The London National Park City: More-than-human Urban Landscapes and Political Ecologies of the Anthropocene

首先，我希望解开景观，基础设施和美学之间的纠缠关系-本身支撑城市化的共同构成-这是伦敦国家公园的概念核心，更广泛的NPCF项目。理查德·A。步行者（2019;另见迈尔斯，2019年），这涉及到阐明自然和科学生态学在人类世的“都市自然景观”和城市空间的建筑中的方式。我会问，城市自然是如何被纳入人类世后启示录框架的构建中的（见人类世前/近/后启示录想象，2019）？伦敦国家公园项目的目标是如何将历史上所处的自然综合到不确定的城市和行星未来的物质符号学框架中（反之亦然）？这个AnthropoScene是否与技术现代主义者和“地理建构主义者”--智能、绿色、生态、安全--或前卫的设计要求相结合？如果是这样，景观（非）设计在人类世的城市空间结构和相关审美情感方面发挥着什么作用（Picon，2018; Vidler，2000）？在提出这些问题时，我的目的是通过将伦敦国家公园置于生态和环保运动和空间的历史地理重叠中，来质疑现代主义城市化的目的论展开--以及人类世的时间断裂。其次，该项目分析了伦敦国家公园项目在资本主义城市化和治理的社会技术环境中的运作程度（Heynen，2018）。为了做到这一点，它将新马克思主义对“城市新陈代谢”的解释与对治理作为免疫生物政治驱动的本体论阐述的理解进行了对话（Esposito，2016; 2011 [2002]; Sywngedouw和Ernstson，2018）。从理论上讲，我希望将米歇尔·德·兰达（Michel De Landa，1997）、凯瑟琳·尤索夫（Katheryn Yusoff，2018）和伊丽莎白·A·Povinelli（2016），以阐明伦敦国家公园在多大程度上只呈现可见和可表达的某些分层形式的自然和自然性（德勒兹和瓜塔里，1988 [1980]）。城市生态复杂性如何在地缘政治上被捕获，浓缩和巩固为可表达的话语实践和空间（Yusoff，2018）？这必然涉及质疑该项目是否参与了不均衡城市性质的持续生产和再生产。在科学陈述或政策陈述和实施的过程中，哪些代谢过程和超越人类的关系被混淆了（Lachmund，2019）？阶级、种族、性别和性取向如何与该项目提供的可操作空间相交（Gandy，2012; Heynen，2015）？运输网络的间隙空间，水文等级，不可接近的壁架，屋顶或其他“ruderal”边缘是否被纳入（Stoetzer，2018）？或者，该项目是否延续了一种制度上的异性恋规范，结构上的种族主义，“军事化的生物多样性实践”（Gandy，2018; Sandilands，2016：169）？这些问题最终阐明了情感的分布，这些情感使人类世中的超人类空间政治变得可行，或者受到限制（Rancière，2009）.最后，最后，我期待适应后现象学的方法，具体的城市空间，为了“与同居的紧张”和照亮的机构形式，物质性，或想象力共存，繁荣或存在于与资本主义城市化潜在的功能主义必要性的紧张关系中。

Firstly, I look to untangle the entwined relation between landscape, infrastructure and aesthetics - itself underpinning the co-constitution of urbanization - that lies at the conceptual core of the London National Park, and wider NPCF project. Following Richard A. Walker (2019; see also Myers, 2019), this involves elucidating the ways in which nature, and scientific ecology, are enrolled within the construction of the "metro-natural landscape" and imaginaries of urban space in the Anthropocene. I will ask how urban nature is enrolled within, and towards, the construction of post-apocalyptic framings of the Anthropocene (see Pre-/Peri-/Post-Apocalyptic Imaginaries in the Anthropocene, 2019)? How does the London National Park project aim to synthesize historically situated nature(s) towards the material-semiotic enframing of uncertain urban, and planetary, futures (and visa versa)? Does this AnthropoScene engage with techno-modernist and 'geo-constructivist' - smart, green, eco, securitised - or avantgarde design imperatives? If so, what role does landscape (non-)design play in informing the fabric of urban space and related aesthetic sensibility in the Anthropocene (Picon, 2018; Vidler, 2000)? In posing these questions, I aim to problematize the teleological unfolding of modernist urbanization - and the perceived temporal rupture of the Anthropocene - by situating the London National Park within a historio-geographical palimpsest of ecological and environmentalist movements and spaces. Secondly, this project analyses the extent to which the London National Park project is operationalized within the socio-technical edifice of capitalist urbanisation and governmentality (Heynen, 2018). To do so, it places a neo-Marxist interpretation of 'urban metabolism' into conversation with an understanding of governmentality as an ontological elaboration of the immunological biopolitical drive (Esposito, 2016; 2011 [2002]; Sywngedouw and Ernstson, 2018). Theoretically, I look to incorporate the post-structurally influenced work of Michel De Landa (1997), Katheryn Yusoff (2018) and Elizabeth A. Povinelli (2016) in order to illuminate the extent to which the London National Park looks to render visible and articulable only certain stratified forms of nature and landscapicity (Deleuze and Guattari, 1988 [1980]). How is urban ecological complexity geoontopolitically captured, condensed and consolidated into articulable discursive practices and spaces (Yusoff, 2018)? This, by necessity, involves questioning whether the project participates in the ongoing production and reproduction of uneven urban natures. In the process of scientific representation or policy presentation and implementation, what metabolic processes and more-than-human relationalities are obfuscated (Lachmund, 2019)? How do class, race, gender and sexuality intersect with spaces rendered actionable by the project (Gandy, 2012; Heynen, 2015)? Are the interstitial spaces of transport networks, hydrological gradations, inaccessible ledges, rooftops, or other 'ruderal' marginalia incorporated (Stoetzer, 2018)? Or, does the project perpetuate an institutionally heteronormative, and structurally racist, "militarized bio-diversity practice" (Gandy, 2018; Sandilands, 2016: 169)? These questions ultimately illuminate the distribution of sensibility that render more-than-human, spatial politics in the Anthropocene actionable, or otherwise restricted (Rancière, 2009).Finally, Finally, I look to adapt a post-phenomenological methodology, of specific urban spaces, in order to "stay with the tension of cohabitation" and illuminate the forms of agency, materiality, or imagination that co-exist, flourish or exist in tension with the potentially functionalist imperative of capitalist urbanization.