian North.”

[Oil rig as Banhamian mega-structure]

Canada will surely need to partner with a global power to maintain some semblance of sovereignty in the Canadian North. A likely candidate is the United States, but in an era of sky-rocketing national debts and increased Public-Private Partnerships, military and oil companies might not make such strange bed-fellows.

This work was completed in the InfraNet Lab run studio Frozen Cities Liquid Networks at the University of Waterloo. (All images, unless otherwise noted, are by Dan McTavish and Kevin Lisoy.)

Migingo Island, home to some 300 residents, sits precariously within Lake Victoria along the watery border of Uganda and Kenya. Its undetermined origins declare that either: a) two Kenyan fisherman settled there in 1991, or b) a Ugandan fisherman also claimed to have settled there in an abandoned house  in 2004. Regardless, since that time, the place has really taken off – becoming what one journalist called a microslum. Each successive year that the level of Lake Victoria decreased, the originally rocky tip exposed greater landmass to occupy. So, complicating matters is Lake Victoria's rapidly receding lake. But why here, why such a precious outpost?

[Population density in the Lake Victoria basin.]

[When wet borders meet receding waters, opportunistic land masses appear that werent there before. Recommended reading on this would be Gilles Deleuze's "Desert Islands" essay in which he distinguishes between originary and accidental islands.]

[Drawing the borders indicates that Migingo is about 500 m inside Kenya.]

Its all about the perch, Nile perch. Fishing in Lake Victoria, one of the largest bodies of fresh water, is essential to some of the 30 million Africans that live within its reach. Nile perch was introduced here in the 1950s and has risen to become an essential part of the economy of Lake Victoria’s fishery. (The perch was so successful in rejuvenating the fishing economy here that it decimated nearly 350 native fish species to rise to the top of the chain.) This success means that in recent years the Nile perch populations have dwindled and many native species are thought to be recovering. But really the whole Nile perch story, which in a Jared Diamond-esque way utlimately leads to weapons, is epic enough to be a film in its own right.

[The Lake Victoria Nile Perch, Lates niloticus, is considered the largest freshwater fish and can weigh in at 300lbs.]

Fishing supports an export industry in East Africa whose value is estimated at US$250 million annually. And the convenience of Migingo Island in this tightening economy (and shrinking ecology) has placed extreme presue on the island, with Ugandan police patrolling the waters and intercepting catch from Kenyan fisherman. A claim by several locals involved in the dispute has even lobbied that the fish are Kenyan because of which side of the border they breed on. Another strange claim is that the land belongs to Kenya but the water belongs to Uganda. And the dispute continues as on the island itself Ugandans and Kenyans exist within different 'neighborhoods' on this tiny acre of rock. Both sides are conducting a joint border survey in an attempt to settle this – but this does not change the rapidly evolving ecology. Both countries are spending about $1.7 million to determine ownership.

[The Semliki River has randomly ceded huge chunks of land from the Dem Rep of Congo to Uganda.]

As if Uganda didn't have its hands full already, it is also trying to assess the shifting border caused by the Semliki River, this time the dispute seems in its favor. The National Environment Management Authority’s State of the Environment Report 2008 reveals that the Semliki River changed its course in a total of 151 locations — 84 inside Uganda and 66 inside The DR Congo. This resulted in the natural ceeding of 50 square kilometrers of land from Congolese territory to Urgandan. In fact, several communities that used to be Ugandan are now Congolese and a telephone line pole which was installed by Ugandans decades ago now lies within DR Congo.

Run-off from the Rwenzori mountains is the Semliki's major tributary, but as temperatures rise water has descended the mountain with increasingly high volume causing erosion and redirection of its course. Subsequently, the river has widened by an average of 10 meters.

The politics of climate change run deep, and in many contexts are beyond co2 emissions. They are down to complex evolving geographies within which entire ecologies and populations stand to lose or (seemingly, within short terms) gain.

This past October 25, 2008, The Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design hosted a symposium organized and curated by Prof. Pierre Bélanger, recently swiped up by appointed by Harvard GSD, titled Landscape Infrastructures. Bélanger rightly marks our time as witness to a unique convergence of infrastructure and landscape. The urgency and opportunities of this embrace engineering of landscapes.

[Screen grabs from the DVD. George Baird (top left), Stan Allen (top right and bottom left, Jane Wolff (bottom right).]

Guest speakers included:
Stan Allen, Princeton University / George Baird, University of Toronto / Pierre Bélanger, University of Toronto / Julia Czerniak, Syracuse University / Herbert Dreiseitl, Atelier Dreiseitl / Kristina Hill, University of Virginia / Michael Jakob, Université de Genève / Nina-Marie Lister, Ryerson University / Kate Orff, Columbia University, SCAPE / Jane Wolff, University of Toronto

The proceedings of the symposium is now available in DVD format. Contact Pierre at belanger[at]harvard[dot]edu if you would like additional information.

[Mobility conduit, or landscape infrastructure par exellence.]

For Palestine and Israel, and undoubtedly for the rest of the world, the year 1999 was one of hope. A huge step towards a peaceful future in the Middle East was made in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, when the Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the so-called “The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum”. It was overseen by the United States (represented by the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) and co-signed by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. Beyond political issues it contained the following physical (and potentially architectural) implications:

1) A stable and safe Gaza – West Bank Passage
2) The construction of a Seaport in Gaza to connect Palestine to the global economy
3) A Free Trade Zone shared by Israel and Palestine to foster stability
4) Solutions for the pressing water problems and the damaged Dead Sea area

This was all in 1999, ten years ago. Just one year later, in 2000, the promising situation was overshadowed by the start of the Second Intifada, halting the progress to the goals presented in “The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum”. It seems that the window of opportunity is almost now closed.

