BRT and Densification Citichat 7 September 2007

CITICHAT 35/2007 - 7 September 2007




Other views…….(1)



Usually I get some mail after every Citichat, agreeing with what I’ve written or disagreeing - or agreeing or disagreeing strongly, sometimes really strongly! Over the next two weeks (too long for just this week!) I thought I’d bring two of these to your notice, the authors have agreed to letting me make use of their opinions.



…….firstly on densification – Citichat 32 “State, Statues and Smart Transportation”



“After reading your last article (State, statues and smart transportation) on the City of Johannesburg website, I found myself bemused and mostly skeptical about the "pertinent comments on densification by international experts" that you quote. Although I could pride myself of being "international" in my work experiences, I certainly do not qualify as an expert in any field (but an amateur of many), yet I remain convinced of the fact that cities are too important to be left to urbanists and urban planners alone, and that as far as urban issues are concerned, in the end, the best experts are the users.



So, please allow me to add a few personal comments on those extracts from the November/December 2006 Urban Land Institute publication on Architecture and Society.

• Dense, efficient cities are much more sustainable than sprawling medium-to-low-density cities.

This is a highly questionable assumption. Indeed, dense cities are not necessarily efficient (there are probably more inefficient than efficient dense cities), and sprawling cities are not necessarily inefficient. Joining these 2 adjectives as if they naturally went together is deceitful. One first needs to define the word "efficient", taking into account a lot of parameters. Density can improve certain aspects of urban life, but worsen others. A comprehensive approach of development/densification is needed, knowing that one never anticipates everything, and that in this respect, better is the enemy of good (which once gone is gone for good).

• Density of development is fundamental in creating high quality urban projects.

That assumption is so broad and vague that it needs to be precised. What is the definition of "high quality urban projects"? One could just as well write: "Low density is fundamental in keeping a high quality environment and a healthy quality of life". All is in the adjective "fundamental". On the other hand, what is certain is that density of development is fundamental in keeping the interests and financial health of developers. In other words, I doubt very much that the high and fast profits-driven property market that we have seen in Johannesburg for some years now will make way for a more responsible, intelligent and pleasant architecture in the densification corridors. We'll just have vertical clusters, more concrete and less trees. The lack of action and involvement from the city that you regularly point at in your excellent chronicles as one cause for the sluggish pace of inner-city renewal is not an encouragement to think that the public powers will be inclined to act more responsibly with regards to assessing projects and approving new development rights.

• There is a particular advantage to the environment in vertical city making, requiring manipulation of light, air and comfort requiring attention and articulation in architectural design. There is no doubt that design can ameliorate density in such a way as to provide very pleasant lifestyles even in extreme densities. It seems that the capacity of cities to hold more people in the same area is almost limitless provided appropriate infrastructure is created at the same time .

I agree 100% on the importance of architecture (and not only in vertical cities). Here is the one condition under which I would truly rejoice the new SDF (follows a piece of urban utopia): those densification corridors should be called "improved architecture corridors" instead, and proposals be submitted to the approval of a board of a representative panel of the population, thus giving South African architects a fantastic opportunity to express themselves and be creative. One obligation would be to retain some greenery in these areas: indeed, one cannot overemphasise what an asset trees are for a city and the well-being of its inhabitants (god do I miss Jozi trees...). Trees are easy to cut, but take a long time to grow and mature... Alas, I fear achieving densification while keeping grass and trees is a challenge current developers are not ready or even willing to live up to, even though we'll all have to live with the consequences. Does it make sense to plant trees in Soweto and at the same time cut them in Craighall or Dunkeld?



As for the second assumption ("There is no doubt that design can ameliorate density in such a way as to provide very pleasant lifestyles even in extreme densities."), I think it places unreasonable trust in the powers of design: these may seem infinite in the virtual wonderlands of Autocad and Photoshop, but unfortunately (or fortunately), architecture applies itself in a 3D environment, prosaically bound by the sheer physicality of reality.

"very pleasant lifestyles in extreme densities": this is the type of theoretical challenges architects like to tackle, and contradictions they think they can solve on paper. One has to have endured the daily nightmare of peak hour metro twice a day in Paris and the endless noise pollutions in one's tiny apartment to know that high densities are more likely to increase stress and reduce the well-being of inhabitants.



