Landscape as Territory: A Cartographic Design Project by Actar Publishers

CLARA OLÓRIZ SANJUÁN

CONTENTS

Introduction

TERRITORY

1 Territory: Political technology, volume, terrain

2 Odyssean terrains

3 Arenado re-territorialisation

Stuart Elden

Anastasia Kotenko, Niki Kakali, Clara Olóriz

Rimjhim Chauhan, Majedeh Sayyedi, Tao Sun, Clara Olóriz

The ‘volu-metrics’ of gold extraction

Hao-Wen Lin, Shreya Save, Clara Olóriz

CARTOGRAPHY

5 Is the earth curved or flat?

6 Curving projections: An expanded meaning of desertification

7 Making maps: Cartography, territory, modernity

Mark Duffield

Howe Chan, Chris Lo, Elena Longhin, Clara Olóriz

Martí Peran

8 Nomadic agriculture for dislocation

102

9 Mapping the ocean

114

10 Dislodging land-ocean binaries: The politics of littoral sediments

122

Dimitra Bra, Lida Driva, Silvia Ribot, Clara Olóriz

Liam Mouritz

Ting Fu Chang, Xiabin Hu, Liam Mouritz, Clara Olóriz

AGENCY

144

11 Going to ground: Agency, design and the problem of Bruno Latour

150

12 Letting the coast speak?

158

13 Agencies ‘outside territory’

174

14 Sharing agencies?

186

205

Douglas Spencer

Valeria García, Yunya Tang, Clara Olóriz

Nataly Nemkova, Penny Fyta, Clara Olóriz

Raúl Bielsa, Camila Ocejo, Clara Olóriz

Conclusions Bibliography and credits

209

INTRODUCTION

Landscape as territory addresses the question of how we might think and design landscapes from the perspective of territory. In the process, it draws upon and interweaves theoretical contributions from geography, architecture, landscape, art, history and critical theory, together with reflections on selected cartographic projects produced within the Landscape Urbanism master’s programme at the Architectural Association (AALU) from 2013 to 2018. The cartographic images presented here are not employed as illustrations of theory, but as deviations from or navigations of certain concepts and their historical iterations. Landscape as territory is structured so as to explore the resonances and reverberations between practice and theory. It aims, through this, towards a form of design praxis1 of landscape. More than two decades have passed since the coining of the term ‘Landscape Urbanism’ and the foundation of AALU. Over this time academic trends and the AA programme alike have taken different turns: Landscape as urbanism; Ecological urbanism; or, as in the case of the AA, ‘Territorial Praxis.’ In its inception in the US, Landscape Urbanism was born as a reaction to the perceived fixity and prescriptive regularity of modernist master planning, a model of urbanisation claimed to be outmoded in the conditions of the post-industrial city, and incapable of effecting its now necessary dissolution into the landscape (Shane, 2003). As an alternative, landscape was presented as a medium through which to address the phenomena of urban shrinking given the qualities of open-endedness, indeterminacy, emergence, ecology, the bottom-up (Shane, 2003, pp. 3, 7), responsiveness, flexibility (Waldheim, 2016, p. 5), incompleteness and expansive temporality (Mostafavi & Najle, 2000, p. 44), which these figures attributed to it. Aerial photography, axonometric diagrams, computer modelling, Geographic Information Systems and satellite photography (Shane, 2003, p. 4) were mobilised within an emerging and putatively performative urbanism. Even at its inception, Landscape Urbanism was not without its critics. In Graham Shane’s view, for instance, while Stalking Detroit (2001) offered a valuable answer to ‘New Urbanist’ or ‘generic’ approaches, as well as to the ‘urbanist megaforms’ proposed by Koolhaas, it suffered from shortcomings of its own: 1 Praxis, as famously defined by Marx in the 11th thesis of his critique of Feuerbach, and as later developed by Georg Lukács, in his History and class consciousness, was ‘concerned with the interrelationship of theory and practice, of thought to material existence, as a radical project through which their mutual transformation will follow’ (Spencer, 2012, p. 15).

