CITICHAT 38/2007 - 28 September 20 2007
Urban Renaissance in New York and Philadelphia
Some months ago I wrote about the fact that some 5 000 residential units had come onto our Joburg inner city market between 2001 and 2006 and that a further 5000 were planned or underway between 2007 and 2010. In addition, the city is planning incentives to boost these numbers to a further 50 to 75000 by 2013. Having spent two weeks visiting Annapolis, Washington DC, Philadelphia and New York City and attending the International Downtown Association’s Annual Conference and World Congress on Cities in New York City, it is clear that a massive urban renaissance is in full flight, with city after city reporting floods of suburnanites moving to city living. In the States, the population equivalent of two New York Cities move annually from rural to urban areas! With this return to city living, the Business Improvement District (BID) movement (in our case City Improvement District (CID)), is taking off, not only in numbers, New York City now has 61, but in the range and depth of services provided. There is a sense of confidence in cities that I haven’t experienced in the past twenty years. Gone are the days of ‘clean and safe’ being the only focus for BIDs, now they’ve lifted their sights and are becoming major partners with city governments in making cities livable. “Green’ and ‘sustainable’ are no longer buzz words – the designers of Manhattan’s skyscrapers look for choices that will make their buildings as energy efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. Traditional materials are giving way to those that are specifically produced for the new green era and whose production systems themselves are free of pollution processes. Within a matter of years, it will not be possible to have plans passed in NYC unless there is total conformance with the new ‘green’ codes that are required to be met before the buildings can be certified for occupation.
The massive city of New York is in the throes of this renewal - $26 billion of new development (that’s about R200 billion) is underway this year which includes 35 000 residential units. The 1990 population of 7.3 million has swollen to 8.2 million and continues growing. Remember too that this all comes off the very low base that the city had plummeted to following 9/11 when the city lost 100 000 jobs in 3 months. Mayor Bloomberg, who took over from Rudi Guiliani, faced a $7 billion deficit in the first year of his term of office. Now, New York is pumping with more construction activity than I have seen over nearly thirty years of visiting this city.
Daniel I Doctoroff, Deputy Mayor of ‘Economic Development and Rebuilding New York’, stressed the overriding importance of four key issues in this urban surge - ‘quality of life’; fiscal discipline; thoughtful, objective strategic planning and leadership. As people move into the city the tax income for the city increases and more investment is ploughed back into quality of life aspects. More people bring more restaurants, fast food providers, delicatessens, and retail each contributing to the city’s income. The parks of New York, not just the traditional biggies like Central Park, but the dozens of smaller parks and street corner parks, are all looking great and attracting thousands upon thousands of people, the quality of streets and schools is all being visibly improved, crime is down 75%.
Doctoroff says that the strengths and weaknesses of the city were analysed “brutally” and two of the major issues that emerged were New York’s long term competitiveness and the disproportionate loss they were experiencing in middle class population. The long term strategies that emerged to counter these weaknesses were a clear focus on (i) industries and (ii) places. For example, emphasis and financial support is being given to tourism related businesses (35 million tourists in 2002 has grown to 46 million by 2007); incentives are being provided to film and TV production resulting in the single largest such facilities east of California) providing some 5 000 new jobs and generally encouraging many more ‘blue-collar’ jobs and making a clear effort to win back what they lost in the financial sector through 9/11 with many corporates now moving back to NYC.
The development upsurge is not confined to Manhattan, all five boroughs are experiencing similar trends. For instance, what is being described as an ‘explosion of new development’ in Brooklyn was set off by sweeping rezoning approvals by the City Council some years back that allows for an additional 450 000 sq metres of class A office space, 90 000 sq metres of retail and 1 000 residential units to Brooklyn’s downtown area alone which will result in it becoming New York’s third largest CBD. Brooklyn, which had no hotels only four or five years ago, now has an operating major chain hotel (about to extend its numbers of rooms) with two more under construction - over 1 250 new beds being provided. Nearly $6 billion in some 50 projects is being spent by the private sector in one area of Brooklyn alone including hundreds of ‘market rate’ apartments that will subsidise new apartments for the ‘formerly homeless’.
Everywhere one goes in New York City one sees construction activity and the streets are pumping with people and energy. There is a clear return to high-rise buildings after the concerns generated by 9/11, with a recognition that ‘building tall’ is the way to go for density and anti-sprawl as well as for environmental reasons.
