BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 METHOD:PUBLISH PRODID:-//Telerik Inc.//Sitefinity CMS 13.3//EN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Central Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20241102T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=11 TZNAME:Central Standard Time TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0600 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20240301T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=3 TZNAME:Central Daylight Time TZOFFSETFROM:-0600 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DESCRIPTION:The dawn of the 21st century has been described as an &ldquo\;i nfrastructural turn&rdquo\; by many humanities and social science research ers. The spectrum of disciplines interested in &ldquo\;infrastructure&rdqu o\; as a field of study has significantly increased\, going beyond technol ogical or functional dimensions to question the political\, societal and c ultural impacts. This break with the Prometheus myth and promises of infra structural modernity reveal wide-ranging adversities and inadequacies whet her endured or challenged.Over the last two decades\, repeated crises of v arious kinds (ecological\, economic\, energy\, etc.) have continuously und erlined infrastructural vulnerability\, along with its strategic role (rob ustness) in responding to these situations through the short\, medium and long term. Infrastructure has also been associated with new values\, virtu es and capacities\, intended to contribute to a more sustainable\, equitab le and responsible future. Do these new &ldquo\;promises&rdquo\; create ye t another type of &ldquo\;infrastructural turn&rdquo\;?With this in mind\, the present issue takes a closer look at the changing design practices of spatial discipline actors\, given the infrastructural challenges sparked by crises.Beyond movement control infrastructureImagining cities and terri tories with regard to movement (of people\, goods\, energy\, or informatio n)\, along with the changing character and speed thereof\, has permeated a nd often dominated the history of architectural and urban production in th e modern industrialized world. Physical infrastructure has fed this imagin ed narrative\, both in terms of time and scale\, by distinguishing itself as being designed and built to interconnect populated areas spatially and over time&mdash\;i.e.\, highways\, railroads\, etc.&mdash\;or to adapt nat ural environments to human activities&mdash\;i.e.\, dykes\, bridges\, dams \, etc. Further\, their conceptualization is a long-term process\, involvi ng irregular phases that are inevitably flexible to various territorial de velopments and periods. As such\, they must contend with contexts in which there exist factors that transcend the technical entity or system itself\ , constantly shifting and of a cyclical\, structural\, hypothetical or unk nown nature. Moreover\, the ever-present vision of exponential growth has rendered them devices for territorial and environmental control\, giving r ise to extensive systems and artifacts designed to exploit\, integrate or channel these movements. Such infrastructure defines scales of interventio n that challenge modern forms\, whether superstructures or megastructures\ , in their capacity to serve societal purposes. Other infrastructure was d escribed as a &ldquo\;megamachine\,&rdquo\; according to Lewis Mumford\, c onsidered as social and political systems in social science disciplines\, comparable to the technological systems in the fields of architecture and urban design. How can various disciplines reappropriate material and socie tal infrastructure as a field of investigation?Crises as a Way of Rethinki ng the Role of InfrastructureThe ecological\, economic and social crises o f the early 21st century have prompted us to rethink the role of infrastru cture in the movement of goods\, living things\, energy and information\; specifically\, in terms of society&rsquo\;s core values (i.e.\, eco-respon sibility\, energy conservation\, or accessibility) and transformed conside rations (i.e.