http://desertplanet.wordpress.com
Overview: Many people want Victoria to have more taller buildings and a more interesting skyline. I don't. I want a better city at the street-level, where we experience it, and believe that overly-tall buildings are detrimental to the creation of a healthy, vibrant city.
Skyscrapers are overrated, ego-centric, phallic symbols of one-upmanship and dominion of man that represent a misguided imbalance in our settlements.
Interesting skylines are NOT signs of effective, meaningful urban development -- nor are they a symptom of it. Moreover, I would suggest that, in many ways, overly-tall buildings in the urban core facilitate our North American fear of the city (downtown) and density.
--
Postcard Skylines:
Boring Skylines:
According to the need for interesting skylines, we should look to Atlanta (aka Sprawlanta) and Auckland (nice bay, crap city) instead of Paris and Barcelona.
But, we need tall buildings for density!
(... especially in light of our soon-to-be denser core.)
Paris has double the population density of New York City.
Auckland puts 1.3M people in 1000 square kilometres. Barcelona has 1.6M people in one-tenth that area.
We need smarter density and better land use, not taller buildings.
James Kunstler on the fall of the World Trade Centre:
Where is the financial world going to find several million square feet of office space?
The answer is right in front of our noses. Move into and renovate the numerous depressed areas just a few subway stops away. With the proper mixed zoning legislation needed to protect residents and guarantee a thriving street life.We associate height with density far too much. Often, increased height is just an excuse used in order to maintain density while giving swaths of land over to roads and parking lots (e.g., the antiquated Tower in the [car] Park ideal).
What about the wow factor?
Sure, the skylines and daunting monoliths of New York City and, to a lesser extent, Toronto generate tourism (to some degree). Yet, no one goes back for or lives for these towers.
It is, instead, the human-scaled villages with their sidewalk and cafe culture found within. Elevator and hallway culture is pretty lame, last time I heard.
Vancouver loves to flash its skyline around to show the beauty. Sorry, architects, the mountains and ocean make your city beautiful -- not the buildings.
To paraphrase a European architect/urban designer:
When you pass by a tall building, the first time you say "Wow." The next "Whoa." The next "Woo...." And, then you stop looking, because we are far more drawn to the details and interest of the world at our level.
In fact, I often find myself noticing tall buildings -- for the first time -- that I have passed by my whole life.The wow factor is reserved for first-time tourists and postcards.
So beautiful, you want to just walk around looking up.
--Part 2. will address wayfinding, evolutionary needs, and more -- soon.
13 comments:
Paris and Barcelona aren't good models for Victoria to emulate. Have you ever been to Paris? The narrow, claustrophobic streets? The only view out your apartment is directly into your neighbour's bedroom?
Paris is bearable only due to the grand plazas every few hundred yards. They exist because of Paris' wide boulevards that slice through the city (courtesy of Baron Haussmann's axe). You only have to wind your way through the canyon-like streets for a few minutes before coming upon an open plaza.
Victoria lacks that ryhthm, that optimal grid/boulevard structure.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the feedback.
I guess I should clarify that my use of those cities was to point out that skylines have little to do with quality street life and may, in fact, be detrimental to it. I was not suggesting that we somehow emulate their long-established built environment.
I also wanted to provide an example of achieving density without height.
I have not been to Paris. I could have picked four cities that I've been to, but I wanted to pick one quick associations of 'culture'.
Anyways, my thesis is that we should achieve density and aesthetics through compact and thoughtful design, by taking back some land from the automobile and by regenerating derelict areas/buildings. The next post does not even refer to Paris.
I think saying Victoria lacks some intrinsic rhythm in its street system s a cop out. Our street layout is easily grid-like enough, and we simply have unfulfilled boulevards -- Douglas, Fort, Yates, Blanshard. The problem is not WHAT we have but HOW we're using it. There is also plenty of spaces that could be converted into plazas and other quality public spaces.
As I said in a previous post, no one goes to Paris for the traffic. They go for the street life; the narrow, human-scaled neighbourhoods; and for the vibrancy. (Art and history, too.)
