Hypothetical residential block and city

[magen]

Hello, everyone.
I have done some hypothetical projects.
About 2 years ago I designed an ideal residential block, called "urban sector", which was experimental research in "Urbanisme", and that is represented at this link:

http://digilander.libero.it/diariomg/U.%20S..htm

More recently, I developped that design into a city of about 1 million people, at this other link:

http://digilander.libero.it/diariomg/City.htm

They are both abstract projects which concentrate on some aspects of "Urbanisme" independently of any particular setting, except for the north-south/east-west directions with respect to the orientation of the dwellings, facing only east, west and south.
I thought I'd contribute this to the "Hypothetical projects" forum.
I hope it is no bother "linking out" to other web pages.

[Ross Millaney]

WHY TOWERS?!:bang head

[axie]

Having links to other sites is fine, but I think the mods would prefer that you attach a the images as well so they are attached to this site and give the standard information as below.


Project - Competition- University - Grant - Etc.
Location - Area in the universe it happens to be located.
Type of Project - Transportation, Retail, Residential, Commercial, Etc.
Design Parameters - Competition write-up, Client Requirements Etc.
Design Approach - What you decided to do to resolve design (Your Proposal)
Drawings - Plans, Elevations, Sections, and Interior views if possible
Tools/Programs- Softwares and techniques used during the design process

[chedda]

I think designing on this grand scale often loses the human scale . It reminds me of communist housing a little . I recommend you look at Ludwig Hilberseimer his visions were also bold if a little stark. I think this huge block concept led the Bauhaus to eventually embrace the idea of mixed housing. Ps i like your hand drawn style of drawing.

[dirk_draft]

this has been done before, 80 years ago.

http://www.kosmograph.com/urbanism/urbana/img/le%20corbusier%20ville%20radieuse.jpg

[imasayer]

The city for one million people is too sprawling. Your solution is far too dependant on vehicles. Don't you think in light of what we now about the affects of vehicle pollution, that a more pedestrian solution is appropriate? Instead of giving everyone their own green area, the green areas should be centralized and shared. Good cities should be full of street level activities. This provides for safety and personal interaction. Did you do any research on this subject, if so what did you look at/read?

[drummond]

I agree with imsayer..this kind of development was experimented with in many urban centres with disasterous results.The lack of pedestrian scale and access to a sense of spatial enclosure albeit in the exterior is dehumanising.Many of these experiments have since been demolished and "new urbanism" put in it's place.Some of the places I remember in this grandiose style, were actually "no go zones" from a safety point of view, urban getto's populated by thugs and hardly visited by fearful police forces.We should be vigilant in not encouraging the same mistakes.

[magen]

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, drummond, but I assure you the buildings that I took for models are not "mistakes".
The couple of persons living there that I spoke with seemed fairly respectful and polite to me, and on the web site of the inhabitants they invite people from outside the building to participate in their common activities, such as painting club, sculpture, photography club; dancing, theater happenings, if I remember right, and I don't know what else. They are not "no-go zones", since a number of people from all over the world visit the place every day.

[imasayer]

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, drummond, but I assure you the buildings that I took for models are not "mistakes".
The couple of persons living there that I spoke with seemed fairly respectful and polite to me, and on the web site of the inhabitants they invite people from outside the building to participate in their common activities, such as painting club, sculpture, photography club; dancing, theater happenings, if I remember right, and I don't know what else. They are not "no-go zones", since a number of people from all over the world visit the place every day.

What buildings were these? Can you share some pics? This reminds me a lot of Corbu's city plan. (can anyone help with the name?) This sprawling model was a response to the evils of the city in the beginning of the industrial age. Crime, pollution....etc. Our suburbs of today are modeled after this type of decentralized living. I don't think we would do it this was again if we could help it. A good example of planning like this are the projects on the south side of Chicago. Anyone else see this relationship?

The other thing that makes cities great, that is missing from your proposal, is a sense of history and eclecticism. A completely new city like this would feel a lot like Disney. It would not feel authentic. (right all you new urbanest out there?)

[dhaa]

you mean plan Voisin for the center of Paris I suppose. He had those zigzag houses as well.

[SWANK-E]

This reminds me a lot of Corbu's city plan. (can anyone help with the name?)

The Radiant City

[MICHEL]

...

