Cities around the world are suffering from mobility infrastructure crises. Governments are responding to these crises through different ‘fixes’. Mobilities researchers have analysed these fixes in terms of who they privilege and who they neglect. Yet little has been said about the actual materials that are used to garner support for these fixes, with analysis often focusing on the symbolic rhetoric of talk and text. This article develops geographical thought about the material agency of images by reflecting on four types of image-object used by WestConnex, a private motorway that is the proposed ‘fix’ to Sydney’s drivetime crisis. It does this to speculate on how different forms of geovisualisation might gain their authority through the material agencies of the images themselves, rather than just being the passive representations of a supposedly dominant power. In doing so, this article develops geographical understandings of the multiple ways that images participate in the production of future infrastructures.
Bissell D (2015) How environments speak: everyday mobilities, impersonal speech and the geographies of commentary. Social and Cultural Geography 16(2): 146–164.
8.
BrownBLaurierE (2005) Maps and journeys: An ethno-methodological investigation. Cartographica40(3): 17–33.
9.
BüscherM (2006) Vision in motion. Environment & Planning A38(2): 281–299.
10.
CresswellT (2006) On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World, London: Routledge.
11.
DantT (2004) The driver-car. Theory, Culture and Society21(4–5): 61–79.
12.
DavisonG (1993) The past and future of the Australian suburb. Australian Planner31(2): 63–69.
13.
DegenMDeSilveyCRoseG (2008) Experiencing visualities in designed urban environments: Learning from Milton Keynes. Environment and Planning A40(8): 1901–1920.
14.
Degen M, Melhuish C and Rose G (2017) Producing place atmospheres digitally: Architecture, digital visualisation practices and the experience economy. Journal of Consumer Culture 17(1): 3–24.
15.
DidionJ (2005) The Year of Magical Thinking, New York: Knopf.
16.
EasterlingK (1999) Organisational Space: Landscapes, Highways and Houses in America, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
FrithJ (2013) Turning life into a game: Foursquare, gamification, and personal mobility. Mobile Media & Communication1(2): 248–262.
18.
FullerG (2002) The arrow: Directional wayfinding in transit. Social Semiotics12(3): 231–244.
19.
GallowayA (2004) Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
GallowayA (2012) The Interface Effect, Cambridge: Polity Press.
GrahamSMarvinS (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructure, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition, London: Routledge.
23.
HaughtonGMcManusP (2012) Neoliberal experiments with urban infrastructure: The Cross City Tunnel, Sydney. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research36(1): 90–105.
24.
HendriksF (2014) Understanding good urban governance: Essentials, shifts and values. Urban Affairs Review50(4): 553–576.
25.
HubbardPLilleyK (2004) Pacemaking the modern city: The urban politics of speed and slowness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22(2): 273–294.
26.
KinsleyS (2010) Representing ‘things to come’: Feeling the visions of future technologies. Environment and Planning A42(11): 2771–2790.
27.
LathamAMcCormackDP (2009) Thinking with images in non-representational cities: Vignettes from Berlin. Area41(3): 252–262.
28.
LazzaratoM (2010) ‘Exiting language,’ semiotic systems and the production of subjectivity in Felix Guattari. In: HauptmannDNeidichW (eds) Cognitive Architecture: From Biopolitics to Noopolitics. Architecture and Mind in the Age of Communication, Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers, pp. 502–521.
29.
LazzaratoM (2014) Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity, Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
30.
Legacy C (2016) Transforming transport planning in the postpolitical era. Urban Studies 53(14): 3108–3124.
31.
MassumiB (2002) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
MitchellWJT (2005) What Do Pictures Want?, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Murray L and Upstone S (eds) (2014) Researching and Representing Mobilities: Transdisciplinary Encounters. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
34.
PakloneI (2011) Conceptualization of visual representation in urban planning. Limes: Borderland Studies4(2): 150–161.
35.
RobertsE (2013) Geography and the visual image: A hauntological approach. Progress in Human Geography37(3): 386–402.
36.
RobertsonS (2007) Visions of urban mobility: The Westway, London, England. Cultural Geographies14(5): 74–91.
37.
RoseG (2003) On the need to ask how, exactly, is geography “visual”?Antipode35(2): 212–221.
38.
Rose G (2016) Rethinking the geographies of cultural ‘objects’ through digital technologies: Interface, network and friction. Progress in Human Geography 40(3): 334–351.
39.
RoseGDegenMMelhuishC (2014) Networks, interfaces, and computer-generated images: Learning from digital visualisations of urban redevelopment projects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space32(3): 386–403.
