Towards Aerial Techno-infrastructures
I. INTRODUCTION
“Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is a rapidly-emerging, new sector of the aerospace industry which aims to safely and efficiently integrate highly automated aircraft into the NAS. AAM is not a single technology, but rather a collection of new and emerging technologies being applied to the aviation transportation system, particularly in new aircraft types (eVTOL, eCTOL, sUAS, UAVs). The AAM ecosystem is designed to transport people and things to locations not traditionally served by current modes of air transportation, including both rural and the more challenging and complex urban environments. It introduces two main subsets: Regional Air Mobility (RAM) and Urban Air Mobility (UAM).”
This is the technical definition of the AAM concept. However, In the context of an urban design master’s program, we are trying to read it through a multiplicity of standpoints as AAM is fundamentally a speculative question – there is no clear or singular technical answer – because it is not a static field; rather, it is in development, making it a very elastic concept. At the same time, it is a complex question that intersects with questions of urbanization, technologies, infrastructures, and networks, but also environmental degradation. Mostly, what we are trying to do is to structure a methodology that allows us to deal with this question in a nuanced way, as opposed to a straightforward manner.
We are imagining the thesis as a constellation of elements, assuming that through this approach, there is the potential to codify answers to the question of AAM. There are two main VOLUMES and six DOCUMENTS in total, and the reason for separating things into layers is to have the possibility of approaching the concept from multiple perspectives, but also with different methods of representation in order to grasp specific dynamics. Each of those documents has a specific kind of exercise; through that, we are trying to isolate some questions, ground them, and then make revisional conclusions or analyses and articulate them with other layers afterwards.
VOL I (DECONSTRUCTING URBAN VERTICALITY), which was explored during the first term, consists of three main documents ([1] URBAN VERTICALITY, [2] TECHNOLOGIES IN CIRCULATION, [3] ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE). It lays out the foundations of the thesis, delving into the topic. This volume serves as the literature review, exploring the AAM question, and helping us formulate questions that would guide us in the second term.
All the explorations that we conducted in the first term, in terms of concepts and discourses, are now grounded in a specific context which is New York and in VOL II the question of design enters more forcefully to the equation. Beginning to explore the question of AAM from a design perspective, we find that there isn’t a single approach due to two extremes of understanding. The first involves artifacts or spatial technologies, as well as their infrastructure while the second perspective considers AAM at the scale of systems or networks, with a more territorial-urban approach. As a result, the work of VOL II oscillates between these two poles, consisting of three documents ([4] PAST MOBILITY IMAGINARIES IN NEW YORK, [5] AERIAL TECHNO-INFRASTRUCTURES, [6] EXISTING MOBILITY DYNAMICS IN NEW YORK). Moreover, VOL II can be visualized through a loop diagram depicting the past, present, and future of vertical urban mobility in New York. The past and present are represented by the work of the three documents in VOL II, each with subsections exploring from the past/present towards the future, laying the foundations for VOL III.
II. RESEARCH
PAST SECTION: PAST MOBILITY IMAGINARIES IN NEW YORK
The past section corresponds to the understanding of AAM based on spatial technologies orientation. Through the selection of nine bold cases—ideas that have been completely abandoned—an atlas (3d inventory) was created to excavate their histories. The selected cases are classified based on three typologies: the Airport, the Highway and the Skyway.
Analyzing the cases chronologically, (as part of an ongoing research) there is a pattern that can be read here. Up to the 70s, we have this broad stuff of material and from that point onwards this become more spaced out – a fact that is connected to the broader dynamics of the 20th century, including the emergence of planetary urbanization, financialization, neoliberal rationality, and the advent of the internet.
The process entails rationalizing these cases, transforming archival material into volumetric representations useful for comparing cases in terms of scale and specificities, and for situating them in the specific locations where they were proposed. The procedure involves remodeling the cases in 3D, representing them in a consistent style to maintain uniformity, with the aim of building a database for revisiting some of them in more detail later
PAST SUBSECTION: FROM THE PAST TOWARDS THE FUTURE
The past subsection introduces a methodology of revisiting the imaginaries. Some of those roads that were not taken no longer make sense, while others may still be relevant and interesting to revisit from today’s perspective.
The main keyword here is ‘REAPPROPRIATION.’ All these spatial technologies share the notion of Megastructure, a concept applicable in this context. But what if, instead of concentrated megastructures, we start thinking about disaggregated, distributed techno-systems? One possible typology could be fragmented infrastructure arrangements operating at the level of building rooftops, integrated through a network of vertical and horizontal connections. Alternatively, we could consider a vertical megastructure, stratifying different activities on layers atop each other—such as a vertical airport.
