ABSTRACT
In both of these situations, documents designed to circulate an imagined socioecological future for the Kinnickinnic influenced the political trajectory of a matter of concern. Despite striking similarities between the documents’ idyllic visions, however, their political roles diverge in important ways. In the case of the fight against the box tunnel, Whitnall’s imagined future Kinnickinnic emerged within a historical assemblage in which decisions were entrusted to elites, with few institutions or expectations for public participation in design and planning. This vision of the future originated not from popular desires or demands but from intellectual perspectives influenced by town planner Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City movement (Platt 2010).