\, coexistence of living organisms\, social interaction\, or health safety). As a result\, designers must adapt their knowledge to the growing and shifting uncertainties of the contexts in which infrastructure is planned\, as well as to the manifold pressures it faces. Characterized by their indefinite timeframes\, recurrence and peaks\, crises have becom e key concerns in many designers&rsquo\; approaches. We posit that these d evelopments are renewing infrastructural design principles and practices\, especially by reintroducing narratives\, imagined worlds and fictional re presentations into design devices. This opens up spaces for reflection and exchange with the various players involved\, incorporating these crisis-s pecific factors and displaying them to generate greater understanding. The se principles are increasingly being adopted when it comes to mobility inf rastructure. In Europe\, for example\, researchers and designers are explo ring ways in which extreme circumstances can be used to rethink urban and regional planning\, founded on ideas of an &ldquo\;unthinkable future.&rdq uo\; Similarly\, in Japan\, excessive transport networks are being challen ged by the demographic crisis\, leading to alternative ecological narrativ es depicting an immediate decreased metropolitan future. In other words\, designers may once again be using probability as an operative device\, to portray possible or potential future scenarios whether basic or extreme. B ut what about other types of infrastructure?This call for proposals invite s authors to submit articles in line with one or more of the following thr ee themes\, exploring the relationship between existing or imagined infras tructure arising from climate-related risks.1. Exploring and representing infrastructural vulnerabilitiesFor urban planners and architects alike\, t hinking about infrastructure has involved figurative explorations of futur e scenarios\, described as imaginary or visionary\, emphasizing technical innovation\, uninhibited aesthetics and even new societal models. More rar ely\, however\, it has given rise to representations incorporating the lim its and risks associated with increased and\, especially\, accelerated mov ement. Today\, various crises and their aftermath have brought the topic o f acceleration to the fore\, along with existing pressure on mobility infr astructure and (how it affects) environments. Over the past ten years\, th e COVID-19 crisis and changing lifestyles have transformed the use of this infrastructure\, highlighting tensions between its permanent nature versu s its obsolescence. Contributions should explore the interplay between tim e and space\, as illustrated by situations of infrastructural obsolescence \, vulnerability and nuisance\, leading to their dismantling in the wake o f natural disasters or political decisions. Examples may include natural r esource depletion\, biodiversity collapse\, increasing disasters (includin g health catastrophes)\, reduced mobility or\, conversely\, high levels of migration resulting from geopolitical conflicts. In these recurring and r andom situations conducive to vulnerability\, do scales of time and space require new tools for reflection and systems of representation (scenario\, fiction\, narratives\, etc.)? Expected contributions will be based on cri tical analyses of various kinds of infrastructural vulnerability\, both hi storical and current\, addressed through exploratory approaches and system s of representation linked to environmental issues. Contributions may also focus on technical (obsolescence\, carbon impact\, etc.) or reflective qu estions relating to vulnerability.2. Infrastructural adaptation to riskSin ce the 1960s\, imagined apocalyptic societies have sought to alert and to exist\, contrasting with those of a more progressive nature. Think of the ideas of architects such as Cedric Price or the Archigram group (Walking C ity\, 1961). In the midst of the Cold War\, with nuclear angst and ecologi cal catastrophe looming on the horizon\, these designers rallied an imagin ation radically at odds with the promise of growth\, even to the point of suggesting the demise of the industrial world&rsquo\;s perennial infrastru cture. Today\, plans for infrastructural transformation\, adaptation and d isassembly are emerging in response to emergencies\, in terms of migration \, increased tourist flow and logistics. Regardless of whether they concer n the creation\, repair\, alteration or dismantling of different forms of infrastructure (mobility\, logistics\, energy\, ecology\, etc.)