Water and power networks and urban fragmentation in Los Angeles: Rethinking assumed mechanisms Fionn MacKillop a, * , Julie-Anne Boudreau b a University of Durham, Department of Geography Science Site, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK b Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS), Montreal, Canada article info Article history: Received 13 April 2007 Received in revised form 18 June 2008 Keywords: Splintering urbanism Sprawl Urban fragmentation Los Angeles Secession Incorporation Integration Urban networks Water and power networks abstract Los Angeles is often described as the epitome of urban fragmentation, a notion which in this context is frequently connected to, or even conflated with urban sprawl. At the same time, the city features inte- grated water and power networks which have been under public ownership for over 70 years. We thus have an apparent paradox in the context of the debate on ‘splintering urbanism’, between socio-spatial fragmentation and the integration of networks. In discussing the idea that deregulation of infrastructural networks exacerbates urban fragmentation, the authors use the case of Los Angeles in order to highlight the central role of private interests in management decisions concerning infrastructure networks. The authors carry out their analysis in an historical perspective, revealing that network integration and uni- versal access can often serve private interests more than the public good. Urban fragmentation in Los Angeles, they conclude, is the result of a complex process of instrumentalisation of network development and management. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In Splintering Urbanism (2001), Graham and Marvin offer an incisive critique of deregulation and the unequal development of network infrastructure. Their main thesis is that under the umbrel- la of a neoliberal ideology and with new mechanisms (deregula- tion, unbundeling, etc.), infrastructural networks can serve as powerful instruments of fragmentation, resulting in increasing inequalities. Our purpose in this paper is to demonstrate that in- deed, infrastructural networks are important political instruments mobilised by elites and decision-makers to further their interests, often times with fragmenting consequences and increasing inequalities. This has always been the case, not merely under neo- liberalism. However, the use of network management as an instru- ment of power does not necessarily lead to the expected fragmentation. In other words, it is not necessarily in the interest of the elites to deregulate or de-integrate infrastructural networks. Or, to put it in a more critical perspective, an integrated organisa- tion of networks does not necessarily lead to more urban cohesion and fewer social inequalities. This is particularly visible in the case of Los Angeles, a city which has been described since the 1920s (Deverell and Sitton, 2001), as the cutting edge of the (Western) urban experience, with its massive conversion to the automobile and its sprawling pattern of growth that seemed to prefigure today’s urban dynamics. In the context of current debates over the fragmentary tendencies at work in (urban) societies, it comes as no surprise to see the City of Angels portrayed as the ‘fragmented metropolis’ par excellence, to paraphrase Fogelson (1967). More recent research (Davis, 1990) has tended to focus on L.A.’s ‘fragmentation’, linking it to a wide array of issues: segregation, sprawl, pollution, transportation. Despite this wide-ranging and long-lasting agreement on the mat- ter, one feels slightly puzzled by this use of the notion of ‘fragmen- tation’ in this context. Indeed, it often seems to be used as a byword for a particular kind of sprawl. In effect, L.A. has long been labelled, not just in popular culture, but also in academic fields, as the epitome of the sprawling city (Bruegmann, 2006) with all the negative stereotypes attached to this. It seems to us that L.A.’s spa- tial shape is all too rapidly interpreted in social and political terms as meaning that it is a profoundly de-integrated city, i.e. a frag- mented city. While sprawl as such is not directly our issue here, we discuss the links between networks, urban sprawl, and urban fragmenta- tion. In relation to the ‘splintering urbanism’ debate, the case of Los Angeles represents an apparently paradoxical situation where a city widely characterised as ‘fragmented’ from a socio-political and spatial point of view, presents a high degree of network inte- gration that even withstood the tide of liberalisation of the 0016-7185/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.07.005 * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: fionn.mackillop@durham.ac.uk (F. MacKillop), Julie-anne. boudreau@ucs.inrs.ca (J.-A. Boudreau). Geoforum 39 (2008) 1833–1842 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geoforum journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum