2.2 FROM ENGINEERING “HUMAN” TERRIT

2.2 FROM ENGINEERING “HUMAN” TERRITORY TO ENCODING “NATURAL” SURFACES
Similar to today’s turn toward infrastructure, previous regimes relating infrastructure, space, and society (e.g., railways, waterways, sewers) respond to a transformation of the socioeconomic and political context and associated ideas about modernization. Especially, the first half of the 19th century corresponds, in abstracto, to current design context as it was characterized by a combination of, on the one hand, a disciplinary crisis due to the mismatch between permanent architectural form and a rapidly changing reality and, on the other, the anticipation of an imminent environmental crisis. Authors such as Antoine Picon and Michel Foucault have explained that, traditionally, architecture and urbanism were the disciplines that offered spatial solutions for social problems, but from the 19th century onward, with the introduction of new technologies and the emergence of epidemics and revolutions spreading over large territories, the major problems of society were of a different type, and spatial intervention was entrusted to engineers by means of infrastructure (Foucault 1984; Picon 1992). Especially in France but also Belgium (e.g., De Block 2011, 2013) and many other nations, engineering had “an enduring connection” with social preoccupations (Picon 2007, 198). In contrast to the commonly held view that the engineering of infrastructure “was historically conceived in isolation, independent of the overall urban vision” (Hung 2013, 16), only determined by objective parameters such as safety, feasibility, and efficiency, Antoine Picon highlights that French engineers were even “somewhat messianic in their approach of technology as well as in their ambition to use it to service society” (Picon 2007, 202–203). The corps of the Ponts et Chaussées and the Polytechniciens were trained to develop overall planning policies that established a medium or milieu—that is, a multivalent framework in which a series of uncertain elements could unfold (Foucault and Senellart 2007, 20). Dynamic infrastructure frameworks had to instigate an implicit territorial transformation in order to generate a specific societal modernization.
Space was no longer conceived according to a static perception that would ensure the perfect solution hic et nunc or, in the words of Leonardo Benevolo, designing entailed no longer “to apply the plausible approximation of an absolutely invariable image to a very slow-moving reality” (Benevolo 1975, 12). The exponentially growing metropolis with problems of social segregation, high crime rates, and the constant threat of cholera outbreaks jeopardized “human ecology,” an immediate concern that urgently demanded a completely new design method. In addition to these dire consequences of the Industrial Revolution, political revolutions had destroyed the urban design tradition, planning detailed monumental complexes and aesthetically refined landscape assemblages for the elites. Only the combination of

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 1:

2.2 จากวิศวกรรมดินแดน "คน" บนพื้นผิวธรรมชาติ"การเข้ารหัสSimilar to today’s turn toward infrastructure, previous regimes relating infrastructure, space, and society (e.g., railways, waterways, sewers) respond to a transformation of the socioeconomic and political context and associated ideas about modernization. Especially, the first half of the 19th century corresponds, in abstracto, to current design context as it was characterized by a combination of, on the one hand, a disciplinary crisis due to the mismatch between permanent architectural form and a rapidly changing reality and, on the other, the anticipation of an imminent environmental crisis. Authors such as Antoine Picon and Michel Foucault have explained that, traditionally, architecture and urbanism were the disciplines that offered spatial solutions for social problems, but from the 19th century onward, with the introduction of new technologies and the emergence of epidemics and revolutions spreading over large territories, the major problems of society were of a different type, and spatial intervention was entrusted to engineers by means of infrastructure (Foucault 1984; Picon 1992). Especially in France but also Belgium (e.g., De Block 2011, 2013) and many other nations, engineering had “an enduring connection” with social preoccupations (Picon 2007, 198). In contrast to the commonly held view that the engineering of infrastructure “was historically conceived in isolation, independent of the overall urban vision” (Hung 2013, 16), only determined by objective parameters such as safety, feasibility, and efficiency, Antoine Picon highlights that French engineers were even “somewhat messianic in their approach of technology as well as in their ambition to use it to service society” (Picon 2007, 202–203). The corps of the Ponts et Chaussées and the Polytechniciens were trained to develop overall planning policies that established a medium or milieu—that is, a multivalent framework in which a series of uncertain elements could unfold (Foucault and Senellart 2007, 20). Dynamic infrastructure frameworks had to instigate an implicit territorial transformation in order to generate a specific societal modernization.พื้นที่ไม่เริ่มดำเนินการตามการรับรู้คงที่มั่นชไอโซลูชั่นสมบูรณ์ et nunc หรือ ในคำของลีโอนาร์โด Benevolo ออกแบบเกี่ยวไม่ "ไปประมาณเป็นไปได้ของรูปภาพที่ปรากฏอย่างเป็นจริงมากเคลื่อนไหวช้า" (Benevolo 1975, 12) มหานครเติบโตชี้แจงกับปัญหาของการแบ่งแยกทางสังคม อาชญากรรมสูง และภัยคุกคามอย่างต่อเนื่องของอหิวาตกโรคระบาดอันตราย "นิเวศวิทยามนุษย์ ความกังวลทันทีว่าอย่างเร่งด่วนที่ต้องการวิธีการออกแบบใหม่อย่างสมบูรณ์ นอกจากนี้ผลที่เลวร้ายของการปฏิวัติอุตสาหกรรม การปฏิวัติทางการเมืองได้ทำลายประเพณีสถาปัตยกรรมออกแบบ วางแผนรายละเอียดอนุสาวรีย์คอมเพล็กซ์ และ aesthetically ปรับภูมิทัศน์ assemblages สำหรับชั้นนำ ส่วนผสมของ