By the time Johannesburg was first established, Philadelphia was already the largest and most diversified industrial city in North America. But, as everywhere else, manufacturing decreased dramatically and today only 6% of Philadelphia’s workforce is in the industrial sector. When I first visited the city centre in the early 1980s, it was dirty and unsafe with hundreds of street people adding to the perception of decay and decline. The establishment of the Central Philadelphia Development Corporation in 1956 had led to major public investment but it wasn’t until the establishment of a CID in 1990, the Center City District (CCD), that a focus was brought to ‘safe and clean’ and the platform for the revitalization of the downtown was laid. Now the area boasts new office towers, with rentals escalating from a low of $15.24/sq.ft in 1996 to $24.23 last year, growth in its education, medical care and research facilities, hotel rooms (6 000 in 1986 to over 10 000 20 years later with a 74% occupancy rate); a massive increase in convention attendance as tourists to the Philadelphia region soared to over 27 million in 2005 with similar escalation of visitors to arts and culture establishments. As with both Washington DC and New York, residential development has mushroomed with over 200 projects coming on stream between 2001 and 2007 and at least another 30 known projects planned or underway. The downtown now boasts one of the largest residential populations in the US with 88 000 centre city residents. Residential has, in turn, spawned a retail return to the downtown as well as large numbers of bistros, outdoor eating facilities and restaurants. Restaurants have increased by 238% since 1991.
A strategy “Centre City: Planning for Growth 2007 to 2012” was published earlier this year by the Center City District and the Central Philadelphia Development Corporation. It was the outcome of the work of seven design firms whose concepts were presented at a series of widely publicized forums held throughout 2006 that led to the incorporation of many comments and suggestions. Discussions were held with property owners, developers, business leaders, residents and public officials and from all the foregoing seven broad objectives were distilled:
• Increasing the attractiveness of the centre city as a place to work whilst creating opportunities for new 21st century industries
• Building on the residential boom by investing in key facilities, schools, playgrounds, parks and public access to the waterfront
• Enhancing the walkable character of the centre city
• Eliminating gaps in the pedestrian fabric and overcoming barriers to growth such as highways and railroads
• Contributing to the diversification of the mixture of land uses whilst preserving an extraordinary architectural heritage
• Allowing for the easy movement of cars, bicycles, trucks and buses so that they can co-exist with pedestrians
• Dramatically enhance the quality, customer-friendliness and frequency of public transit through both small-scale and major infrastructure investments to link the city’s neighbourhoods and residents of the region to opportunities downtown.
These resonate well with us and our needs.
It’s great to experience what other cities are doing and seeing what we can learn from their efforts, but it’s always great to come home! Cheers, neil
AC
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Annapolois ; Washington DC Citichat 21 September 2007
CITICHAT 37/2007 - 21 September 20 2007
Two very different American cities offering a great quality of life
Have had the opportunity to visit a number of American cities over the past two weeks. One for the first time - Annapolis - and three repeat visits, Washington DC, Philadelphia and New York City where I also attended the International Downtown Association (IDA) Annual Conference and World Congress on Cities. Thought I’d share with you my impressions - this week on Annapolis and Washington DC and next week on Philadelphia and New York City and the conference itself. Over-riding impressions were of a massive urban renaissance and a dramatically improved quality of life in urban America.
Annapolis, situated on the east coast of the USA is the capital of the State of Maryland. Its location at the mouth of the Severn River which flows into Chesapeake Bay provides it with a beautiful setting – cities with river and ocean-frontage seem to always start at a great advantage over landlocked conurbations such as Joeys!
Annapolis is a small city (population of about 37 000) with a low density (2.056 per square kilometre). It is set in an historic area with inhabitants being traceable back to 1000 BC and villages to 800 AD. This was once home to the Algonquin and the Susquehannocks. The area was explored by the British in the early 1600s but the first real settlements were established in the mid-1630s and the first shipyard in 1650. By the late 1600s the population was about 200 at which stage the plan for the city was laid out. The plan was based on that developed by Christopher Wren and John Evelyn for remodelling London. The plan dictated that the city would radiate outwards from two circles at the top of a hill – the one circle would have a religious focus, with a church as centrepoint, the other with government buildings - the Church and State Circles. The streets radiated out from these circles and were aligned with the points of the compass. Annapolis, for a very short period around the 1780s, was capital of the United States. A naval academy was established in 1850 that today has a student body of about 4000. So it is an historic city and has retained an impressive amount of its built history, in fact in the 1950s the State government planned to raze 14 buildings on State Circle to make way for a 10 000 sq metre office building but this was stopped by concerned citizens and the heritage buildings preserved – sound familiar?
This is a really beautiful and liveable city, well planned and laid out with many historic buildings and precincts, wide pavements with lots of trees, planters and laden flower baskets dangling from street light poles and well designed buildings. Near the historic precinct, modern building design is very sympathetic to its heritage neighbours. It has a bustling waterfront with typical waterfront retail and every type of eating establishment imaginable and what seems like thousands of yachts of every type and size that tie up literally in the main street! It is evidently known as the “Sailing Capital of the World”. Streets seem to seamlessly become jetties bringing waterfront life right into the town. I was staggered to find that many of the numerous sleek motor yachts that cluster the moorings cost in excess of $2 million - this is clearly a very affluent part of the States. I was only there for half-a-day and had no time to investigate the form or quality of local government but it appeared to be a very well managed city. But I understand that it is subject to a great deal of rapid low-density sprawl on the edges of the city which is resulting in ecological destruction. But what a great place to live or visit!
