3 ms·

History has shown us that mass rebuilding of cities is a terrible idea. Strong cities develop organically. Slow evolution of the built environment has a kind o

by rossng 6y ago

History has shown us that mass rebuilding of cities is a terrible idea. Strong cities develop organically. Slow evolution of the built environment has a kind of 'antifragile' nature. It prevents you from accidentally doing too much of the wrong thing at the same time, and ensures you are building things that people actually want. Just look at some of the awful mistakes made by planners in the 20th century. * Entire neighbourhoods were bulldozed in many American cities to make way for huge road infrastructure projects. These projects mainly displaced socioeconomically disadvantaged people and ethnic minorities, with enormous and long-lasting impacts. Decades later, it is broadly acknowledged that massive road infrastructure is toxic to cities. It causes pollution, is enormously expensive to maintain and destroys the character of a city. * Many countries built lots of huge Le Corbusier-inspired residential towers. Since then, we have learned that the 'towers in a park' ideal is incredibly destructive to communities and the urban fabric of cities. But the allure of big towers in 3D renders is hard to overcome - China went ahead and built enormous numbers of them in the last 30 years, even though urban planners worldwide already knew how bad they were. * We covered the countryside in endless sprawl. Houses were built around the idea that everyone must own a car and drive everywhere. Communities are too sparse to support natural urban life - shops, cafes, community spaces and so on. Real, ecologically diverse nature was razed in favour of an endless grassy monoculture. I believe we should have some humility and stop trying to revolutionise the world's cities, thinking that we know best. Instead, we should stick to improvements that we know definitely work. Transit-oriented development. Dense, walkable neighbourhoods. Quality green space for all. Elimination of private cars from city centres. Reliable electricity and clean water. District heating. Sustainable urban drainage. Strong environmental protection for bodies of water. And so on.

baybal2 6y ago
> * Many countries built lots of huge Le Corbusier-inspired residential towers. Since then, we have learned that the 'towers in a park' ideal is incredibly destructive to communities and the urban fabric of cities. But the allure of big towers in 3D renders is hard to overcome - China went ahead and built enormous numbers of them in the last 30 years, even though urban planners worldwide already knew how bad they were. I'd say it worked well, and is not anything "unsustainable." Tell how exactly it is "wrong"
- rossng 6y ago
  Sure, I can at least give you my opinion. * They eliminate a lot of street life. Towers almost always have completely dead frontages at ground level - and they are unlikely to be directly adjacent to a real street. You will be driving to a mall - private space that has none of the democratic nature of a public street. * They often reduce the connection between neighbours. Meeting someone in a lift or a corridor isn't the same as stopping to talk to someone in the street. * The 'parks' are normally poor quality. Humans tend to feel more comfortable in enclosed spaces[1], whereas the parks are open fields that feel overshadowed by the large towers. * The parks often feel unsafe too. A significant reason for this is that towers eliminate most of the 'eyes on the street'. You are likely to feel much safer walking past a row of terraced houses than between tower blocks at night. * The buildings are often poorly built/maintained and become eyesores. * They are often built in conjunction with wide roads and excessive parking. Most countries have a good example of how housing towers go wrong. France has its Grands Ensembles - many of which are really cool buildings but which have not aged well[2]. Glasgow is now demolishing many of its towers[3]. Here's an in-depth report from Create Streets, a social enterprise that studies this kind of thing in the UK[4]. For balance, there is a more positive example in Vienna's social housing[5]. [1] https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/getting_enclosure_right_creating_a_comfortable_public_room https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/getting_enclosure_right_creati... [2] https://favelissues.com/2018/01/22/les-grands-ensembles-a-social-housing-dystopia/ https://favelissues.com/2018/01/22/les-grands-ensembles-a-so... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-glasgow-documenting-demolition-city-troubled-past https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-... [4] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/create-streets.pdf https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cre... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
imtringued 6y ago
Incremental growth is basically the motto of strongtowns. Big plans fail big.
triceratops 6y ago
Residential towers are bad but so is sprawl? For cities with large populations, is there a third way?
- rossng 6y ago
  Yes, and it's often referred to as 'gentle density'. The idea is to build relatively dense housing, but at a human scale - mostly 3-5 storeys. Combined with narrow streets that support walking and cycling, this creates enough density to support a 'real' city centre with shops, restaurants, offices and so on. I think these videos convey the idea well: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o Of course, this is not to say that you _can't_ build other kinds of housing. But many cities are badly balanced.
dirtyid 6y ago
Corbusier contemporary / radiant cities was based around automobile scale. Chinese super/megablock urbanism connects to sufficient public transit and work mostly as planned. Add residence community governance layer (coordination mechanism for managing Wuhan covid lockdown) and you have a fairly functional setup, good civic participation especially in newer blocks with more mix-use at ground floors. It's a working urban model for megacities for massive countries, and one that would apply particularly well with India's density, flat terrain, assuming India can overcome infrastructure / transit deficit. Less proven strategies being explored now are managing internal migration and urbanization to growing tier2/3 cities to balance development. But for a developing country with poor infra/housing stock, it might be developmentally prudent to just start spamming high density urbanism to get the ball rolling. There's enough cheap excess labour in India for generations to fix things up after the fact. But IMO India's problem is she's not ready to urbanize when huge % of population are farmers. Caste system fucked development priorities, too much focus on information services that employs the privileged few versus low end manufacturing opportunities that employs the masses. $2000 per capita and lack of development causes 700,000 infant mortalities per year, India needs coal plants and factories to alleviate poverty before it can afford sustainable cities. At least transition enough farmers to factory work to reduce stubble burning and justify the excess pollution.