The other thing that makes cities great, that is missing from your proposal, is a sense of history and eclecticism. A completely new city like this would feel a lot like Disney. It would not feel authentic. (right all you new urbanest out there?)

Well, things are happening this way in China right now... and it's a hell of a challenge to start a new city from scratch. Agree or not on the ongoing situation, some kind of solution has to be proposed when you need to house 5 million persons in less than a decade... scary but so actual.

[magen]

Actually, I just thought I would show this design without a specific goal, just as on other occasions I have shown paintings.

In answer to axie:
I did this by and for myself basically, in the sense that nobody asked me for it, and it wasn't for a competition. As for the softwares and techniques: it feels a little funny, because it's like tasting some wine and asking: "What kind of glass is the bottle made of?". If you are curious I will tell you, but that is not the topic, the substance at hand; it's the means through which it is represented (or it should be). One page is hand-drawn (two years ago I didn't know how to launch a design program), and on the other one I used AutoCAD and DesignCAD (in the meantime I learned a couple of things about softwares). The rest of the information you might find at the links of my initial post.

Chedda, thank you for the suggestion. As for the human scale: I live in Monza, a town that has the fortune of having a big park right next to it, which is as big as the town itself. It is just trees, grass, bushes, green nature. There are even a pond and a little river. There are very few buildings. When the warm season arrives, I love to go there, and I'm not the only one around here, I know. People go there by themselves or with family, friends or relatives. They go strolling, jogging, pic-nicking, playing ball, whatever. There are ample meadows, with wide open spaces to the next row of trees, or narrow paths in the woods, where you have to dodge and duck branches and bushes. There are places with wooden tables and benches where one can sit down with a newspaper, or set out the pic-nic; others where there's nothing but grass, bushes and trees.
Is there human scale there? Well, not specifically, because God made all that for men, the animals on the ground and the birds in the air. Still, I think that green parks are essential for the well-being of people. Park, trees, bushes, right outside of the home. Is it necessary to see the wall of the next building a few meters away in order to feel at ease, enclosed in a comfortable and familiar environment? No, not outdoors. Indeed, the opposite. I think it is very often a delight and a joy to have openness of spaces, see horizons (if, when possible), or at least broad expanses of beautiful views. With a certain density of population, where necessary, you can obtain that. And have a natural ground. The spaces don’t need to be cluttered and choked together, but well proportioned and well laid-out, at human scale.

imasayer: “far too dependent on vehicles”, you say. Well, in general, if inventions are good for something, I think we should use them. We should seriously concentrate on alternative sources of energy. Use the ones already at hand more often, and develop others. The point here is that if the circulation is well thought-out it can take place in a much smoother and more efficient manner, therefore more economic and less polluting (fewer stops at stop-lights and street intersections, for instance). Moreover, the dwellings here are not strictly dependent on vehicles, in the sense that one can satisfy their basic needs at walking distance (stores, schools, services…). Cars are for longer distances. “A more pedestrian solution”, you say, “the green should be shared”. Well, the park here is public and pedestrian for the most part, crossed by walking paths. There might be individual gardens, or cultivations somewhere, but they are not represented in the drawings; the main goal was to have a big open park for pedestrians.

Thank you.

[chedda]

Well, things are happening this way in China right now... and it's a hell of a challenge to start a new city from scratch. Agree or not on the ongoing situation, some kind of solution has to be proposed when you need to house 5 million persons in less than a decade... scary but so actual.

I guess this is inevitable like you say Michel it just becomes unbelieveably daunting when starting with a blank canvas. Although we can learn from previous large scale models such as the Hausmann concept for Paris and particulary its shortcomings. My greatest fear is creating a soulless wasteland of utopian ideals and roundabouts much like the Milton Keynes syndrome experienced in the UK and to a lesser degree Docklands in London. The history is really what is missing with an "all new" design and the link that on-going generations have to the built enviroment. Places only designed for residence become deserted during working hours and central business districts vice versa become ghost towns out of office hours, surely this is not the most effecient use of space.
Magen its good to hear about Monza, its not a place i know well perhaps you could post in our travel section some images ? I am increasingly aware of green spaces within the city, could we imagine London without its parks & commons ? Or New York without central park ? However there is another ratio to be concerned with when planning. The proportion of your own defendable space versus shared spaces. An interesting thread...