\, do these devices present common and reproducible features? What design methodologi es and forms of implementation are shared by architects\, urban planners\, landscape architects and actors from other disciplines? To what extent an d how do the &ldquo\;new&rdquo\; fundamental values attributed to infrastr ucture give rise to a renewal of the design devices of architects\, urban planners or landscape architects? Could forms of reversibility also be ima gined to adapt to crises? In this respect\, generalizations are to be expe cted. Based on specific case studies (contemporary infrastructure projects ) that present alternate design and representation devices in time of cris is\, contributions may also offer a new perspective on the history of imag ined risk\, as it relates to mobility infrastructure and the evolution of environmental issues.3. Anticipating future infrastructureToday\, we must consider the role of imaginary worlds in design\, as they integrate an awa reness of extreme but very real phenomena\, already at work. The majority of these imagined infrastructural projects have contributed to shaping rep resentations of possible futures\, applying supposedly controllable soluti ons to common timeframes and parameters involved in movement control\, wha tever they may be. Yet they have often overlooked the risk and uncertainty inherent in physical movements\, whether massive or irregular\, growing o r shrinking\, lasting or temporary. In this context\, exploring imagined w orlds or alternative forms of representation actively propelling infrastru ctural design will enable us to identify emerging practices. Which imagine d worlds are at work when thinking about territorial resilience? The proli feration of risk factors and accelerating changes in infrastructural use h ave transformed territories and natural environments. It is now clear that climate-related extremes cannot be managed solely through new defensive i nfrastructure. What new forms of infrastructure will result from these sit uations? How does such anticipation come about? Who are the players involv ed\, and what are the devices and forms of representation? How do they par ticipate in renewing conceptual and possibly operational approaches to inf rastructure in a more resilient environment? Does consideration of the inh erent risks and uncertainties associated with emergency or extreme situati ons\, whether real or imagined\, create alternative forms of design and re presentation that envision a less anthropized world? Contributions should provide a critical reflection and analysis of projects that incorporate un certainty factors as a means of anticipating future infrastructure. Exampl es include renewable energy (i.e.\, the use of waves and wind)\, infrastru cture welcoming living organisms (i.e.\, biodiversity zones\, restoration programs)\, and so on. Contributions may also feature anticipatory narrati ves (utopias\, literature\, fiction\, etc.) depicting future crises and un certainties. To what extent can anticipatory projects represent the future ? \;SubmissionDeadlineProposals for \;full articles \;must be sent by email \;before February 25\, 2025 \;to the editorial secre tariat of the \;Cahiers de la recherche architecturale\, urbaine et pa ysagè\;re \; \;: \;craup.secretariat@gmail.com \;For more information\, contact Aude Clavel at 06 10 55 11 36Articles must not exceed 40\,000 characters\, including spaces.Accepted languages: French\, English.Articles must be accompanied by:1 \;biobibliographical notice between 5 and 10 lines (first and last name of the author(s)\, profession al status and/or titles\, possible institutional affiliation\, research th emes\, latest publications\, email address).2 abstracts in French and Engl ish.5 keywords in French and English.The title must appear in French and E nglish. DTEND:20250225T000000Z DTSTAMP:20250314T064606Z DTSTART:20240920T000000Z LOCATION:France SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Call for Papers: Infrastructure in Times of Crisis. Imagining and D esigning Worlds That Reflect Climate Change UID:RFCALITEM638775315667987171 X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