by rossng 6y ago

baybal2 6y ago

> * Many countries built lots of huge Le Corbusier-inspired residential towers. Since then, we have learned that the 'towers in a park' ideal is incredibly destructive to communities and the urban fabric of cities. But the allure of big towers in 3D renders is hard to overcome - China went ahead and built enormous numbers of them in the last 30 years, even though urban planners worldwide already knew how bad they were. I'd say it worked well, and is not anything "unsustainable." Tell how exactly it is "wrong"

rossng 6y ago
Sure, I can at least give you my opinion. * They eliminate a lot of street life. Towers almost always have completely dead frontages at ground level - and they are unlikely to be directly adjacent to a real street. You will be driving to a mall - private space that has none of the democratic nature of a public street. * They often reduce the connection between neighbours. Meeting someone in a lift or a corridor isn't the same as stopping to talk to someone in the street. * The 'parks' are normally poor quality. Humans tend to feel more comfortable in enclosed spaces[1], whereas the parks are open fields that feel overshadowed by the large towers. * The parks often feel unsafe too. A significant reason for this is that towers eliminate most of the 'eyes on the street'. You are likely to feel much safer walking past a row of terraced houses than between tower blocks at night. * The buildings are often poorly built/maintained and become eyesores. * They are often built in conjunction with wide roads and excessive parking. Most countries have a good example of how housing towers go wrong. France has its Grands Ensembles - many of which are really cool buildings but which have not aged well[2]. Glasgow is now demolishing many of its towers[3]. Here's an in-depth report from Create Streets, a social enterprise that studies this kind of thing in the UK[4]. For balance, there is a more positive example in Vienna's social housing[5]. [1] https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/getting_enclosure_right_creating_a_comfortable_public_room https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/getting_enclosure_right_creati... [2] https://favelissues.com/2018/01/22/les-grands-ensembles-a-social-housing-dystopia/ https://favelissues.com/2018/01/22/les-grands-ensembles-a-so... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-glasgow-documenting-demolition-city-troubled-past https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-... [4] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/create-streets.pdf https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cre... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE

imtringued 6y ago

Incremental growth is basically the motto of strongtowns. Big plans fail big.

triceratops 6y ago

Residential towers are bad but so is sprawl? For cities with large populations, is there a third way?

rossng 6y ago
Yes, and it's often referred to as 'gentle density'. The idea is to build relatively dense housing, but at a human scale - mostly 3-5 storeys. Combined with narrow streets that support walking and cycling, this creates enough density to support a 'real' city centre with shops, restaurants, offices and so on. I think these videos convey the idea well: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o Of course, this is not to say that you _can't_ build other kinds of housing. But many cities are badly balanced.

dirtyid 6y ago

Corbusier contemporary / radiant cities was based around automobile scale. Chinese super/megablock urbanism connects to sufficient public transit and work mostly as planned. Add residence community governance layer (coordination mechanism for managing Wuhan covid lockdown) and you have a fairly functional setup, good civic participation especially in newer blocks with more mix-use at ground floors. It's a working urban model for megacities for massive countries, and one that would apply particularly well with India's density, flat terrain, assuming India can overcome infrastructure / transit deficit. Less proven strategies being explored now are managing internal migration and urbanization to growing tier2/3 cities to balance development. But for a developing country with poor infra/housing stock, it might be developmentally prudent to just start spamming high density urbanism to get the ball rolling. There's enough cheap excess labour in India for generations to fix things up after the fact. But IMO India's problem is she's not ready to urbanize when huge % of population are farmers. Caste system fucked development priorities, too much focus on information services that employs the privileged few versus low end manufacturing opportunities that employs the masses. $2000 per capita and lack of development causes 700,000 infant mortalities per year, India needs coal plants and factories to alleviate poverty before it can afford sustainable cities. At least transition enough farmers to factory work to reduce stubble burning and justify the excess pollution.