The two readings this week focus on the role of infrastructure in the urban fabric. Using the Cheonggye stream restoration in Seoul as a case study suggests that the distinction between infrastructure and symbolism as two distinct architectural approaches is not discrete. In many regards, Cheonggye stream has been reprogrammed to support an image of a globally competitive South Korea as well as to draw a continuous narrative between the historical Chosun dynasty to modern Korea. Kal (2011) points to the “evocation of nostalgic memory… to create a distance from the earlier discourse of modernization which called up citizens as self-sacrificing subjects working productively for national development.” In doing so the infrastructural project uses symbolism (that of historical progression) to replace symbolism (of ruthless modernization). Therefore, it changes the meaning of “modern” itself. Like in the previous notion of modernism, economic output forms a basis of today’s modernism (or postmodernism), yet today, what is “modern” also relies on nature and history to combat the impersonal face of the modernism of the past. Today’s modernism attempts to reconcile progress with history and therefore takes on a degree of self-awareness, that is awareness of its location in time, and to some degree, its purpose in history.

Allen (1999) criticizes the postmodern shift in architecture towards a “semiotic/structuralist” model that makes it impossible to “construct alternative realities.” He brings up the effects this shift has had on public policy. “[T]he twenty-five year period coinciding with the rise of postmodernism in architecture has seen a massive defunding of urban infrastructure” (Allen 1999). The Cheonggye stream restoration project, however, seems to exist in a different space—one that exists between representation/symbolism and architecture. It is a massive and significant piece of public infrastructure which also conveys clear messages of Korean identity heavily embedded within the programming of the area. Cheongye stream seems to be signaling another movement, one in which infrastructure is used as representation.

Of course, many elements of Cheonggye stream is only a representation of the past, “detached from its original context and converted into a sign” (Allen 1999). The example of Kwangtong bridge illustrates this notion: in the post-modernist eye, elements of the past are appropriated and resignified to convey ideas that are useful to the present. In this case, the ideas are formulated from the top-down, thus creating an “official” interpretation of history. This brings up many questions. Which interpretations becomes associated with infrastructure and is there room for alternative histories? Creation and reflection, processes reflected and intertwined in Cheonggyecheon, suffer when they are dictated by a single voice. They stand to benefit when the equivocality of history and progress are recognized.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?