The dawn of the 21st century has been described as an &ldquo\;infrastructural turn&rdquo\; by many humanities a nd social science researchers. The spectrum of disciplines interested in & ldquo\;infrastructure&rdquo\; as a field of study has significantly increa sed\, going beyond technological or functional dimensions to question the political\, societal and cultural impacts. This break with the Prometheus myth and promises of infrastructural modernity reveal wide-ranging adversi ties and inadequacies whether endured or challenged.

Over the last two decades\, repeated crises of various kinds (ecologic al\, economic\, energy\, etc.) have continuously underlined infrastructura l vulnerability\, along with its strategic role (robustness) in responding to these situations through the short\, medium and long term. Infrastruct ure has also been associated with new values\, virtues and capacities\, in tended to contribute to a more sustainable\, equitable and responsible fut ure. Do these new &ldquo\;promises&rdquo\; create yet another type of &ldq uo\;infrastructural turn&rdquo\;?

With this in mi nd\, the present issue takes a closer look at the changing design practice s of spatial discipline actors\, given the infrastructural challenges spar ked by crises.

Beyond movement control infrastru cture

Imagining cities and territories with regard to movement (of people\, goods\, energy\, or information)\, along with the ch anging character and speed thereof\, has permeated and often dominated the history of architectural and urban production in the modern industrialize d world. Physical infrastructure has fed this imagined narrative\, both in terms of time and scale\, by distinguishing itself as being designed and built to interconnect populated areas spatially and over time&mdash\;i.e.\ , highways\, railroads\, etc.&mdash\;or to adapt natural environments to h uman activities&mdash\;i.e.\, dykes\, bridges\, dams\, etc. Further\, thei r conceptualization is a long-term process\, involving irregular phases th at are inevitably flexible to various territorial developments and periods . As such\, they must contend with contexts in which there exist factors t hat transcend the technical entity or system itself\, constantly shifting and of a cyclical\, structural\, hypothetical or unknown nature. Moreover\ , the ever-present vision of exponential growth has rendered them devices for territorial and environmental control\, giving rise to extensive syste ms and artifacts designed to exploit\, integrate or channel these movement s. Such infrastructure defines scales of intervention that challenge moder n forms\, whether superstructures or megastructures\, in their capacity to serve societal purposes. Other infrastructure was described as a &ldquo\; megamachine\,&rdquo\; according to Lewis Mumford\, considered as social an d political systems in social science disciplines\, comparable to the tech nological systems in the fields of architecture and urban design. How can various disciplines reappropriate material and societal infrastructure as a field of investigation?

Crises as a Way of Ret hinking the Role of Infrastructure

The ecological\, ec onomic and social crises of the early 21st century have prompted us to ret hink the role of infrastructure in the movement of goods\, living things\, energy and information\; specifically\, in terms of society&rsquo\;s core values (i.e.\, eco-responsibility\, energy conservation\, or accessibilit y) and transformed considerations (i.e.\, coexistence of living organisms\ , social interaction\, or health safety). As a result\, designers must ada pt their knowledge to the growing and shifting uncertainties of the contex ts in which infrastructure is planned\, as well as to the manifold pressur es it faces. Characterized by their indefinite timeframes\, recurrence and peaks\, crises have become key concerns in many designers&rsquo\; approac hes. We posit that these developments are renewing infrastructural design principles and practices\, especially by reintroducing narratives\, imagin ed worlds and fictional representations into design devices. This opens up spaces for reflection and exchange with the various players involved\, in corporating these crisis-specific factors and displaying them to generate greater understanding. These principles are increasingly being adopted whe n it comes to mobility infrastructure. In Europe\, for example\, researche rs and designers are exploring ways in which extreme circumstances can be used to rethink urban and regional planning\, founded on ideas of an &ldqu o\;unthinkable future.&rdquo\; Similarly\, in Japan\, excessive transport networks are being challenged by the demographic crisis\, leading to alter native ecological narratives depicting an immediate decreased metropolitan future. In other words\, designers may once again be using probability as an operative device\, to portray possible or potential future scenarios w hether basic or extreme. But what about other types of infrastructure?

This call for proposals invites authors to submit ar ticles in line with one or more of the following three themes\, exploring the relationship between existing or imagined infrastructure arising from climate-related risks.

1. Exploring and represen ting infrastructural vulnerabilities

For urban planner s and architects alike\, thinking about infrastructure has involved figura tive explorations of future scenarios\, described as imaginary or visionar y\, emphasizing technical innovation\, uninhibited aesthetics and even new societal models. More rarely\, however\, it has given rise to representat ions incorporating the limits and risks associated with increased and\, es pecially\, accelerated movement. Today\, various crises and their aftermat h have brought the topic of acceleration to the fore\, along with existing pressure on mobility infrastructure and (how it affects) environments. Ov er the past ten years\, the COVID-19 crisis and changing lifestyles have t ransformed the use of this infrastructure\, highlighting tensions between its permanent nature versus its obsolescence. Contributions should explore the interplay between time and space\, as illustrated by situations of in frastructural obsolescence\, vulnerability and nuisance\, leading to their dismantling in the wake of natural disasters or political decisions. Exam ples may include natural resource depletion\, biodiversity collapse\, incr easing disasters (including health catastrophes)\, reduced mobility or\, c onversely\, high levels of migration resulting from geopolitical conflicts . In these recurring and random situations conducive to vulnerability\, do scales of time and space require new tools for reflection and systems of representation (scenario\, fiction\, narratives\, etc.)? Expected contribu tions will be based on critical analyses of various kinds of infrastructur al vulnerability\, both historical and current\, addressed through explora tory approaches and systems of representation linked to environmental issu es. Contributions may also focus on technical (obsolescence\, carbon impac t\, etc.) or reflective questions relating to vulnerability.
< /p>

