Tag Archives: Ruins

Cargill’s Castle Trust : Let’s re-establish clifftop walking track to Tunnel Beach

Sun, 3 Apr 2016
ODT: Cliff top path plan tabled for talks
Cargill’s Castle Trust plans to re-establish a clifftop walking track between Cargill’s Castle and Tunnel Beach. Plans will be tabled for discussion at a meeting this week. Cargill’s Castle, built in 1877 on the St Clair clifftops, was originally occupied by prominent Dunedin business man and politician Edward Bowes Cargill and his family. They had a pathway laid from the castle to Tunnel Beach, which the trust is keen to restore. In December, the trust was awarded a $5000 grant by the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to assist with legal fees and survey costs for the proposed 2km clifftop route.

█ PUBLIC MEETING
Cargill’s Castle Trust chairman Steven de Graaf says local residents and the wider public are invited to hear about the plans and air any concerns at this week’s meeting: Wednesday 6 April, St Clair Golf Club at 7pm

█ CALL FOR MEMBERS
Cargill’s Castle Trust was established in 1997 to stabilise the ruin, develop the surrounds as a clifftop park, and provide walking access for the public. To keep its plans moving forward, the trust needs fresh energy, particularly for fundraising, and is looking for members to come on board.
Find out more, go to http://www.cargillscastle.co.nz/

Old news via DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25:

Wed, 20 May 2015
ODT: Track costs study
Dunedin City Council will investigate the implications of taking over maintenance of a coastal walkway linking Cargill’s Castle and nearby Tunnel Beach. Councillors voted for the investigation at yesterday’s long-term plan deliberations after Cargill’s Castle Trust chairman Steven De Graaf brought up the track at last week’s submission hearings.

[click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap - Tunnel Beach - Cargills Castle - St Clair, Dunedin JanFeb2013 (1)DCC Webmap - Cargills Castle, 111D Cliffs Road, Dunedin JanFeb2013DCC Webmaps JanFeb 2013 1. Tunnel Beach/ Cargill’s Castle (red star)/ St Clair 2. Cargill’s Castle, 111D Cliffs Road, Dunedin

Cargill’s Castle is one of the most significant historic structures in Dunedin and one of only two castles in New Zealand.

The mission of the Cargill’s Castle Trust is to retain the castle as part of the cultural, historic and recreational fabric of Dunedin, for the benefit of Dunedin and visitors, through:
• Conserving the castle structure as a significant Dunedin landmark. The Trust does not intend to rebuild the castle, simply to stabilise and retain the ruin.
• Development of Cargill’s Castle as a clifftop park and providing walking access for the public.
• To provide interpretation of the history and cultural significance of the castle, including the Cargill family and the castles noted architect, F W Petre.
• Inclusion of Cargill’s Castle in the proposed Blackhead to St Clair Track.

The castle has a fascinating history, find out more here.

█ Heritage New Zealand – List No. 3174 [History and Assessment]

Cargills_Castle_Original_Photo [cargillscastle.co.nz] 1vCargills_Castle_Original_Black_and_White [cargillscastle.co.nz] bw1Cargills_Castle_Recent_Photo___Front [cargillscastle.co.nz] bwImages: Cargill’s Castle Trust web gallery

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

11 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Fun, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning

Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore

infrastructure-development [openspaceconsult.com] tweakedby whatifdunedin 1

Academic Paper/Article via Academia.edu
December 24, 2015

Paradoxical Infrastructures: Ruin, Retrofit and Risk
Cymene Howe – Rice University, Anthropology, Faculty Member
Corresponding Author

Co-Authors: Cymene Howe, Jessica Lockrem, Hannah Appel, Edward Hackett, Dominic Boyer, Randal Hall, Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, Albert Pope, Akhil Gupta, Elizabeth Rodwell, Andrea Ballestero, Trevor Durbin, Farès el-Dahdah, Elizabeth Long, and Cyrus Mody

