Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic
Browse By Geographical Focus
Search Tips
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Nineteenth-century proponents of fire response aspired to control risk by using technology and constructing infrastructure. They believed this goal could be achieved by mastering nature and the “wild” elements. Cities on both sides of the Atlantic increasingly invested into water and fire control technologies, including waterworks, conduits, fire hydrants, hoses, and pumps. Frequently, urban officials propagated that they had achieved control over these elements. Histories of urban water provision and firefighting reproduce such techno-progressive narratives. My paper challenges these narratives by uncovering technological failures, inadequate water supply, and the ongoing need for maintenance. Moreover, my research contributes to discussions on the dichotomy between nature and technology. When delving into “nature and technology,” historians of technology, urban geographers, and environmental historians share a common interest in the production of spatial categories. Infrastructures were central to this process because they obscured the relationship between rural and urban environments. My analysis of technologies of water and fire demonstrates the fragility of such categories. Spatial boundaries collapsed when infrastructure was not properly maintained or when firestorms struck the city. By examining municipal archival records from Germany and the United States, I illuminate the co-production of water infrastructure and risk management. My paper also makes use of newspapers, journals, and annual speeches to provide insights into nineteenth-century aspirations of using technology to master nature and risk. These illusions persist today, exemplified by current efforts to geoengineer the planet to tackle climate change. Yet, mastery over risk remains aspirational.