INTRODUCTION

‘The problem is that the small scale, bottom-up, and eco-friendly moves advocated by Stalking Detroit do not address fundamental issues of social justice and equity that are also part of the foundations of a true urbanity. Other cities have not fallen prey to Henry Ford’s myopia, racism, and anti-urbanism’ (Shane, 2003, p. 7).

Thirteen years after Shane’s ‘The emergence of Landscape Urbanism,’ Waldheim has grounded this ‘disciplinary realignment’ within a general theory of Landscape as urbanism (2016), in which he traces a longer history, moving from Detroit’s void and interstitial strategies to the claim of ‘landscape as model and medium for the contemporary city.’ In the period in-between, the ambiguity of the term ‘landscape,’ and the various contexts in which the disciplinary shift has been put to the test, have resulted in a heterogeneous collection of agendas, such as the post-urban or the critical-regionalist (Spencer, 2012, p. 15). Each of these strands have distinguished themselves by their approach towards landscape: Landscape as urbanism, in which ‘landscape architecture has the potential to supplant architecture’ (Waldheim, 2016, pp. 13, 21); Ecological urbanism (Mostafavi & Doherty, 2016), where an ecological approach, freed from ‘the inscrutable category of landscape’ (Waldheim, 2016, p. 11), is presented as a remedy and organising principle for cities; Landscape as infrastructure, where the former is read as ‘a sophisticated, instrumental system of essential resources, services, and agents that generate and support urban economies’ (Belanger, 2009, p. 79); or landscape as a ‘“machinic” model largely drawn from the thought of Deleuze and Guattari [...] as a synthetic organisational medium’ (Spencer, 2012, p. 30). AALU has distanced itself from the claims of landscape as a replacement for other models or disciplines (Castro, et al., 2012, p. 6). In 2000, Mohsen Mostafavi, together with Ciro Najle, founders of AALU, inverted the order of the terms so as to pose the question ‘Urbanism as Landscape?’ in which they argued for ‘a dialectical relationship between urbanism and landscape’ (2000, p. 44) and for ‘the simultaneous presence of the one with the other, buildings as landscapes, landscapes as buildings’ (Mostafavi, 2003, p. 7). In Critical territories (2012), the latest book by AALU, Douglas Spencer argues for a ‘transdisciplinary praxis’ rather than a ‘disciplinary realignment’ of landscape.2 Waldheim argues that in its inception, many landscape urbanist practices used landscape as a ‘cultural category’ to address ‘design culture’ in the postmodernist city, which had been opted out by planners and urban designers ‘in favor of the social sciences’ (2016, p. 19). This position has been largely supported by AALU, however, the crucial difference here lies in the acknowledgement of critical agency, in alignment with Shane’s perspective, as an alternative to ‘bottom-up, and eco-friendly moves’ or ‘flexibility’ and ‘sustainability.’ In the introduction to Critical territories, AALU opposed associations with ‘weak urbanism’ as a ‘call for absolute flexibility, mobility and adaptability in urban design’ and its use in servicing ‘the imperatives of neoliberal urban entrepreneurialism’ (Castro, et al., 2012, pp. 7-8). 2 ‘If Landscape Urbanism is to engage with the metropolis in these terms, and also the territories through which it is networked, then landscape alone cannot, for the reasons given here, function as its sole or even primary medium, but as only one amongst a number of disciplinary practices on which it might draw. [...] Engaging with the territories to which AALU has addressed itself in recent years, however, requires not a “disciplinary realignment” in which landscape replaces architecture but a transdisciplinary praxis in which both can be mobilised alongside and in concert with other fields of knowledge and practice’ (Spencer, 2012, p. 26).

INTRODUCTION

Thinking about landscape within a territorial frame and taking into account its legacy in gardening and painting builds an awareness of the production of images as an interface between nature and society. These images, be it as a consciously designed aesthetic apparatus or as a consequential condition, veil, validate or legitimate particular experiences of the world, ‘meaningful to certain social groups’ (Cosgrove, 1998, p. 14). In a design field with a visual bias, we work, almost inevitably and even ‘of necessity,’21 on images productive of the visions to be experienced and/or imposed. The architectural imaginary is notoriously disposed to producing both visions of excess and visions of disaster. At the same time, our proposals mobilise material and labour off-site, through various political technologies embedded in territorial practices – known or unknown practices. The essays and project reflections in this book delve into the ways in which we approach this condition, both de-coding and designing within these landscapes, departing from ‘apolitical,’ fetishised or objectified images of nature. Here the architectural imaginary includes exposing the potential disasters awaiting the embrace of landscape as hyper-commodity in a chain of claims that extend over the horizon and into and out of the dark alleyways of finance capitalism. They explore ways in which we draw on the ideological and symbolic meanings in the objectification or extreme detachment of the subject from the current notions of landscape. Rather than ditching the deceptive and impenetrable category of landscape, here instead, by looking at it from the perspective of territory, we ‘raise the stakes’ of landscape, as Spencer (Chapter 11) suggests.

21 ‘The practice of planning interventions, when becoming concretely geographical or ecological, is of necessity a violent act of foreclosure of the democratic political (at least temporarily), of taking one option rather than another, of producing one sort of environment, of assembling certain socio-natural relations, of foregrounding some natures rather than others, of hegemonizing a particular metonymic chain rather than another [...]’ And: ‘The legitimation of such options cannot be based on corralling Nature or Sustainability into legitimizing service’ (Swyngedouw, 2012, p. 40).

TERRITORY

Selected cartographies from three AALU project theses build, in this section, a critical design perspective from which to address questions raised by Elden. What are the implications of designing within or outside of territorial practices? If designers operate through the bundle of political technologies with which Elden defines territory, how does the acknowledgement of this affect our practice? How do we re-appropriate a notion of territory produced from within geography and political theory for the fields of landscape and architecture and their aesthetic apparatuses? This section sets out from Elden’s dynamic notion of terrain, to move on then to its volumetric implications. In the project Aeolian sand odyssey, the atlas shows a grasping of Europe where the geophysical and the geopolitical meet in the suspended sand particles that form dune landscapes, and the conflicts these set in play with human activities. In the site of this thesis, the sandy Curonian Spit, various notions of time overlap and intersect geographically and historically. What are the agencies at stake in the conflicts of the geophysical and the geopolitical here? Which forms of control does the one exert over the other? Cartographic means develop a geostrategic proposal for the spit to tackle the existing conflicts, considering the material, cultural and political processes at stake and their intricate time frames. Interrogating the political technologies mobilised by designers, such as cartographies and digital sand dune simulations and scenarios, this chapter will reflect on their agency within territorial praxis – introducing some of the questions in the third section. Continuing with the dynamics of sand, the second project, Reclaiming agrarian sandscapes, relates the vertical and dynamic conditions of terrain by cutting time through the vertical dimension of space in a geological section weaving cultural and aeolian aspects to the material layering of time. Proposed interventions on Lanzarote, in the north-east Canary Islands, reveal the implications of the terrain’s geopolitics. Consequential thinking expands the questions related to time and agency in the previous project. Here, however, it is not so much about a conflict between sand and human activities, or the placing of obstacles to protect against sand, but about how sand can be used as a form of agricultural irrigation. Seen through the lens of territory, this project explores two key questions: What is the relationship between territory

TERRITORY

and landscape? In which ways is territory connected to the production of landscapes visions or vice versa? Finally, landscapes of gold extraction in Romania are paradigmatic of a volumetric and interpenetrating understanding of terrain. The legacy landscapes of waste produced by mining activities are emphatically volumetric. Material hollows and transfers are managed in policies and trade agreements that have made and re-made the territory of Rosia Montana since Dacian and Roman times. Forever aur echoes Eldenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s idea of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;volu-metricâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in calculative political technologies, such as cartographic projections and scales used to grasp and design territories. What is the role of projections and scales, considered as political instruments, in understanding and projecting territory? Here, they can be interpreted so as to challenge the general, abstract and vertical sense of networked, global gold relationships through concrete associations and subsistence landscapes in Rosia Montana.