The following 'student works' critically re-examines the memorandum while addressing the current political situation and necessities.  Designed by Christoph Hesse for his Masters of Architecture and Urban Design Thesis (2007) at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design,  the project highlights the potential of architecture, urban, and infrastructural design to go beyond political strategies (that often lack the strength to alter a given situation), to create a new reality, formulate new ecologies, and produce new economies.

Hesse states:

Especially in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, we have to overcome the domination of political approaches which usually end in military actions that capture a whole region under a ‘permanent temporarily’ of physical underdevelopment, fear and desperation. Maybe the project started as a dream, but so did peace in the Middle East.

[A stable and safe Gaza - West Bank Infrastructural Link]

[Water connection and elevation difference between the Mediterranean Sea and shrinking Dead Sea]

[Port Connection: A New civic center for Gaza, Image: C.Hesse]

The project proposes an inner harbor as a new seaport for Gaza – benefiting trade on the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Israel.  The origin of the water connection between the Mediterranean and Dead Sea would remain open as a canal to allow containerships to reach a distribution center in the hinterland of Gaza. Along the canal urban programs such as a linear park, housing and commercial areas would couple the infrastructure with other functions that are linked in a symbiotic relationship.

[Sectional Perspective. Urbanization of the new canal and the inner harbor of Gaza. Image: C.Hesse]

[Free trade zone shared by Israel and Palestine. Image: C.Hesse]

The infrastructural form of the Gaza – West Bank connection is comparable to the shape of a boa. At two distinct points, the passage, which contains a four-lane road and railway connection, widens into a space for potential exchange between Israel and Palestine. The program of these critical sites are embedded into a free trade agreement to ease cooperation. Similar free trade zones exist between Israel and Jordan.

[Water storage reservoir with hotel and public functions. Image: C.Hesse]

The end of the infrastructural connection occurs where the water tunnel reaches the Dead Sea.  Here, the water is held in an upper storage reservoir. Similar to the so-called urban attachments along the open canal in Gaza, a hotel is embedded in and around the dam that underlines the symbolic value of this place. Since the Dead Sea is located 418 meters below sea level, the drop between the upper reservoir and the Sea is ideal to produce fresh water and energy for the tourist industry and 250,000 households in Israel, Jordan and Palestine.  While doing so, the water replenishes and gives new life the shrinking dead sea.

[Fresh water for the shrinking Dead Sea and electric energy for the whole region]

Currently based out of Germany and Switzerland, You can view the current work of Christoph Hesse Architects & Lorenz Kocher Engineers  here.

By announcing $13 billion stimulus package aimed at the development of the groundwork for a high-speed rail (HSR) network, President Obama has catapulted intercity transportation to the front of infrastructural spending.

After peaking during the Second World War, passenger rail travel languished as America was connected with an impressive highway and aviation network.  A thinly scattered population paired with government subsidies for road and air travel suppressed rail’s role even further.

[Image from the US Federal Railroad Administration.]

It’s clear that something has to be done with respect to passenger mobility between urban centres.  Once seen as the world’s most advanced highway and aviation systems, the primary modes of intercity transportation in the U.S. are facing increasing levels of congestion and, not unrelated, rising environmental costs.  Mr. Obama recently stated that highway congestion costs the country $80 billion each year in lost productivity and wasted fuel.  Along similar lines, the country’s current transportation system consumes 70% of the nation’s oil demands.  According to Mr. Obama:

“What we need, then, is smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century…a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”

While there are some overlaps with the challenges faced by the transport revolutions of the 1960s, Obama’s transportation vision needs to address a set of new issues:   promoting energy independence and efficiency, building foundations for global economic competitiveness, and supporting interconnected, livable communities.

With all this in mind, HSR seems to be an obvious choice.  Recognizing that the US transportation system is the lifeblood of the economy, a HSR network can help support national and regional trade in a cost-effective and resource efficient manner.   In addition to supporting existing commerce, new investment in HSR will create high-skilled construction and operation jobs.  Along similar lines, manufacturing jobs will also emerge as essential components such as rails, control devices, and the train cars themselves will be required.  Secondly, HSR hits the mark with respect to energy efficiency and environmental quality.  It’s estimated that the implementation of the pending plans will result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of C02.

Obama’s strategy focuses on ten rail corridors that move through regional population centres across the country.  The plan calls for a combination of investments in existing rights-of-way in order to permit running higher speed trains and the creation of entirely new routes.

[Map of Obama admin HSR network. Image from the Whithouse.gov blog.]

The major criticism of the rail-based solution to transportation issues is cost – start-up, operational, and end-user.  In terms of start-up costs we’ve seen that a recent HSR construction in Spain averaged $22 million per mile. Other start-up costs include acquiring land and rights of way privileges from land owners.   Operational costs are significant in that the government would need to pay the private freight companies that own the tracks in order to run the new passenger lines.  Further, the high speed trains would be sharing the rails with the freight trains limited to significantly slower speeds – undoubtedly lowering their efficiency.   These governmental, tax-supported, expenses don’t offer a free ride for the end-users either.  A ticket on the only high speed rail route in the US, the Acela Express, connecting Boston to Washington D.C. via New York City, costs close to $200.

A secondary criticism deals with the actual speed of the trains.  It turns out the US high speed trains will not be as high-speed as their Asian and European counterparts. US trains will peak at 240km/h while HSR trains in Japan, Germany, and China are running at 300km/h or more.

While the financial weight of this proposal should not be overlooked, it’s important to consider the implications that these new systems would have on the ground.  How will these new corridors relate to existing fabric – both urban and rural (and everything in between)? Will a new pattern of development emerge? What is the relationship of these new corridors to already existing conduits such as highways? What type of spin-off development can be expected?  What will the relationship of these new developments be to smart-growth principles?