Whenever I think of Nature with regards to Edmonton, the first idea that comes to my mind is the river valley. It seems that everything begins there and branches out from that point. This may have something to do with the river being the only truly natural thing in the city.
The river, more than any other natural entity, feels completely free from mediation. Parks, on the other hand, although natural, seem to be tarnished by the mediation of the city. I feel that the river exists despite our transgressions against it--mainly pollution. While the city park exists because of a humanistic desire to keep nature in the city. So it seems that the river is more natural for it doesn't seemingly need our help to remain intact.
What does the river mean for me then?
Resistance. It cuts through Edmonton, and as citizens we've had to adapt to it by building bridges. The river shows to me that the natural world still eludes our control. It's presence may not be as devastating as a flood or earthquake, but for me, it still carries the same message.
It's funny that you say you think the river means resistance to you, since I feel oppositely. I feel like whenever people build a city that has to deal with natural elements, like a river, hills, ocean, or earthquakes, that means that people really have to work WITH nature. Bridges may seem to work against the river, but as you said it means that people have to adapt and react to nature. Similarly, places prone to earthquakes are often beautiful but the results can be devastating, obviously. However, in choosing to live there people accept that nature will affect their lives at some point or another and in that way embrace nature. And anything we come across regularly, like the river and nature in general, contributes to de Certeau's idea of the everyday and how it affects your view of the city.
ReplyDelete