1-1 Layering of different types of Israeli and Palestinian transport sovereignty. Courtesy of Stuart Elden.

1 TERRITORY: POLITICAL TECHNOLOGY, VOLUME, TERRAIN1 Stuart Elden

Territory

Part of Max Weber’s famous definition of the state says: ‘The state is that human community, which within a certain area or territory [Gebietes2] – this ‘area’ belongs to the feature – has a successful monopoly of legitimate physical violence’ (Weber, 1968, p. 56). From this definition, the political unit of the state or the polity has four key elements within it: the human community, a group of people together; the second one being this geographical element, this territory, the area or the region within which those people are; a monopoly of legitimate physical violence, the idea that only a state should have an army, a police force, prisons and judicial apparatus; and, then, the fourth idea, that this is tied to an idea of legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, legal-rational). Three of those elements, community, violence and legitimacy, are widely discussed in the work of Weber and on the work on political science more generally. But it seemed to me that territory was one that was largely assumed, largely taken as unproblematic, not something that needed the same kind of conceptual development and thought that those other ideas needed. Two standard ways in which the idea of territory is defined: as territoriality and as a bounded space. Territoriality, which has a background in work on animal ecology, is the idea that animals lay claim to a specific portion of the Earth’s surface around themselves in a hunting ground or a mating area. The second way that people have traditionally understood territory is as a bounded space, a bordered area of the Earth’s surface to which people lay claim. The sociologist Antony Giddens then defines the state as ‘a bordered power container’ (Giddens, 1987, pp. 5-6, 11). You put a wall or a fence or a barrier around something you lay claim to it and you have created a territory. Both of those seem to have some use in thinking about these questions but also to be rather general, not very specific. The standard kinds of definitions suggest that you can have a definition 1 Transcript by Shobhana Parameswaran. Transcript and editing by Clara Olóriz Sanjuán. Some of the examples from the lecture have been moved to the footnotes and shortened. For more information, please refer to the online lecture or the AA lecture archive. In addition to the lecture, see also three key reference essays by Elden for the three parts of this lecture: (1) Territory: Political technology (2010), (2) Volume (2013) and (3) Terrain (2017). 2 The German word that Weber uses here might mean area or region rather than just territory, but it is nonetheless a suggestion about the interlinked nature of these concepts.

Aeolian sand odyssey

Location

Curonian Spit, Russia-Lithuania

Authors

Anastasia Kotenko Niki Kakali*

*Unless otherwise stated, the following images and drawings are done by the project authors.

2-1 Footprints in Curonian Spitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dunescapes.

Project

Academic year

2013-2014

ODYSSEAN TERRAINS Clara Olóriz Sanjuán

Aeolian sand odyssey by Niki Kakali and Anastasia Kotenko is paradigmatic of various questions raised by Elden’s approach towards terrain and, consequentially, territory as ‘word, concept and practice’ (2013, p. 7). Territory is explored as a concept in their atlas of Europe ‘Shifting Sands’ (Figure 2-2), as a practice in their odyssean proposal where they explore potential negotiations in time cycles of various activities co-existing in the Curonian Spit (Figure 2-3), but also as a process in the palimpsest of various political regimes and policies that have historically constituted this territory, a sliver of land straddling the border between Lithuania and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast (Figure 2-5).