2. Infrastructural adaptation to risk

Sin ce the 1960s\, imagined apocalyptic societies have sought to alert and to exist\, contrasting with those of a more progressive nature. Think of the ideas of architects such as Cedric Price or the Archigram group (Walking C ity\, 1961). In the midst of the Cold War\, with nuclear angst and ecologi cal catastrophe looming on the horizon\, these designers rallied an imagin ation radically at odds with the promise of growth\, even to the point of suggesting the demise of the industrial world&rsquo\;s perennial infrastru cture. Today\, plans for infrastructural transformation\, adaptation and d isassembly are emerging in response to emergencies\, in terms of migration \, increased tourist flow and logistics. Regardless of whether they concer n the creation\, repair\, alteration or dismantling of different forms of infrastructure (mobility\, logistics\, energy\, ecology\, etc.)\, do these devices present common and reproducible features? What design methodologi es and forms of implementation are shared by architects\, urban planners\, landscape architects and actors from other disciplines? To what extent an d how do the &ldquo\;new&rdquo\; fundamental values attributed to infrastr ucture give rise to a renewal of the design devices of architects\, urban planners or landscape architects? Could forms of reversibility also be ima gined to adapt to crises? In this respect\, generalizations are to be expe cted. Based on specific case studies (contemporary infrastructure projects ) that present alternate design and representation devices in time of cris is\, contributions may also offer a new perspective on the history of imag ined risk\, as it relates to mobility infrastructure and the evolution of environmental issues.

3. Anticipating future inf rastructure

Today\, we must consider the role of imagi nary worlds in design\, as they integrate an awareness of extreme but very real phenomena\, already at work. The majority of these imagined infrastr uctural projects have contributed to shaping representations of possible f utures\, applying supposedly controllable solutions to common timeframes a nd parameters involved in movement control\, whatever they may be. Yet the y have often overlooked the risk and uncertainty inherent in physical move ments\, whether massive or irregular\, growing or shrinking\, lasting or t emporary. In this context\, exploring imagined worlds or alternative forms of representation actively propelling infrastructural design will enable us to identify emerging practices. Which imagined worlds are at work when thinking about territorial resilience? The proliferation of risk factors a nd accelerating changes in infrastructural use have transformed territorie s and natural environments. It is now clear that climate-related extremes cannot be managed solely through new defensive infrastructure. What new fo rms of infrastructure will result from these situations? How does such ant icipation come about? Who are the players involved\, and what are the devi ces and forms of representation? How do they participate in renewing conce ptual and possibly operational approaches to infrastructure in a more resi lient environment? Does consideration of the inherent risks and uncertaint ies associated with emergency or extreme situations\, whether real or imag ined\, create alternative forms of design and representation that envision a less anthropized world? Contributions should provide a critical reflect ion and analysis of projects that incorporate uncertainty factors as a mea ns of anticipating future infrastructure. Examples include renewable energ y (i.e.\, the use of waves and wind)\, infrastructure welcoming living org anisms (i.e.\, biodiversity zones\, restoration programs)\, and so on. Con tributions may also feature anticipatory narratives (utopias\, literature\ , fiction\, etc.) depicting future crises and uncertainties. To what exten t can anticipatory projects represent the future?

  \;

SubmissionDeadline

Pro posals for \;full articles  \;must be sent by email \;before February 25\, 2025 \;to the editorial secretariat of the \;Cahiers de la recherche architecturale\, urbaine et paysagè\;r e \; \;: \;craup.secretariat@gmail .com \;For more information\, contact Aude C lavel at 06 10 55 11 36

Articles must not exceed 40\,000 characters\, including spaces.
Accepted languages: French\, English.< /span>

Articles must be accompanied by:


END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR