There is a profound and unresolved relationship between landscape, industry, and cultivation in the American imagination. From manifest destiny to the Dust Bowl, fracking, and contemporary urbanization, architecture has always been entangled in systems of extraction and expansion. In the past half century, we've seen oscillations between suburban retreat and urban densification, recently complicated by remote work, ecological anxiety, and blurred boundaries between the natural and built. This studio begins with a question: Rather than escaping the city, can we bring the pastoral back into it? Can we curate and construct moments of cultivated landscape within the density of the urban condition? Can we imagine new typologies of infrastructure-architecture that move beyond overstimulation or programmatic amalgamation, toward spaces that are aesthetic, ecological, and subjective? We will explore pastoralism as both historical construct and contemporary condition: not as escape, but as critical, designed framing. We will leverage Object-Oriented Ontology, Romanticism, and ecological thought to reconsider urban typologies, reframing infrastructure not as neutral utility but as materialized ideology. Methodology: The studio unfolded in three phases. In the first, students constructed conceptual frameworks through image sampling and analog collage. Using landscape photography, infrastructural drawings, and historical representations of the American pastoral, they developed speculative montages grounded in three operative terms: Conflict, Contrast, and Containment. In phase two, these visual experiments were translated into spatial propositions. Through iterative 3D modeling, students developed hybridized chunks, fragments of landscape, architecture, and infrastructure, into systems that began to articulate new building typologies. These were not buildings in the traditional sense, but prototypes of how land, form, and cycle might co-constitute one another. The final phase emphasized visualization and atmosphere. Students developed narrative drawings and romanticized renderings that positioned their proposals not only as functional civic works, but as aesthetic provocations, architectures that reframe the image of infrastructure within the urban imagination. Frameworks and Influences: The studio’s intellectual foundation was built from a diverse bibliography that included works by Leo Marx, Terry Gifford, Timothy Morton, Jane Bennett, and William Cronon. These texts guided students in exploring the philosophical, literary, and ecological underpinnings of the pastoral, while visual references from Agnes Denes, Richard Misrach, Hans Hollein, and Alberto Burri offered formal and atmospheric points of departure. Research Outcomes: Student proposals operated at the intersection of ecology, public infrastructure, and representational poetics. Each project responded to the question: what does it mean to design for decay in a world obsessed with performance? These speculative infrastructures did not resolve problems but opened them up, drawing attention to the contradictions and possibilities within the composting process itself. In doing so, the studio repositioned pastoralism not as a retreat but as a radical act of reinsertion, placing landscape at the center of the city and asking architecture to mediate not just between space and program, but between time, matter, and memory.