[imasayer]

imasayer: “far too dependent on vehicles”, you say. Well, in general, if inventions are good for something, I think we should use them. We should seriously concentrate on alternative sources of energy. Use the ones already at hand more often, and develop others. The point here is that if the circulation is well thought-out it can take place in a much smoother and more efficient manner, therefore more economic and less polluting (fewer stops at stop-lights and street intersections, for instance). Moreover, the dwellings here are not strictly dependent on vehicles, in the sense that one can satisfy their basic needs at walking distance (stores, schools, services…). Cars are for longer distances. “A more pedestrian solution”, you say, “the green should be shared”. Well, the park here is public and pedestrian for the most part, crossed by walking paths. There might be individual gardens, or cultivations somewhere, but they are not represented in the drawings; the main goal was to have a big open park for pedestrians.

Thank you.

Thank you for your responses. However, the things you are arguing do not work. When you have vast green spaces between large buildings you create long, boring, and unsafe walks. The wonderful part of a dense city is the activity on the street. Lots of activity leads to safer places. You are less likely to perpetrate a crime if there are a lot of people around.

Cars are a great invention, but it is advantageous to create places that are less dependant on them.

[firmanhadi]

You might want to check out Cabrini Green, Chicago for more on this subject

[drummond]

I'm afraid I must disagree with you megan.Empirically this form of residential development has failed consistently throughout the many experiments that have been made in this regard.There are obviously apparent benefits from living in a parkland development, as you have stated,but the form, scale and density which you are proposing has a Utopian naivete, which in my opinion will never be successful.Try walking around a high density slab/ tower in the park development at night.Two thoughts come to mind.First, the type of residents that are inevitably drawn to, or are placed in these schemes are almost always at the lower end of the social economic hierarchy, only because these developments are more than anything else a scource of cheap housing.Those in the middle class and upward strata of society make it their life's work NOT to be part of such high density housing proliferations.Such poverty brings with it severe difficulties in behaving within generally accepted norms for at least a minority of that economically challenged group.This has always led to the disintegration of these developments over time from reasonable housing developments to urban gettos.Secondly, this is not about to change.Market conditions and human expectations are not geared to desire such a lifestyle, particularly when compared to all the present examples. I am not aware of one single high density slab development (in the park) that has been successful from a social point of view.If you are aware of one (or more) please share that location and it's provenance with the forum.I would be interested in seeing such an example.My experience always leads me to believe they are and have been doomed to failure from the outset.
This fact has been very perplexing for me with particular reference to the mass, high density projects that are being built all over China.I sincerely believe that once the Chinese inherent fear and misplaced respect for authority is replaced by the innevitable desire to better their living conditions,there will be a period of extaordinary civil unrest.
Sorry to be taking such a contrary view of your very grandiose idea, but, as you can see, I feel truly compelled to do so.

[BruceWalker]

I'm afraid I agree with the dissidents. When I saw your plans I shuddered at the thought of something like that being built.

People are not machines, and we are not all the same. Variety and human scale are vitally important.

[drummond]

oooo....I've always wanted to be a dissident!...standing in front of the lumbering tank, or dodging soviet bullets in red square.I've finally achieved my secret goal....writing in an architectural forum, does that count?

[SWANK-E]

Try walking around a high density slab/ tower in the park development at night.Two thoughts come to mind.First, the type of residents that are inevitably drawn to, or are placed in these schemes are almost always at the lower end of the social economic hierarchy, only because these developments are more than anything else a scource of cheap housing.

unless you are in HongKong or Singapore

[wizum]

imasayer: “far too dependent on vehicles”, you say. Well, in general, if inventions are good for something, I think we should use them. We should seriously concentrate on alternative sources of energy. Use the ones already at hand more often, and develop others. The point here is that if the circulation is well thought-out it can take place in a much smoother and more efficient manner, therefore more economic and less polluting (fewer stops at stop-lights and street intersections, for instance). Moreover, the dwellings here are not strictly dependent on vehicles, in the sense that one can satisfy their basic needs at walking distance (stores, schools, services…). Cars are for longer distances. “A more pedestrian solution”, you say, “the green should be shared”. Well, the park here is public and pedestrian for the most part, crossed by walking paths. There might be individual gardens, or cultivations somewhere, but they are not represented in the drawings; the main goal was to have a big open park for pedestrians.