I don't know about you, but the 'claustrophobic' streets of Barcelona, Istanbul, and many other cities that I have been to were the best parts of those cities. I found the wider streets of Hong Kong with its jungle of towers far more oppressive than those places -- even downtown Toronto, for that matter.
p.s., have you been to Barcelona?
I'm just curious as to what you did not like about Auckland (you mention it is a crap city).
Hi Caleb,
Have you been?
I was thoroughly disappointed by its -- well -- doughnutness (lacking a centre), and I visited there well before I was even thinking about such things, so much.
It's like a bigger, worse version of Victoria: Everyone lives in a huge network of low-density, primarily single use suburbs that ARE, fortunately, aesthetically-pleasing. As a result, everyone drives into town for work, and then turns around and leaves at night.
Big highways going in and out of the urban core, just packed with traffic, etc. etc.
The core seemed to lack any real life outside of tourists and weekend shoppers.
I had fun jumping off the SkyTower, though! The Bay is beautiful, and I loved the little I saw of the country.
Unfortunately, the last I read, the gov't has said no to investing in transit and yes to pumping in huge amounts into expanding their highway infrastructure.
I guess I agree with some of your sentiment. Just building tall buildings for their own sake is childish.
However, I also agree with Rob - I don't think I'd be too happy in either Barcelona or Paris. Both cities have the 8-10 story mono streets: Have a look at a typical Barcelona street Google Maps
They are made bearable by a number of plazas, and the corners are nicely rounded off, but I'm not sure its the build form I would be in favour of.
Hi jklymak,
Thanks for the comment.
Like I said, I am not saying to emulate these cities exactly -- especially this swath of sim city blocks. The point is to build better streets and so cities.
That said, I would still take this streetscape that you provided over most if not all of what Victoria has to offer.
Why? It is human-scaled, dense enough to provide services nearby, has pedestrian uses on the ground floor, has (some) bike lanes, has street trees, relatively wide sidewalks with bicycle and scooter parking, and has no setbacks. All that on a relatively 'drab' street by Barcelona standards.
Made bearable from what?
Hmm, I guess I found nothing different about Auckland than your average 'New World' city other than the fact it lacks a good transit system. Was just wondering why you were picking on its skyline! I think the point you're making is that a good skyline does not equal a healthy city, and of course I felt the need to point out a a good skyline does not equal an unhealthy city. All of Manhattan outside of the Financial District contains city streetscapes I'd desire, and of course an impressive highrise skyline.
Yeah, that's exactly it. My point was that Auckland DOES have a nice skyline.. but that it's deceptive to it's massive low-density reality.
True enough re Manhattan. However, there is a case to be made against those buildings that make up its impressive skyline. And, people who live there seek to live (and spend time) in the villages, not the highrise-lined corridors.
I think you can have the same density by making the buildings twice as tall with half the floor plan. You can keep the bottom two floors on the street, and you have all the same density and street life, but more sky.
That's exactly what has been done in most North American cities. What that turns into is the misguided tower-in-the-park. The 'park' space ends up being either a parking lot or an uninviting (too big, too hidden/unexposed to public life, etc) and remains empty. Much of the energy on the street comes for the 'outdoor room' or 'street enclosure' created with a particular range of street width to building height ratio.
I am not saying to have every building with a 100% lot area coverage. However, as I will discuss in 'part 2', there are disadvantages to tall buildings with very little -- if any other than 'skyline -- advantages.
I am all for non-monotonous design, buildings with setbacks in order to created patios and plazas, etc. etc.
You can maintain a street front podium that avoids the tower in a park.
Good point.
However, that only partially mitigates wind tunnel effects, shadows, increased energy input, reduced sustainability, etc. and none of the effects presented in part 2.
I would still go for half the height and the same floor space, with the *occasional* higher landmark.
Post a Comment
Two things:
1) A lot of discussion about this site happens on facebook; so, I would recommend finding the site (link on the right sidebar) and me there.
2) I'm experimenting with non-sign-in commenting to encourage more discussion (the 2 minutes it takes to create a google/other account seems like too much trouble).
Being 'anonymous' is pretty lame, so at least make up a fake name to use.