At the other end of the economic scale, another beautiful city, Washington DC. At the other end of the economic scale? 50%-plus of its inhabitants live in families with an average income of $25 000-00 per annum against the national average of $50/60 000.
My visit focused particularly on the Downtown DC Business Improvement District (Downtown DC BID) - what we call a CID (City Improvement District).
I have visited the DC BID quite regularly since its establishment as the first Washington DC BID about ten years ago (1997) and am always struck by the dynamic progress it has made in that time and how pivotal the Downtown BID has been in the revitalisation of the city itself. When I first visited it in about 1998 the area it covers, now some 142 city blocks, suffered from a decidedly negative image which was quite justified. It was dirty and an air of insecurity pervaded the place with many buildings boarded up and the retail was generally limited and of poor quality. Employment within the DC BID area had been steadily declining, investment was described as ‘anaemic’ and the private sector ‘lethargic’ and it was a pretty dull place. DC, at that time, was actually bankrupt and was experiencing a shambles in local government. Lots of close parallels to where we we’ve been!
The first services of the CID focused on safety, hospitality and maintenance through very visible workers on the streets named SAMs – (Safety & Maintenance workers) who discouraged disorderly behaviour and crime whilst generally cleaning up the area by removing graffiti and refuse and planting flowers, hanging planter baskets and painting light poles etc. This is the baseline for every BID or CID and becomes the platform off which revitalisation can take place. You cannot attract investment to a city unless you can provide investors with three basics - certainty, stability and predictability. As good urban management was developed and impacted the area , so investment returned and, today, the results speak for themselves. Since January 2002 over 10 million square feet of new office space has come on stream plus another 6.7 million square feet of renovated offices; there have been 5 226 new residential units coming on stream with another 4 990 under construction; 5 new hotels and 2 new museums and much other activity besides. 174 new development projects ($9.4 billion) have been completed, 68 others are under construction ($5.3 billion) and another 86 planned ($10.6 billion). In 1999 there were 49 restaurants - by 2005 this had grown to 85 and that number has exploded further since then! Most important, employment in the BID area has increased and is projected to continue increasing (120 000 jobs located in the BID area has increased to 175 000). They anticipate an increase of a further 18 000 residents by 2012
Off the base of ‘clean and safe’ services the Downtown BID has developed a multitude of services. Its SAMs have been developed to not only be the eyes and ears for law enforcement and the friendly face to greet locals and visitors alike (DC has 22 million visitors per annum!) but report on public space hazards and defects; provide emergency assistance, connect the homeless to needed services, discourage illegal and disorderly behaviour, remove litter and graffiti and regularly steam clean pavements. SAMs are also trained to carry out many surveys on a wide variety of issues including the numbers and conditions of trees (some 2500 in the BID area). Many are trained in tree management and the BID has introduced drip irrigation to help watering in the very hot summer months. The BID works actively to get homeless street people into appropriate housing and treatment regimes for mental health or substance and other abuse. The public environment is under constant scrutiny with the BID improving parks and landscapes, providing refuse bins and hanging baskets and new more effective lighting at street intersections.
It is fascinating to trace the development path of the Downtown DC BID under the inspired leadership of Rich Bradley, an old friend to Johannesburg. Whilst still being passionate about ‘clean and safe’ as its core function, under his direction, the BID has considerably broadened its scope particularly in the areas of economic development, marketing and transportation. A great deal of this work is done in partnership with local government departments and I really mean ‘partnership’ – whilst our local government talks of partnership I don’t believe we go anywhere far enough to allow the inner city to reap the benefits of full co-operation – admittedly they are hampered by some of the quite stupid requirements of the MFMA, but that’s another story.
In 1997 only 25% of people surveyed perceived the Downtown DC BID area as clean, 53% as safe and 25% as vibrant – today those figures are 69%, 84% and 81% respectively. Attendance at events have soared over that period from less than 3 million to over 10 million. The selling price of office buildings has gone from $150 per square foot to $ 572 resulting in a huge increase in city revenues.
The recovery of Downtown Washington DC has been remarkable and the DC BID has been one of the most critical components. Today it is a vibrant downtown with a wonderful quality of life that attracts more and more young people and business alike, a great city to live and work in!
Ciao, neil
Two very different American cities offering a great quality of life
Have had the opportunity to visit a number of American cities over the past two weeks. One for the first time - Annapolis - and three repeat visits, Washington DC, Philadelphia and New York City where I also attended the International Downtown Association (IDA) Annual Conference and World Congress on Cities. Thought I’d share with you my impressions - this week on Annapolis and Washington DC and next week on Philadelphia and New York City and the conference itself. Over-riding impressions were of a massive urban renaissance and a dramatically improved quality of life in urban America.
