One thing that I would like to explore over the course of the semester is both how politics drive the types of infrastructure within a city and the reverse. One of the topics Hayden touched on with collective mapping was how different groups understand their cities as governed by their abilities to move around them. Her example was Los Angeles where public transportation is a huge problem.[1] I feel like the political causes of public transportation are generally more examined than their consequences.

My hometown Nashville is experiencing something of a boom right now and is struggling with the expansion. One area of particular conflict is around public transport, and I wonder what the effects will be on the city if we do and do not invest in the expensive and elaborate infrastructure that seems more necessary each year. I would be very interested to look at the different possible directions the city could go.

Walking around Portland today raised even more questions about the accessibility of services. It is something that I have never considered before. The idea that the major departments would be inaccessible to the people who need them seems obvious now, but the needs of people who have no other means are difficult to accommodate. As we talked about the soup kitchen, bad neighborhoods are often intentionally chosen. Being both the cause of people living in one area and then depriving them the ability to reach the services seems unethical, but they tend to be completely unorganized, socially and politically. Infrastructure and especially transportation infrastructure seems like one of the places where the people who use a service most are also those who have the least control over it.

[1]Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History 27.