Atlas: A meeting of the geophysical and geopolitical

A background of arrows and grey-scale shadows in the atlas (Figure 2-2) describes sand movement and accumulations across Europe, challenging the idea of the fixed matter that constitutes the European states. Sand movement is fuelled and represented by a grid of wind vectors whose speeds are shaped by the shadowed topography. The latter is illustrated as a slope degree to emphasise the volumetric character of the map. In between the sand dynamics and the topographical base, the drawing shows a layer of land uses, including urban and forested areas. These are the productive mechanisms through which humans have attempted over time to make uninhabited land inhabitable, in part by controlling the deposition of sand particles, yet also regulated today by policies that survey and manage aeolian processes (e.g., European conventions for nature and dune preservation, such as Natura 2000, as well as local protections and afforestation strategies). In the cartography, common policies are translated into a network, that imbricated with sand dynamics, organises and oversees the conflicts between human activities and sand movement. Thus, it is both a dynamic and somehow volumetric grasp of Europe that echoes Elden’s notion of terrain or the relationship between the geopolitical1 and the geophysical through cartographic technologies of geo-metrics.2 1 ‘How would our thinking of geo-power, geo-politics and geo-metrics work if we took the earth; the air and the subsoil; questions of land, terrain, territory; earth processes and understandings of the world as the central terms at stake, rather than a looser sense of the “global”?’ (Elden, 2013, p. 15). 2 ‘Biopolitics and geopolitics can be understood through processes and technologies of bio-metrics and geo-metrics, means of comprehending and compelling, organising and ordering’ (Elden, 2013, p. 15). The above-mentioned management policies can be considered, in this sense, technologies of geo-metrics.

0-1

ed eed

TT T T

T TT

4-5

2-3

Legend 6-7 egend gend

tin1

T T

Legend

2 2- 3- 3

0 0- 1- 1

4 4- 5- 5

4-5

2-3

0-1

T 6-7 Legend Legend

T 8 - 11 - 11 tin1 8 8- 11

6 6- 7- 7

T T

Legend Legend

T T

T T T

T T

TT T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

2 2-T3- 3 4 - 5 4 4-T5- 5 6 - 7 6 6-T7- 7 8 - 11 - 11 8 8- 11

Legend useSurveyed sites of policies SurveyedNetwork sites of policies Moving speedSandSand Network of policies Surveyed sites SandNetworkMoving Moving Sand Land use Network of policies Surveyed sites Land Wind speedSand Wind Moving Sand uvspeed Land use Network ofSand policies Surveyed sites Moving Sand uvspeed uvspe ed uvspe ed uvspeed speed m/s m/s speed speed speed speed 0-1 0 0 - 1- 1 0-1 0 0- 1- 1 2 - 3 0 0

2 2- 3- 3

4 4- 5- 5

- 11 8 8- 11

6 6- 7- 7

Slope

2-2 Atlas of geophysical and geopolitical sand terrains in Europe.

Map scale 1 : 10 000 000

8 - 11 tin1

Legend Sand Slope Wind speed uvspeed Sand uvspe ed uvspeed m/sspeed speed speed degrees