Thank you.

There is a general flaw in your concept of cars and their uses in a city... A perfect example is the dissaster of downtown Atlanta in the US... primarily The original "modern" build of it was done by the architect of John Portman in the 60's and 70's... He cattered to the car... seperating the pedestrian from the street... creating all these pedestrian bridges... ignoring the human scale... there has been a backlash from it ever since...

What has happened now is that at the end of the work day primarily the downtown area is a ghost town... You couldn't pay me to go there are night(well ok, unless I am going down to "the mark" club to check out a DJ :))... but seriously it isn't particularly safe... anyhow, the part of Atlanta that is working, and is still in development really is the Midtown area of Atlanta... it's become a place of mixed use buildings, old office or warehouse buildings becoming lofts, new office buildings with retail at the ground floors, everything within a resonable walking distance... oh and there is a large city park (piedmont park)... Its incredible the transformation taking place down there... oh and check out this thread (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2841&highlight=midtown+atlanta) I posted a while back concerning this area of Atlanta...

[winddog_1]

Nice city for a planet full of cars. I can't believe you've bought into that old utopianistic idea from, hmmm, let's see, 1920!!!! Just look at what happened with Pruitt Igo. http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/la/LA338-S01/groups/b/destruction_public_houseing.jpg


Please try to design for human beings and not machines. There's a good idea...

[SWANK-E]

hi winddong_1 welcome, but please do not link external images to the forum

it is best to attach one image per post using the manage attachments button

[drummond]

Swank-E...your right about the asian cities, and include Shanghai and Beijing, form what I've seen, but I do think the social order and more important freedom is very much restricted in these locations, such that crime, as experienced in Western Cities, has not emerged ...yet.I alluded to that in my previous post.The point made by wizum, is absolutely correct.It has been the separation of varying uses and activities that has killed many North American cities.It's not just the isolation of pedestrians but the separation of residences from downtown locations (in appropriate scales) that has contributed to the demise of these cities.Fortunately that attitude has changed more recently and Residential development is returning to urban centres.My problem with the proposed scheme by Magen is the Monolithic, relentless nature of the design, combined with the scale and chosen built form (slabs and towers).This cocktail of grandiose thinking is then placed "sensitively" into a park-like setting, with an expectation that the inhabitants will live in harmony, because of it's bucolic ambience.It just never works.

[magen]

drummond: "Empirically this form of residential development has failed consistently throughout the many experiments that have been made in this regard."

-answer: FALSE

drumm.:"Try walking around a high density slab/ tower in the park development at night.Two thoughts come to mind.First, the type of residents that are inevitably drawn to, or are placed in these schemes are almost always at the lower end of the social economic hierarchy, only because these developments are more than anything else a scource of cheap housing.Those in the middle class and upward strata of society make it their life's work NOT to be part of such high density housing proliferations.Such poverty brings with it severe difficulties in behaving within generally accepted norms for at least a minority of that economically challenged group.This has always led to the disintegration of these developments over time from reasonable housing developments to urban gettos.Secondly, this is not about to change."

-answer: The whole outlook on things here is wrong, distorted and false.

dr.: "I am not aware of one single high density slab development (in the park) that has been successful from a social point of view.If you are aware of one (or more) please share that location and it's provenance with the forum.I would be interested in seeing such an example.My experience always leads me to believe they are and have been doomed to failure from the outset."

-answer: Try and look up the word "house" in an encyclopedia.
If this is the kind of "vigilance" you were talking about, I would definetly suggest you leave architecture and urbanisme alone.

[A_Minima]

Maybe it works for some experiences but very localized and small scale. The radiant houses are experiences with one building each time and not 1000 or don't know how much. It could work but with the insurance to be able to "mix" all kind of population. And I'm not sure it will work in your project nor with the 60's french experiences. Remember last winter in France, it's not only but a part of the explanation :
1 / a urban planning which wanted to introduce social mixity and living in community
2 / the fact that when people can go living away, they go away
3 / the fact that those ones who can't (lack of money), can't
4 / the result is a concentration of poverty, unemployment, violence....

The best way to create ghetos (in my opinion).

[arv]

Wow , I can't believe we have a Corbu in our midst !!
Corbu erred in his urban vision , maybe we should have learnt something from it .