In this respect, the 3rd assumption (It seems that the capacity of cities to hold more people in the same area is almost limitless provided appropriate infrastructure is created at the same time), is caricatural (let's just try the experience, even modestly: accommodate the whole of Joburg's population in Rosebank for example...), and clearly shows that we are here, more than in a a theoretical and fantasy world unbounded by the physical limits of reality (if it were not for the duly highlighted condition, which is a good recall to reality and relevantly points to the near aporia/impossibility of adequate urban planning), in an ideological discourse in favor of verticalisation and densification, disguised as an "experts" statement, not unlike those simplistic and dellusional renderings of townhouse complexes that flourish everywhere, trying to lure foolish people to buy into an imaginary so-called European lifestyle, completely disconnected from reality, which always ends up looking uglier than on those pleasant sketches. What they usually end up with is a pile of bricks surrounded by walls and electric fences. What we could end up with if the above mentioned ideological discourse had its way in Johannesburg is even higher piles of bricks surrounded by walls and electric fences (I see it everyday in SC#o Paulo, the world champion of urban densification).

• Cities are too important to be left to the politicians and economists b cities are used by the people who live and work in them and how to understand their needs and prepare for expansion of new communities.

Cities are too important to be left to the developers and urban planners alone.

• A classic model of a polycentric city is London; it has many centres - Greenwich, east London, parts of the West End, Chelsea, Camden, north London - all with their own dynamic intensities. And they were all suburbs once. Enough building mass and enough mixed use actually creates a fabric that over time becomes integrated into the surroundings. The problem is suburban housing that just has housing. You can't support a bus system, you can't support a school, you can't support a shop if you don't have enough people living within a 15 to 25km radius.

Fair enough, this makes sense. It is a question of applying the right densities, as it is a question of wealth distribution: you need a larger middle class to support such plans. Sao Paulo is also a polycentric city, but the infrastructure can simply not cope with the densities, and I am afraid it will never do. Once again, I believe there are limits to urban densities, passed which the negative effects overcome the positive ones, no matter what infrastructures are being built (the recent crash of the TAM plane in Congonhas airport is a brutal reminder of this). Congestion is a space problem, space is limited, at least on Earth, and as long as we'll be humans and live on this Earth, we will have to take space into consideration and have some regard for it.

• In (some) cities, the form of the buildings, their layout on the ground, actually exacerbates the problem. Think of the vast amount of housing that is being built behind barbed wires, or electronic fences, or walls in cities like Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Caracas and Johannesburg. You know that as society changes and the neighbours may become wealthier, these will never become integrated areas. Building cities without walls is very important, and I am not optimistic that things are going to change in many of those places.

Sao Paulo shows us precisely that densification and verticalisation (the 2 most prominent features of this city) do not necessarily mean integration, and are certainly not the urban panacea. Instead of having houses behind walls and fences, you have skyscrapers behind walls and fences, with less trees, more pollution and more congestion in the streets (not mentioning the buses traffic jams, because their "BRT" system soon got limited by the road surfaces, despite the allocated lanes).



Finally, it is alleged that densification is seen as a remedy to curb urban sprawl: I am ready to bet that densification will not stop urban sprawl. It will just reinforce the power of attraction of Johannesburg as a place of concentration of wealth (but not for all of course), attracting more people in search of 0pportunities, and at the same time the city will continue to expand outwards. As a result, we will have both densification and sprawl (and urban decay in some areas), and as a consequence a widening gap on the South African territory between a rich (but not for all) and inscreasingly dysfunctional megacity and the rest of the country. Since South Africa is blessed with a lot of space, wouldn't it be more reasonable and better for the country as a whole to try and develop secondary cities rather, and at the same time retain some of Johannesburg's unique suburban character?



I agree that Johannesburg could do with a little bit more urbanity and a little bit less suburbanity. But please, let's not buy blindly into the ideological discourse of densification, let's be subtle in the dosage, and wary of unexpected consequences we'll all have to live with. The prospect of Johannesburg turning into a concrete jungle like Sao Paulo simply fills me with horror.”



To densify or not to densify? Have a great weekend, neil