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——这本身就是城市化的基础——这是伦敦国家公园和更广泛的NPCF项目的概念核心。继Richard A. Walker（2019；另见Myers， 2019）之后，这涉及阐明自然和科学生态学如何被纳入“都市自然景观”的建设和人类世城市空间的想象。我将问，城市自然是如何被纳入并走向后世界末日人类世框架的构建的（参见《人类世的前/中/后世界末日想象》，2019）？伦敦国家公园项目的目标是如何将历史上的自然环境与不确定的城市和行星未来的物质符号学框架结合起来（反之亦然）？这个AnthropoScene是否涉及技术现代主义和“地理建构主义”——智能、绿色、生态、证券化——或前卫的设计要求？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感性方面发挥了什么作用（Picon, 2018; Vidler, 2000）？在提出这些问题时，我的目标是通过将伦敦国家公园置于生态和环境保护运动和空间的历史-地理重写中，对现代主义城市化的目的论展开以及人类世的感知时间断裂提出问题。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大厦中运作的程度（Heynen, 2018）。为此，它将新马克思主义对“城市新陈代谢”的解释与将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]； sywengedow和Ernstson， 2018）。从理论上讲，我希望结合Michel De Landa（1997）、Katheryn Yusoff（2018）和Elizabeth A. Povinelli（2016）的后结构影响作品，以阐明伦敦国家公园在何种程度上只呈现出某些自然和景观的分层形式（Deleuze和Guattari， 1988[1980]）。城市生态复杂性如何从地理政治学角度被捕捉、浓缩并整合到可表达的话语实践和空间中（Yusoff, 2018）？这必然涉及到质疑项目是否参与了不平衡的城市自然的持续生产和再生产。在科学表征或政策呈现和实施的过程中，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项目所呈现的可操作空间相交（Gandy, 2012; Heynen, 2015）？运输网络的间隙空间、水文层次、难以接近的壁架、屋顶或其他“原始”边缘是否包含在内（Stoetzer, 2018）？或者，该项目是否延续了一种制度上的异质规范和结构上的种族主义，“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人类世中超越人类的空间政治的可操作性或限制性的敏感性分布（ranci<e:1>, 2009）。最后，我希望适应特定城市空间的后现象学方法，以便“保持同居的张力”，并阐明代理，物质性或想象力的形式，这些形式与资本主义城市化的潜在功能主义必要性共存，繁荣或存在。

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.