Annapolis, situated on the east coast of the USA is the capital of the State of Maryland. Its location at the mouth of the Severn River which flows into Chesapeake Bay provides it with a beautiful setting – cities with river and ocean-frontage seem to always start at a great advantage over landlocked conurbations such as Joeys!
Annapolis is a small city (population of about 37 000) with a low density (2.056 per square kilometre). It is set in an historic area with inhabitants being traceable back to 1000 BC and villages to 800 AD. This was once home to the Algonquin and the Susquehannocks. The area was explored by the British in the early 1600s but the first real settlements were established in the mid-1630s and the first shipyard in 1650. By the late 1600s the population was about 200 at which stage the plan for the city was laid out. The plan was based on that developed by Christopher Wren and John Evelyn for remodelling London. The plan dictated that the city would radiate outwards from two circles at the top of a hill – the one circle would have a religious focus, with a church as centrepoint, the other with government buildings - the Church and State Circles. The streets radiated out from these circles and were aligned with the points of the compass. Annapolis, for a very short period around the 1780s, was capital of the United States. A naval academy was established in 1850 that today has a student body of about 4000. So it is an historic city and has retained an impressive amount of its built history, in fact in the 1950s the State government planned to raze 14 buildings on State Circle to make way for a 10 000 sq metre office building but this was stopped by concerned citizens and the heritage buildings preserved – sound familiar?
This is a really beautiful and liveable city, well planned and laid out with many historic buildings and precincts, wide pavements with lots of trees, planters and laden flower baskets dangling from street light poles and well designed buildings. Near the historic precinct, modern building design is very sympathetic to its heritage neighbours. It has a bustling waterfront with typical waterfront retail and every type of eating establishment imaginable and what seems like thousands of yachts of every type and size that tie up literally in the main street! It is evidently known as the “Sailing Capital of the World”. Streets seem to seamlessly become jetties bringing waterfront life right into the town. I was staggered to find that many of the numerous sleek motor yachts that cluster the moorings cost in excess of $2 million - this is clearly a very affluent part of the States. I was only there for half-a-day and had no time to investigate the form or quality of local government but it appeared to be a very well managed city. But I understand that it is subject to a great deal of rapid low-density sprawl on the edges of the city which is resulting in ecological destruction. But what a great place to live or visit!
At the other end of the economic scale, another beautiful city, Washington DC. At the other end of the economic scale? 50%-plus of its inhabitants live in families with an average income of $25 000-00 per annum against the national average of $50/60 000.
My visit focused particularly on the Downtown DC Business Improvement District (Downtown DC BID) - what we call a CID (City Improvement District).
I have visited the DC BID quite regularly since its establishment as the first Washington DC BID about ten years ago (1997) and am always struck by the dynamic progress it has made in that time and how pivotal the Downtown BID has been in the revitalisation of the city itself. When I first visited it in about 1998 the area it covers, now some 142 city blocks, suffered from a decidedly negative image which was quite justified. It was dirty and an air of insecurity pervaded the place with many buildings boarded up and the retail was generally limited and of poor quality. Employment within the DC BID area had been steadily declining, investment was described as ‘anaemic’ and the private sector ‘lethargic’ and it was a pretty dull place. DC, at that time, was actually bankrupt and was experiencing a shambles in local government. Lots of close parallels to where we we’ve been!
The first services of the CID focused on safety, hospitality and maintenance through very visible workers on the streets named SAMs – (Safety & Maintenance workers) who discouraged disorderly behaviour and crime whilst generally cleaning up the area by removing graffiti and refuse and planting flowers, hanging planter baskets and painting light poles etc. This is the baseline for every BID or CID and becomes the platform off which revitalisation can take place. You cannot attract investment to a city unless you can provide investors with three basics - certainty, stability and predictability. As good urban management was developed and impacted the area , so investment returned and, today, the results speak for themselves. Since January 2002 over 10 million square feet of new office space has come on stream plus another 6.7 million square feet of renovated offices; there have been 5 226 new residential units coming on stream with another 4 990 under construction; 5 new hotels and 2 new museums and much other activity besides. 174 new development projects ($9.4 billion) have been completed, 68 others are under construction ($5.3 billion) and another 86 planned ($10.6 billion). In 1999 there were 49 restaurants - by 2005 this had grown to 85 and that number has exploded further since then! Most important, employment in the BID area has increased and is projected to continue increasing (120 000 jobs located in the BID area has increased to 175 000). They anticipate an increase of a further 18 000 residents by 2012
Off the base of ‘clean and safe’ services the Downtown BID has developed a multitude of services. Its SAMs have been developed to not only be the eyes and ears for law enforcement and the friendly face to greet locals and visitors alike (DC has 22 million visitors per annum!) but report on public space hazards and defects; provide emergency assistance, connect the homeless to needed services, discourage illegal and disorderly behaviour, remove litter and graffiti and regularly steam clean pavements. SAMs are also trained to carry out many surveys on a wide variety of issues including the numbers and conditions of trees (some 2500 in the BID area). Many are trained in tree management and the BID has introduced drip irrigation to help watering in the very hot summer months. The BID works actively to get homeless street people into appropriate housing and treatment regimes for mental health or substance and other abuse. The public environment is under constant scrutiny with the BID improving parks and landscapes, providing refuse bins and hanging baskets and new more effective lighting at street intersections.