PRESENT SECTION (A): AERIAL TECHNO-INFRASTRUCTURES
The present section focuses on exploring the concept of AAM in terms of questions surrounding infrastructures/systems and the territorial scale, which forms the background of the spatial technologies and it consist of two parts (A, B).
In PART A, infographics are utilized as the primary method of representation to understand and unpack the different components and infrastructures of aerial mobility systems. The function of an infographic is to convey a large amount of technical information or data from an abstract perspective and to relate it within a single graphic element. Five main aerial infrastructural typologies can be identified, related to specific artifacts analyzed in VOL I (document 2), and the analysis is presented through a series of segments that map technical information sourced from reports of the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.
Starting from the more well-established to the more speculative aerial infrastructures, progressing from the territorial scale towards the regional and urban scales, this block of work analyzes aerial infrastructures based on their facilities, components, and various typologies. It introduces the new emerging infrastructures of AAM, specifically the VERTIPORT and DRONEPORT. Finally, It is emphasized that it’s important to understand that all these infrastructural components belong to a general air transportation system with a hub-and-spoke structure.
PRESENT SUBSECTION: FROM THE PRESENT TOWARDS THE FUTURE
The present subsection reveals the relationship between the existing hub and spoke system with the emerging network of AAM.
The existing dynamics involve a hub-and-spoke technosystem operating from a territorial to a regional scale. Consideration of optimizing a new hub-and-spoke technosystem serving on a different scale—from the regional to the urban—with the existing one in the background suggests a shift in perspective. The emergence of the new technosystem is poised to alter the dynamics by introducing new infrastructure such as a vertiport and potentially activating or deactivating other components
PRESENT SECTION (B): EXISTING MOBILITY DYNAMICS IN NEW YORK
In PART B, the focus sheds light on the territorial implications of the existing aerial and general mobility infrastructural systems in the New York Metropolitan Area. The primary method for unpacking the various layers of analysis involves a series of diagrammatic maps. These maps serve as a tool to analyze the mobility system, understand its efficiencies, and explore possibilities for optimization. The goal is to inform the redesign of the aerial techno-system by comprehensively understanding how it is articulated.
The New York Metropolitan Area encompasses three states: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. New York City, located at its center, boasts the highest population and building density within this area. When analyzing the aerial infrastructures, the existing technosystem consists of:
- Four international Airports operate in the area, each with distinct dynamics regarding air passenger traffic (national/international). Among them, JFK and EWR serve as crucial nodes in the US air transportation system.
- A network of 42 regional and underutilized airports with general aviation operations, some of which have operated as reliever airports over the years, supporting the passenger traffic of the international airports.
- Numerous scattered private heliport infrastructures, along with 28 heliports, operate around New York City for emergency purposes such as police patrol and hospital services, facilitating point-to-point operations.
- Four seaplane bases, with only one currently active, connecting New York with Boston Harbor and Washington, D.C
By analyzing the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (2022), a new dataset is generated that allows identification of the areas that serve as origins of commuting – the residence areas. Filtering and conducting an isochrones analysis of a 30-minute driving distance from the airports, the potential for better integration of the area through the AAM concept, facilitated by the activation of some regional airports, can be assessed.
While the origins (residence areas) and destinations (workplace areas) of commuting exhibit different spatial distribution patterns, analyzing the structure of public transportation networks reveals that:
- The bus network exclusively covers the New York City area
- The railway network better integrates the metropolitan area despite time restrictions and long-distance commutes
After analyzing the national transportation noise raster dataset and correlating it with the highways geospatial dataset, areas with the highest volume of traffic and traffic congestion hotspots can be identified. The vast majority of these hotspots are located in New York City, specifically in Manhattan, which serves as a major workplace hub.
Seeking to understand commuting dynamics based on available data, a radar diagram was generated to analyze the primary mode of transportation at the county level across three cases.
- In the first case, commuting to Manhattan jobs, the vast majority of commuters use public transportation, specifically the subway.
- Conversely, commuting to non-Manhattan jobs, necessitates the use of private vehicles.
- In the last case, involving NYC residents traveling to work, a combination of public and private mobility options exists, showcasing different spatial patterns. Closer to Manhattan, the primary mode is subway, while at a regional level, private vehicle usage predominates.
Based on this WIP of the QGIS analysis, efforts are being made to identify patterns/dynamics that form the foundations behind the logic of an AAM techno-system design – optimization as a dynamic part of the existing public multimodal transportation system of the area.
III. NEXT STEPS
The question of AAM from a design perspective, as inferred from our readings, oscillates between two poles: the design of the artifact, representing the endpoint of the network and being the most visible component, and a system or network-oriented design approach. In our analysis of Volume II, two keywords have been defined for each of these cases (#REAPPROPRIATION and #OPTIMIZATION). Moving forward, how to proceed remains an open question. However, in considering the next steps, a condition is envisioned that keeps these 2 extremes alive.
