Forum 2016 - Infrastructure Space - Detroit (Ruby Press)

31 30 The Metropolitan Relational Matrix Jesse LeCavalier and Jason Young The more immediately apparent infrastructures of roads, bridges, and conduits tend to carry with them perceptions of permanence and weight. More nimble forms are entangled with these sunken infrastructures, which are political as much as they are digital and physical. Through these intersections, infrastructure—perhaps imagined as a precondition for development—becomes a far more involved agent in urban transformation. Rather than mere technical provision or a stable background, infrastructure produces its own space characterized by intersecting and overlapping adjacent systems. This “infrastructure space” includes obscured configurations of things like communication networks, regulatory structures, and exchange protocols that shape the forms, exper- ience, and knowledge of the urban, often in habitual and less evident ways. These hidden conditions provoke new mobilities and also afford opportunities for new collectivities and economies to emerge. In the same sense, to speak of cities as finite, hard entities is to risk estranging the nimble, networked, political, and digital aspects of infrastructure from conceptions of urbanism. It may be more inclusive to think through the metropolitan as a relational matrix that exceeds the stubborn, heavy, and stable identities that frequently define inquiries into cities. In this context, the metropolitan might be defined by, and thus understood through, the formations found at the intersection of the city’s hard permanence and its soft latencies. Infrastructure space exists between other spaces, providing switches and couplings that link diverse systems. These links between scales and systems are inclusive by nature but, conversely, are also defined by how and what they exclude. Infrastructure space often lacks visibility, as it remains in the background while supporting one’s experience of urbanism. Certain events, however, can pressurize infrastructure space and suddenly render it visible, thus making its effects palpable through direct experience. These moments of radical visibility underscore the constant conditioning infrastructure space provides. In this sense, infrastructure is less about providing the necessary services for a society to function, and more about the process of naturalizing decisions about resource provision. In most cases, interventions at the scale of infrastructure can be mobilized because of a perceived urgency. But the speed with which these transformations are enacted is dramatically exceeded by the efforts that would be necessary to undo them. Thus, infrastructure is commonly thought of as the most permanent and enduring of our civic investments. Yet, despite the prevailing sense that infrastructure is a long-lasting commitment, the temporal dimension of infrastructure space, like the politics of its visibility, is inherently contested. If conventional conceptions of “infrastructure” invoke permanence and durability through time, infrastructure space asks us to reconsider why we would invest in permanent solutions for situations that will likely prove to be only temporary problems. The stable sense of time and its innate linearity is unsettled by the latency and expectation brought on by a culture of speed and acceleration. Infrastructure space harbors dormancies that can be called to use temporarily, animated and enlivened for short durations, but nonetheless persistent within the network of linkages