It is fascinating to trace the development path of the Downtown DC BID under the inspired leadership of Rich Bradley, an old friend to Johannesburg. Whilst still being passionate about ‘clean and safe’ as its core function, under his direction, the BID has considerably broadened its scope particularly in the areas of economic development, marketing and transportation. A great deal of this work is done in partnership with local government departments and I really mean ‘partnership’ – whilst our local government talks of partnership I don’t believe we go anywhere far enough to allow the inner city to reap the benefits of full co-operation – admittedly they are hampered by some of the quite stupid requirements of the MFMA, but that’s another story.
In 1997 only 25% of people surveyed perceived the Downtown DC BID area as clean, 53% as safe and 25% as vibrant – today those figures are 69%, 84% and 81% respectively. Attendance at events have soared over that period from less than 3 million to over 10 million. The selling price of office buildings has gone from $150 per square foot to $ 572 resulting in a huge increase in city revenues.
The recovery of Downtown Washington DC has been remarkable and the DC BID has been one of the most critical components. Today it is a vibrant downtown with a wonderful quality of life that attracts more and more young people and business alike, a great city to live and work in!
Ciao, neil
Friday, September 14, 2007
GPGP Citichat 14 September 2007
CITICHAT 36/2007 - 14 September 2007
Other views…….(2)
In Citichat 32 “State, Statues and Smart Transportation”. I had written:
"In the meantime, the buildings bought by the provincial government five years ago have been empty and left to disintegrate, thus creating an added eyesore in the city center. Surely it is incumbent on the provincial government, particularly given the premier's and the MEC's comments way back at the start of the project, to advise the citizens of the city just what it is now planning.
Surely it is incumbent on the provincial government as one of our custodians of the built heritage and as the owner of these crumbling structures to tell us what it is planning to do with the heritage (and other) buildings that daily degenerate?"
Here is a reply received:
“One assumes also that "surely it is incumbent on the Provincial Goverment (GPG) to repay the taxpayer the lost interest/opportunity costs on the money wasted here to date and to reimburse the City of Joburg (CoJ) for lost rates on these properties". Perhaps CoJ should sue GPG for damages and reduced amenity on behalf of it's citizens. Perhaps it should come from the GPG salary packages.
Surely there is some legal route to force a property owner to take appropriate measures (maintenance, for instance) to prevent this ... even if it is as lowly as a simple clause in the bylaws - oops, sorry, I temporarily forgot that provinces and politicians and such don't pay much attention to the rules and regs that we all have to live by, that were mostly made by politicians using our money, to ensure rational development of our cities.
I have great concerns about this problem, but like most others who also do, don't have the time and resources to do anything about it - I'm too busy trying to stay alive under the load of paying my share of these buildings and the politicians and lawmaking expenses.
I used to be a very charitable person, giving others the benefit of the doubt when listening to their ideas. Forty years of practice, marvelling at the schemes that come and go (starting with, in my 60's Pretoria architecture student days, the 'Ring Road' elevated highway proposal to put a noose on the city) and I am perhaps more idealistic than I was then about where the future should be, and somewhat less idealistic (leaning dangerously to cynical) about the performance of the team partners needed to get there. Planning needs to be done by people with design/planning expertise coupled with sufficient experience to remain objective about their proposals. The rest of the team need to learn how to resist the urge to be 'wannabedesigners-cos-it's-so-seductive-and-I-have-the-money'.
What we are missing most in this country is mass awareness education (remind the politicians they also are members of the masses) on the need to socially coexist in self-and-mutual-respect and concern for each other's well being and tax-dollars. Cities are not bunches of building grouped around some hole in the street-grid for some politically correct concept devised by a few politicians as a personally legacy project, where they secretly hope that some future generation will place a bronze edifice of the conceptualizer.
Concepts without vision and resources should remain concepts, that vanish like mist when the sun of reason comes out from behind the dark clouds of some hazy, likely-alcohol-facilitated adrenaline-rush
delusion that real power is at hand and it's destiny is a project in the city.
A plantation is not a forest. We need some serious vision with serious clout behind it, like Hausmann (1) (who made Paris the undisputed 'most beautiful city'), with Napoleon for power, for Joburg to even have a slice of a chance to be a 'World Class African City.' We need a Juiliani of New York, or a Jaime Lerner of Curitiba, Brazil. Someone (anyone - even) with enough depth to know how shallow the current thinking is in these grandiose schemes. Haven't found any candidates yet, have we?