Legend

T TT

T TT T

TT T T

T T

Sand

Moving sand

Network of policies

Surveyed sites

Urban areas

2-3 4-5 6-7 8-11

T T

Wind velocity (m/s) Niki Kakali | Anastasia Kotenko AALU | 2013-14

T TT

T T

T TT

T T

T TT

TT T

T T T

TT T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T TT T

T T

1000 km Niki Kakali | Anastasia Kotenko AALU | 2013-14

TT T

T TT

T T

Niki Kakali | Anastasia Kotenko AALU | 2013-14

T T

T T T

T T

T TT

T T

T T T

TT TT

T T

T TT

TT T

T T

T T T

TT T

T T

TT T

T T

T T T T

T T

T T T

T TT T T T

TT T

T T

T T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

TT T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

TT T

T T

T T T

T T

TT T

TT TT

T TT

T T

TT T

T TT

T T T T T

T TT

TT T

T T

TT T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T TT

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

Land use T

T T

Niki Kakali | Anastasia Kotenko AALU | 2013-14

T T T

T T

T T T T

T T

T T T

Land use T

T T

Niki Kakali | Anastasia AALU |

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T T T

T T T

T T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T T

T T T

T T

T T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T TT

T T T

T TT

T T

T TT T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

T T T

T T

TT T

T T

Stage 2 10-year consequences

Stage 3 25-year consequences

Shifting Infrastructure

Settlement

Featured landscape points - high peaks - low valleys

Sedimentation from stage to stage

Sand movement

2-8 Manufactured grounds: A designed palimpsest.

Stage 0 Current situation

Stage 0 to 1 Start of new sediment flow

Stage 1 1-year consequences

Shifting infrastructure

Existing roads

Forest

Uncovered dunes

Existing towns

500m

Country border

2-5

Reclaiming agrarian sandscapes

Location

Lanzarote, Spain

Authors

Rimjhim Chauhan Majedeh Sayyedi Tao Sun*

*Unless otherwise stated, the following images and drawings are done by the project authors.

3-1 Arenado agricultural production in Lanzarote irrigated by aeolian sands. Rimjhim Chauan.

Project

Academic year

2016-2018

ARENADO RE-TERRITORIALISATION Clara Olóriz Sanjuán

Reclaiming agrarian sandscapes has many resemblances with Aeolian sand odyssey (Chapter 2) in the ways that the territorial palimpsest, terrain and dynamic matter are understood. It expands some of the latter’s questions, actualising them in the historico-geographical conditions of Lanzarote. For example, the vertical dimension here is not only understood as the sand particles floating above the earth’s crust, but as the depth of sand accumulation, the geology of the subsoil and consequently the capacity of these sublayers to retain moisture for agricultural production in a dry climate. Here, the relation between the geophysical and the geostrategic is not understood so much as a negotiation or choreography, but, instead, combined with agricultural production. Selected cartographies and simulations build an understanding of this productive agricultural apparatus of territorialisation (Introduction), engaging aeolian processes in the consequential production of landscape, as reflected in the conclusions of this chapter. Two drawings are highlighted from this thesis: the geological section, with productive and cultural undertones; and the cartogenesis, or the production of landscape through a series of policies that are designed, indexed and represented using cartographic means, yet informed by the simulation of both wind and agricultural dynamics. We could say that the quintessential cartographic projection to stress the vertical dimension is the section. Even though, as Elden has rightly pointed out (and as will be explored in the next chapter), it is insufficient to understand territorial volumetric relationships (2013). This section (Figure 3-3) cuts through El Paso del Jable (Spanish and Canarian terms for path and floating sand), a north-south sand corridor in Lanzarote (Figure 3-5). The cut draws inspiration from geological research from the 18th and 19th centuries, dissecting various time scales and shifting from a more cyclical notion in the weather conditions (as seen in Chapter 1) to an implied ‘deep’ geologic time in the stratigraphic layers (Williams, 2008, p. 23). The passage of time in agriculture, human activities and seasons (as well as fast seasonal wind dynamics on the surface) contrasts with the depth and speed of geologic time, upon which they are dependent. The geology of the section includes the vernacular terminologies of tierras jondas, jable regular and tierras pelonas (bald), all of which refer to sand depth – from deep cover to thin cover, and via sand deposition over time. This vernacular nomenclature shows the critical role played by the sand layer in agricultural cultivation in such desert landscapes, especially in the case of the arenado (Figure 3-2), a sand-covering technique without water irrigation. This layer of sand helps

