Comments on: Anatomy of an Infrastructure http://serendipityoucity.blogsome.com/2006/09/08/anatomy-of-an-infrastructure/ a gift to you and me accidently on purpose somewhere but mostly in the city Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:21:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Administrator http://serendipityoucity.blogsome.com/2006/09/08/anatomy-of-an-infrastructure/#comment-97 Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:44:31 +0100 http://serendipityoucity.blogsome.com/2006/09/08/anatomy-of-an-infrastructure/#comment-97 I like the point about usage, very nice! I also think users are important - because very public infrastructures have much usage and a broad base of users, while exclusively private infrastructures have litte usage and few users, one is often better maintained than the other and one is for the public good while one is for members only! I worry more and more about exclusivity and infrastructures, and the opportunity cost associated with these. For example some free ports have exquisite infrastructures but only for few users and normally paid for by some form of exploitation or other. Or in the case of singapore, the infrastructure is superb while democratic principles are sacrificed and some citizens feel the place is missing some soul. Users matters i think, usage matters and the intended use matters. re-public good & civic, most large hard infrastructures get funding as they are argued as being for the public good. And most are managed by civic institutions such as municipal govs. however it is the GDIs and communication infrastructures that seem to lack these principles in their definitions. Today, an sculptor who does not use any technology beyond hand tools when he works with his stones, and does not much use the internet, got registered on OGWifi, and when someone asked him what we were about he replied - they are democratizing infrastructures! you gotta luv that! Geomatics people rarely use the word layers that way cuz it refers to map layers in a gis system, which lacks some interconnectivity of the material and it seems static. Layers does work though. But none seem quite right yet! This is getting really fun! I like the point about usage, very nice! I also think users are important - because very public infrastructures have much usage and a broad base of users, while exclusively private infrastructures have litte usage and few users, one is often better maintained than the other and one is for the public good while one is for members only! I worry more and more about exclusivity and infrastructures, and the opportunity cost associated with these. For example some free ports have exquisite infrastructures but only for few users and normally paid for by some form of exploitation or other. Or in the case of singapore, the infrastructure is superb while democratic principles are sacrificed and some citizens feel the place is missing some soul. Users matters i think, usage matters and the intended use matters.

re-public good & civic, most large hard infrastructures get funding as they are argued as being for the public good. And most are managed by civic institutions such as municipal govs. however it is the GDIs and communication infrastructures that seem to lack these principles in their definitions.

Today, an sculptor who does not use any technology beyond hand tools when he works with his stones, and does not much use the internet, got registered on OGWifi, and when someone asked him what we were about he replied - they are democratizing infrastructures! you gotta luv that!

Geomatics people rarely use the word layers that way cuz it refers to map layers in a gis system, which lacks some interconnectivity of the material and it seems static. Layers does work though. But none seem quite right yet!

This is getting really fun!

]]> by: mtl3p http://serendipityoucity.blogsome.com/2006/09/08/anatomy-of-an-infrastructure/#comment-96 Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:20:27 +0100 http://serendipityoucity.blogsome.com/2006/09/08/anatomy-of-an-infrastructure/#comment-96 wow. . . nice one! a few small points: 1)"As these are complex socio technical artifacts, the definition has to be fluid since infrastructure-s-ness are/is dynamically changing?" I'm not sure that the definition has to be dynamic. and I'm not sure if "infrastructureness" actually changes over time. I think infrastructureness refers to a large artefact that is crucial to the continued functioning of our society. I think it always is a large system with different elements, but I don't think that is part of the definition. I think that is part of the analysis / explanation. And I don't think users are important. I think usage is important. Because it's all about dependency. Dependency . . . infrastructure is a large artefact (ual system?) that a society depends on for its continued functioning. And functioning doesnt mean survival. it means continuation of the status quo. 2) I also think you should have shared that idea of a road network with your readers. The idea of a road network slowing becoming infrastructure really elucidates something not being infrastructure one day, and somehow becoming infrastructure at some other time through a gradual process. 3) "None of those definitions include the words civic or public good." Nice that you brought that up. Its funny to see different parts of our conversation slowly make their way, piece by piece, into the public light. Thats the whole (and only) reason that I became interested in this stuff 1 1/2 years ago. Because if we conceive of something as infrastructure, than we (a society) can more easily think through the public interest effects of it. I'm trying to find ways to argue that many things we currently don't consider infrastructure *are* actually infrastructure. 4) When I brought up the idea of infrastructure having layers I was thinking about the tcpip stack. Just for posterity. I understand your criticism of the use of the term layers because one layer doesn't necessarily have primacy over another. I think something better than elements will come up. Components? Something that implies the combination of all of these things making up the totality. nice post. wow. . . nice one! a few small points:

1)”As these are complex socio technical artifacts, the definition has to be fluid since infrastructure-s-ness are/is dynamically changing?”

I’m not sure that the definition has to be dynamic. and I’m not sure if “infrastructureness” actually changes over time. I think infrastructureness refers to a large artefact that is crucial to the continued functioning of our society. I think it always is a large system with different elements, but I don’t think that is part of the definition. I think that is part of the analysis / explanation.

And I don’t think users are important. I think usage is important. Because it’s all about dependency. Dependency . . . infrastructure is a large artefact (ual system?) that a society depends on for its continued functioning. And functioning doesnt mean survival. it means continuation of the status quo.

2) I also think you should have shared that idea of a road network with your readers. The idea of a road network slowing becoming infrastructure really elucidates something not being infrastructure one day, and somehow becoming infrastructure at some other time through a gradual process.

3) “None of those definitions include the words civic or public good.” Nice that you brought that up. Its funny to see different parts of our conversation slowly make their way, piece by piece, into the public light.
Thats the whole (and only) reason that I became interested in this stuff 1 1/2 years ago. Because if we conceive of something as infrastructure, than we (a society) can more easily think through the public interest effects of it. I’m trying to find ways to argue that many things we currently don’t consider infrastructure are actually infrastructure.

4) When I brought up the idea of infrastructure having layers I was thinking about the tcpip stack. Just for posterity. I understand your criticism of the use of the term layers because one layer doesn’t necessarily have primacy over another. I think something better than elements will come up. Components? Something that implies the combination of all of these things making up the totality.

nice post.

]]>