Lerner solved the Curitiba transport needs (2) with a few hundred million $US - a city not much smaller today than Joburg. He did it with buses and IQ. R3bn each for Jozy and Tshwane ought to do it with another R2bn for intercity buses and there'll be plenty change left over. Any consultant in private enterprise that crafts a budget for a project that balloons from R2Bn (the original Gautrain estimates, as I remember them) by even so little as 100% (!) should lose his job and client. Any client that allows the budget to balloon the way it has (rivalling Zimbabwean inflation rates) should lose his job too. And after the Gautrain, the plan still needs the buses.
The GPGP buildings are rotting away, probably until the contract for refurbishing them mushrooms into something one can really sink one's teeth into - something that can take a lot of gravy.
Remember Hassan Fathy's (3) experience in Egypt pre WW2? - politicians don't want to know that you can build a school for one third of the current cost, and thus have enough to build three schools. A tight budget has no room for fiddling 'adjustments'. And if at the end of the term of office, there are not enough schools, that's the incoming's problem, who can call it an inherited problem, justifying a bigger budget call.
Fortunately for us, our politicians can see beyond all that - they have the greater vision, don't they?
But who can blame me for thinking that the GPGP and the Gautrain are just 'me-too' projects that arose from the inner-room after-dinner cognac-and-cigar-smoke haze of discussions on the political survivability of the Arms Contracts of the late 90's. Great redistribution mechanisms.
And having twice been the focus of attention of armed robbery in the CoJ, lost a little blood and plenty of money and income in the process, (the most recent by Zimabweans with guns poked in my face and spine - the ones we should embrace with compassion but without recognizing the consequences), I have rapidly waning attention for these inventors of cart-before-the-horse schemes.
Democracy is missing a 'money-back guarantee' plan”.
(1) for a good read about cities, and an excellent account of Hausman's Paris see James Kuntzler's 'The City in Mind'.
(2) see entry in 'Massive Change' by Bruce Mau and 'The Institute Without Boundaries' (Exclusive books)
(3) See 'Architecture for the Poor' by Hassan Fathy
A later addition:
“As if to underline what I had written about the value of design-experienced-and-minded persons in positions of power, after posting the email to you, I read in the current issue of Wallpaper magazine about another architect rising to the challenge after being appointed to deputy mayor of Qinpu in China - he made the city a landmark in the new China development surge (which makes our boom look like a ripple on a pond - I saw a statistic some few years ago that put over half the world population of high-rise construction cranes in Shanghai alone!) and an architectural talking point. Then they made him mayor of Jiading, another large developing region of Shanghai.
I skimmed through your Oct 24 2005 "Farewell to Old Buildings" - the Rand Water Board Building is something I should go and have a look at. I have recently been photographing some downtown structures - not necessarily with a specific purpose, but just to see what comes up, perhaps just for my archives, perhaps because I have a growing obsession of a personal vision of 'The City". I had occasion late last year to go to the current RWB offices in Impala Drive on the edge of the Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve. At the time I wondered at the wisdom of locating an office building in that environment - even though the area south of Impala is not technically Reserve, it probably should be. Again - parastatal privilege to ignore and override as they see fit. I wonder if Rand Water Board had a good look at the possibility of refurbishment of the CBD building before deciding to move. The most energy conservative option in the process of new building, is not to build at all. It's a question that requires a lot of courage to ask at a boardroom table - "do we really need a new building?". This goes for the GPGP, too.
I am currently reading a 1999 article on Tokyo, some quotes -
"in Japan, buildings are designed in the expectation not that they will stand the test of time but that they will be torn down sooner rather that later and replaced by something more appropriate to the economic and technological demands of the future." John Thackara.
"the city changes at dizzying pace defying every attempt at control and planning. This internal seemingly willful force of change defines Tokyo." Judith Connor Greer.
"In Tokyo they demolish 12,339 m2 of buildings, and newly construct 62,861 m2 daily, while 455 units of new housing start every day." Tokyo Metropolis: facts and figures (1993).
"the idea of a city that becomes like a museum, where you cannot pull down buildings simply because they are old is questionable ... In that sense Tokyo is more liberated (than Western Cities)." Sir Norman Foster.
Land in Tokyo commercial areas is usually ten times more valuable than the building on it. That I agree with these thoughts may appear to be in conflict with my email, but in fact is not - I don't side either way with the the demolition gang or the heritage hugger. Everything on it's merits. It's the ill-conceived and wasteful stop-start that is the problem. In the case in point now of Joburg - it ends in limbo and strangulation of resources. In these heritage buildings as well as the "more modern, meaningless buildings", is it the facade or the interior or the utility of the building that either needs protection or is expendable? Is it possible to separate these? Do the planning first, take options if you need to, get the decision, then spend the money. That looks like a logical plan order to me.
At least an office building can be given new services to bring it up to current functionality. Last year I sat in on the DPW internal workshop on heritage buildings preservation, which case studied the Palace of Justice, the Old Synagogue in Paul Kruger Street, Pretoria (location of the Mandela/Treason Trial) and the Capitol Theater. The former restored and functional, the latter two rapidly decaying. The biggest question without an answer - to what function can these be restored and adapted, that will be viable, self-supporting and justifiable today? So far no answers. The Capitol Theater - once the largest, most magnificent cinema in the southern hemisphere, the suit-and-tie dress-up Saturday night Movietone news and movie magic of my childhood - is in the age of TV a parking garage for less than 50 cars by day, useless by night.”
Hmmmmm, lot’s to ponder, thank you for the input, cheers, neil
Other views…….(2)
In Citichat 32 “State, Statues and Smart Transportation”. I had written:
"In the meantime, the buildings bought by the provincial government five years ago have been empty and left to disintegrate, thus creating an added eyesore in the city center. Surely it is incumbent on the provincial government, particularly given the premier's and the MEC's comments way back at the start of the project, to advise the citizens of the city just what it is now planning.
Surely it is incumbent on the provincial government as one of our custodians of the built heritage and as the owner of these crumbling structures to tell us what it is planning to do with the heritage (and other) buildings that daily degenerate?"
Here is a reply received:
“One assumes also that "surely it is incumbent on the Provincial Goverment (GPG) to repay the taxpayer the lost interest/opportunity costs on the money wasted here to date and to reimburse the City of Joburg (CoJ) for lost rates on these properties". Perhaps CoJ should sue GPG for damages and reduced amenity on behalf of it's citizens. Perhaps it should come from the GPG salary packages.
Surely there is some legal route to force a property owner to take appropriate measures (maintenance, for instance) to prevent this ... even if it is as lowly as a simple clause in the bylaws - oops, sorry, I temporarily forgot that provinces and politicians and such don't pay much attention to the rules and regs that we all have to live by, that were mostly made by politicians using our money, to ensure rational development of our cities.
I have great concerns about this problem, but like most others who also do, don't have the time and resources to do anything about it - I'm too busy trying to stay alive under the load of paying my share of these buildings and the politicians and lawmaking expenses.
I used to be a very charitable person, giving others the benefit of the doubt when listening to their ideas. Forty years of practice, marvelling at the schemes that come and go (starting with, in my 60's Pretoria architecture student days, the 'Ring Road' elevated highway proposal to put a noose on the city) and I am perhaps more idealistic than I was then about where the future should be, and somewhat less idealistic (leaning dangerously to cynical) about the performance of the team partners needed to get there. Planning needs to be done by people with design/planning expertise coupled with sufficient experience to remain objective about their proposals. The rest of the team need to learn how to resist the urge to be 'wannabedesigners-cos-it's-so-seductive-and-I-have-the-money'.
What we are missing most in this country is mass awareness education (remind the politicians they also are members of the masses) on the need to socially coexist in self-and-mutual-respect and concern for each other's well being and tax-dollars. Cities are not bunches of building grouped around some hole in the street-grid for some politically correct concept devised by a few politicians as a personally legacy project, where they secretly hope that some future generation will place a bronze edifice of the conceptualizer.
Concepts without vision and resources should remain concepts, that vanish like mist when the sun of reason comes out from behind the dark clouds of some hazy, likely-alcohol-facilitated adrenaline-rush
delusion that real power is at hand and it's destiny is a project in the city.
A plantation is not a forest. We need some serious vision with serious clout behind it, like Hausmann (1) (who made Paris the undisputed 'most beautiful city'), with Napoleon for power, for Joburg to even have a slice of a chance to be a 'World Class African City.' We need a Juiliani of New York, or a Jaime Lerner of Curitiba, Brazil. Someone (anyone - even) with enough depth to know how shallow the current thinking is in these grandiose schemes. Haven't found any candidates yet, have we?
Lerner solved the Curitiba transport needs (2) with a few hundred million $US - a city not much smaller today than Joburg. He did it with buses and IQ. R3bn each for Jozy and Tshwane ought to do it with another R2bn for intercity buses and there'll be plenty change left over. Any consultant in private enterprise that crafts a budget for a project that balloons from R2Bn (the original Gautrain estimates, as I remember them) by even so little as 100% (!) should lose his job and client. Any client that allows the budget to balloon the way it has (rivalling Zimbabwean inflation rates) should lose his job too. And after the Gautrain, the plan still needs the buses.
The GPGP buildings are rotting away, probably until the contract for refurbishing them mushrooms into something one can really sink one's teeth into - something that can take a lot of gravy.
Remember Hassan Fathy's (3) experience in Egypt pre WW2? - politicians don't want to know that you can build a school for one third of the current cost, and thus have enough to build three schools. A tight budget has no room for fiddling 'adjustments'. And if at the end of the term of office, there are not enough schools, that's the incoming's problem, who can call it an inherited problem, justifying a bigger budget call.
Fortunately for us, our politicians can see beyond all that - they have the greater vision, don't they?
But who can blame me for thinking that the GPGP and the Gautrain are just 'me-too' projects that arose from the inner-room after-dinner cognac-and-cigar-smoke haze of discussions on the political survivability of the Arms Contracts of the late 90's. Great redistribution mechanisms.
And having twice been the focus of attention of armed robbery in the CoJ, lost a little blood and plenty of money and income in the process, (the most recent by Zimabweans with guns poked in my face and spine - the ones we should embrace with compassion but without recognizing the consequences), I have rapidly waning attention for these inventors of cart-before-the-horse schemes.
Democracy is missing a 'money-back guarantee' plan”.
(1) for a good read about cities, and an excellent account of Hausman's Paris see James Kuntzler's 'The City in Mind'.
(2) see entry in 'Massive Change' by Bruce Mau and 'The Institute Without Boundaries' (Exclusive books)
(3) See 'Architecture for the Poor' by Hassan Fathy
A later addition:
“As if to underline what I had written about the value of design-experienced-and-minded persons in positions of power, after posting the email to you, I read in the current issue of Wallpaper magazine about another architect rising to the challenge after being appointed to deputy mayor of Qinpu in China - he made the city a landmark in the new China development surge (which makes our boom look like a ripple on a pond - I saw a statistic some few years ago that put over half the world population of high-rise construction cranes in Shanghai alone!) and an architectural talking point. Then they made him mayor of Jiading, another large developing region of Shanghai.
I skimmed through your Oct 24 2005 "Farewell to Old Buildings" - the Rand Water Board Building is something I should go and have a look at. I have recently been photographing some downtown structures - not necessarily with a specific purpose, but just to see what comes up, perhaps just for my archives, perhaps because I have a growing obsession of a personal vision of 'The City". I had occasion late last year to go to the current RWB offices in Impala Drive on the edge of the Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve. At the time I wondered at the wisdom of locating an office building in that environment - even though the area south of Impala is not technically Reserve, it probably should be. Again - parastatal privilege to ignore and override as they see fit. I wonder if Rand Water Board had a good look at the possibility of refurbishment of the CBD building before deciding to move. The most energy conservative option in the process of new building, is not to build at all. It's a question that requires a lot of courage to ask at a boardroom table - "do we really need a new building?". This goes for the GPGP, too.
I am currently reading a 1999 article on Tokyo, some quotes -
"in Japan, buildings are designed in the expectation not that they will stand the test of time but that they will be torn down sooner rather that later and replaced by something more appropriate to the economic and technological demands of the future." John Thackara.
"the city changes at dizzying pace defying every attempt at control and planning. This internal seemingly willful force of change defines Tokyo." Judith Connor Greer.
"In Tokyo they demolish 12,339 m2 of buildings, and newly construct 62,861 m2 daily, while 455 units of new housing start every day." Tokyo Metropolis: facts and figures (1993).
"the idea of a city that becomes like a museum, where you cannot pull down buildings simply because they are old is questionable ... In that sense Tokyo is more liberated (than Western Cities)." Sir Norman Foster.
Land in Tokyo commercial areas is usually ten times more valuable than the building on it. That I agree with these thoughts may appear to be in conflict with my email, but in fact is not - I don't side either way with the the demolition gang or the heritage hugger. Everything on it's merits. It's the ill-conceived and wasteful stop-start that is the problem. In the case in point now of Joburg - it ends in limbo and strangulation of resources. In these heritage buildings as well as the "more modern, meaningless buildings", is it the facade or the interior or the utility of the building that either needs protection or is expendable? Is it possible to separate these? Do the planning first, take options if you need to, get the decision, then spend the money. That looks like a logical plan order to me.
At least an office building can be given new services to bring it up to current functionality. Last year I sat in on the DPW internal workshop on heritage buildings preservation, which case studied the Palace of Justice, the Old Synagogue in Paul Kruger Street, Pretoria (location of the Mandela/Treason Trial) and the Capitol Theater. The former restored and functional, the latter two rapidly decaying. The biggest question without an answer - to what function can these be restored and adapted, that will be viable, self-supporting and justifiable today? So far no answers. The Capitol Theater - once the largest, most magnificent cinema in the southern hemisphere, the suit-and-tie dress-up Saturday night Movietone news and movie magic of my childhood - is in the age of TV a parking garage for less than 50 cars by day, useless by night.”
Hmmmmm, lot’s to ponder, thank you for the input, cheers, neil
Friday, September 7, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