[imasayer]

-answer: FALSE

-answer: Try and look up the word "house" in an encyclopedia.
If this is the kind of "vigilance" you were talking about, I would definetly suggest you leave architecture and urbanisme alone.

These are not arguements. Can you at least tell us why you think this model works? This experiment has been tried and has failed as many have said. I suggest you go back and learn something about this subject before trying to defend it so fervently.

[A_Minima]

Magen,

I invite you to visit and read this article :
http://www.well.ac.uk/cfol/lesannees.asp

[drummond]

Hi Magen, I'm really not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just putting forward an honest opinion, with the hope that I might receive a thoughtful response, either confirming my opinion or introducing ideas or examples that might legitimately change it.
I dont see your response falling into either categories,and have no other option than to stand by my opinion.
For the record i did look up "house' in the encyclopedia and got ....
People construct houses as dwelling-spaces for human habitation. Such dwellings generally feature enclosing walls, a roof and one or more floors. This overall structure provides shelter against precipitation, wind, heat, cold and intruders. Animals may often live inside a house as well, both domestic pets and "unwanted" animals (such as mice living in the walls). The word "house" may also apply to a building provided to shelter animals, especially within a zoo.
That didn't help either?????

[franjayo]

Magen,

Keep trying, we should all keep trying too.

Cities are very complex and everyone who has tried to analyze and make proposals for them has failed in one way or another. Planning is very complex. Simple architectural shaping of cities can only help us give form to part of the physical problems faced. This is why planning views needs to be multidisciplinary and they need to consider historical, cultural and socio-econimical problems.

Having accepted and knowing that we cannot just solve these urban and suburban complex problems easily, we should nonetheless keep playing around with ideas and concepts which can be useful as pieces of the complex puzzle to be solved.

Even though urban ideas proposed in the past such as common public areas below highrises, levels of ground parks mixed with several levels of transportation and such other ideas have only been partly implemented, they will keep coming back with new forms in the future.

It is sad to find examples in cities where some buildings have a ground floor with open public areas just to find the neighbor to completely ignore this and lose the continuity. Sometimes it is ignorance, shelfishness or most commonly fear of crime and requests for security that help shape our poor common public spaces. But these spaces define a city, they need to be open and accessible to all or we lose all battles against crime, ignorance and excess.

We have not yet concluded the path started by visionary architects like Sant Ellia, Henard or the more famous Corbusier. Sant Ellia my favorite for being so incredibly transcending in such a short life. Varied versions of Soleri like cities will also evolve sometime in the future.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/henard.htm

Sant'Ellia is cited as saying: "we shall live longer than our houses, and every generation will have to make its own city".

http://www.futurism.org.uk/santelia/santelia.htm
http://www.zoulias.com/articles/article018_en.html

[drummond]

Franjeyo, thank you for a well thought out and positive response.I too have admired Sant'Elia and his amazing imagination.The idea of experimentation should not be forsaken because some experiments have gone awry.There is also a need, however to learn from our mistakes and equally important not to repeat mistakes and call that creativity.
I wasn't familiar with the illustration you attached to your post, but if it is a Sant'Elia diagram it is an unusual one.Nevertheless it is still describing a fairly traditional street relationship, albeit with some interesting, goings on under that street.Of particular interest is the dimension and proportion of the street width and the height of the buildings, which once again are very traditional and probably part of the formula for a successful public realm in an urban setting.

[mrtuffguy]

Sure it's exciting to create 'new' ideas of the city but as compelling as it is the idea of towers in the garden has been a proven failure.

Instead, why don't you draw inspiration from where you live (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katechaux/tags/monza/)? Not necessarily in the historic architectural details but in the urban spaces. Though we all want green space it doesn't work when it is simply the leftover, unprogrammed space between buildings. Parks are fronted by streets. Look at Central Park in NYC or Jackson Square in New Orleans.

In contrast, places like Stuyvesant Town in NYC or Cabrini Green in Chicago are BORING (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2006-23%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22stuyvesant+town%22&btnG=Search) and underused. Because there is uncertainty about who 'owns' this space it is underutilized and dangerous.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to review your work, I hope you take the criticism positively. It's simply that people who have lived near large scale urban redeveloments such as this don't want to see the mistakes of the 1950's and 60's repeated.