TERRITORY

to retain the moisture trapped in the clay layer. The sand’s depth, in relation to the underlying clay layer, determines the root length of the plant species that can be cultivated in each zone. These suggestive local names are emblematic of the historical know-how, landscape relationships and geomorphological understandings that have been developed in the area; i.e., of the way these dynamic environmental and ‘geological’ conditions are assimilated to agricultural production. This mentality is reflected in two unconventional elements that are introduced in the geological section: wind and agriculture. The former stresses the fact that the geology of the sand layers is in constant movement and depends on wind dynamics; the latter shows the interdependencies between the geomorphological process and agricultural production. This consequential landscape (Introduction) is threatened by abandonment and tourism pressure in the area. As the atlas in Figure 3-4 depicts, the tourism economy has radically transformed the island from the 1960s forward. Food resources rely on international imports. Subsistence landscapes are giving way to a global resource dependency, and labour is increasingly dependent on seasonal tourism. The Ley del Suelo (or land law), in force since 2017, enables the transformation of agricultural land into tourism-related uses. Critics of the law argue that it threatens environmental values recognised by Natura 2000 and UNESCO’s biosphere conventions. Additionally, by expanding the allowed legal uses in agrarian land use, they claim that it speeds up lucrative projects, provoking a price increase in agrarian land and giving priority to the economy over social and environmental values (González Viéitez, et al., 2016). This project thesis proposes an alternative form of tourism acknowledging the importance of this economy but re-designing and putting limits to the Ley del Suelo. Cartogenesis, as part of AALU’s methodology, is the cartographic model where territorial mediations between the geomorphological and social formations are proposed. In this case (Figure 3-6), the top band shows a timeline of ‘negotiational’ conditions (those at play in debates about land use): labour peaks (agriculture and tourism) as well as wind vectors, crop harvesting and seeding times. They ‘irrigate’ and inform a series of bands that, when woven with the aeolian dynamics, form the local landscape. In the base, agro-tourism and productive infrastructures are

3-2 Arenado technique. Photo by Rimjhim Chauan.

Marine sand (Jable)

Weathered sand

Clay-rich reddish soil

Calcified root channels

3-3 Geological section showing sand dynamics, soil layers, agriculture and wind.

2-8 Manufactured grounds: a designed palimpsest..

3-5

Intercalated carbonate

Carbonated matrix

Carbonate beds

Bedrock/ Old volcanic

Volcanic fallout

100 m

Landscape as territory Supported by Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts AA Publications Fellowship Published by Architectural Association (Inc.) London https://aaschool.ac.uk Actar Publishers, New York, Barcelona www.actar.com Author and editor Clara Olóriz Sanjuán Layout template Marga Gibert, Actar Publishers Drawing editing Elena Longhin, Rimjhim Chauhan, Raúl Bielsa Pérez, Camila Ocejo Domenge, Clara Olóriz Sanjuán With contributions by Stuart Elden, Mark Duffield, Martí Peran, Liam Mouritz, Douglas Spencer Copy editing Gavin Keeney Printing and binding Gráficas Campás S.A. All rights reserved © edition: Actar Publishers © texts: Stuart Elden, Mark Duffield, Martí Peran, Liam Mouritz, Douglas Spencer, Clara Olóriz Sanjuán.

© design, drawings, illustrations, and photographs: Architectural Association (Inc.); Stuart Elden; Gleb Raygorodetsky; Ignasi Aballí Sanmartí; Douglas Spencer; Estate of Gordon Matta-Clark / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York, DACS London 2018; Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York. Map imagery: Google, Instituto Geográfico Nacional de España, SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Digital Globe, CNES, Airbus, USGS, NASA Landsat. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, on all or part of the material, specifically translation rights, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or other media, and storage in databases. For use of any kind, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained. Distribution Actar D, Inc. New York, Barcelona. New York 440 Park Avenue South, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016, USA salesnewyork@actar-d.com Barcelona Roca i Batlle 2-4 08023 Barcelona, Spain eurosales@actar-d.com Indexing English ISBN: 978-1-948765-19-0 (9781948765190) PCN: Library of Congress Control Number: 2019933613 Printed in Spain Publication date: September 2019