ABSTRACT
In recent years, a dramatic increase in the study of infrastructure has occurred in the social sciences and humanities, following upon foundational work in the physical sciences, architecture, planning, information science, and engineering. This article, authored by a multidisciplinary group of scholars, probes the generative potential of infrastructure at this historical juncture. Accounting for the conceptual and material capacities of infrastructure, the article argues for the importance of paradox in understanding infrastructure. Thematically the article is organized around three key points that speak to the study of infrastructure: ruin, retrofit, and risk. The first paradox of infrastructure, ruin, suggests that even as infrastructure is generative, it degenerates. A second paradox is found in retrofit, an apparent ontological oxymoron that attempts to bridge temporality from the present to the future and yet ultimately reveals that infrastructural solidity, in material and symbolic terms, is more apparent than actual. Finally, a third paradox of infrastructure, risk, demonstrates that while a key purpose of infrastructure is to mitigate risk, it also involves new risks as it comes to fruition. The article concludes with a series of suggestions and provocations to view the study of infrastructure in more contingent and paradoxical forms.

Introduction
Breakdowns and blackouts, pipeline politics, and new demands upon energy and resources have surfaced infrastructure in surprising ways, igniting conversation about social and material arrangements that are often left submerged, invisible, and assumed. In recent years, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the study of infrastructure in the social sciences and humanities, following upon foundational work in the physical sciences, architecture, planning, information science, and engineering. While the popular imagination might recognize infrastructure as the mundane mechanisms within, beneath, and supporting the maintenance of quotidian life, many scholars have foregrounded the agency, performativity, and dynamism of infrastructure.

Infrastructure is not inert but rather infused with social meanings and reflective of larger priorities and attentions. To further engage these novel lines of inquiry, a group of scholars gathered at Rice University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Research in the Human Sciences for an extended roundtable discussion. We came from a variety of academic institutions and positions in the academy (ranging from senior scholars to PhD candidates), and our group reflected a diverse range of disciplinary backgrounds (American studies, anthropology, architecture, history, science and technology studies, and sociology). Our objective was to break down some of the scaffolding that upholds disciplinary boundaries. To embrace a starkly infrastructural metaphor, we were interested in “bridgework”, not just to move from point A to point B, but to hold us in suspension for a time so that we might inspect the mechanisms that drive our intellectual work and scholarship.

Infrastructure, which epitomizes the conjunction of material forms, expertise, social priorities, cultural expectations, aesthetics, and economic investments, seemed to us to be the ideal rubric through which to enrich our thinking, as well as a social object that necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. A collaborative conversation would help us to disentangle theories, concepts, and methods from their usual paradigms, permitting them to “recombine” in novel ways (Hackett and Parker 2014, 12). Our conversation was animated, in part, by other “turns” in the humanities and social sciences, including new materialisms, posthumanisms, and ontological approaches. Walking through the dynamic scholarship on infrastructure that is being published in the human sciences, we were struck with the definitional capacity of the term itself. Infrastructure is material (roads, pipes, sewers, and grids); it is social (institutions, economic systems, and media forms); and it is philosophical (intellectual trajectories: dreamt up by human ingenuity and nailed down in concrete forms).

Infrastructure has a capaciousness and scope that makes it both an infinitely useful concept and a concept that is open to facile misinterpretation or to being encumbered by overuse.

Our purpose was not to produce yet another definition of infrastructure (although at the end of this essay we do offer a few potential classifications). Instead we gave our attention to questions such as “What is generative about thinking with and through infrastructures at this historical juncture?” And “How can the multiple and diverse understandings of infrastructure across the human sciences mutually inform and enhance one another?” Simply put, we wanted to unravel “why now?” and “where do we go from here?” Our hope was to work toward “explication” (Latour 1993; Sloterdijk 2009), knowing that infrastructure has moved from the background to the foreground, while remaining intent on questioning why that is so. This collective essay gathers the themes and insights that echoed throughour conversation. These issues were resonant points of return because they revealed the relational and ambiguous elements of infrastructure to produce contradictions and unevenly felt consequences in the lives and places they contact. We have codified these apparent paradoxes, broadly, into topical domains of ruins, retrofit, and risk.

To read this article and other academic papers subscribe to Academia.edu (Weekly Digest).

drawing [floodofideas.org.au][floodofideas.org.au]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image (top): openspaceconsult.com – infrastructure development [tweaked by whatifdunedin]

23 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, Innovation, Inspiration, Leading edge, Media, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium