I began this project by closely surveying a few local developments which look to reimagine housing with a new vision of the future, but the basis of this research as a look into housing for the ninety percent i.e., most of the human population, should really survey the isssue on a global basis. This is the aim of this post.
Clearly, the world population in general is heading towards increasing urbanisation. An idea so established it requires no introduction is that as countries become 'more developed' (i.e. climb up the HDI rankings) is that they urbanise their populations and begin more advanced forms of economic production such as manufacturing and service provision. This project, started in England as the industrial revolution, is pretty much complete in the developed world. As shown by the following, the world as a whole however is still in the process of increasing the urbanisation of it's citizens.
The majority of this growth is going to come from developing nations, which, I presume, are competently emancipating people from sustenance farming and developing their own forms of global economic productivity.
One interesting thing to look at is the projected biggest cities by 2030, but what may be more interesting is how many of the worlds biggest cities are already from less-developed nations. This fact is only going to increase. New York, the developed west's only representative, is ready and waiting to be replaced by new, growing and ambitious settlements in the global south and east.
Clearly then, there is a growing phenomenon of urban growth in developing countries, and the 'east' in general is supplying this growth more than any other global region.
Our focus on 'the 90%' suggests we should focus on the majority of people, which means it is vital to observe this phenomenon and ask how should (or will) these people be housed?
One interesting method of discussion comes from a video titled 'Urban Geography: Why We Live Where We Do'. Which compares the growth model of European cities compared to that of American cities.
The core findings from this video can be summarised in the below chart, but the message is clear, the ancient cities of Europe have been established in a very different way from that of American cities.
The next image is a very telling one, which compares the average income of various parts of a European city with that of an American one.
Philadelphia vs Paris, comparison of income and area. Green = higher income.
The 'old world' model seems to be as follows: cities were established when walking was the primary mode of transport. Therefore, the rich are at an advantage when they live as close to the economic centre as possible. High end housing then situates itself in the centre, gradually yielding to big commercial business, but on the whole delivering quite posh central housing, and as commoners and immigrants come in from the outside world, they are situated on the outer fringes of the city.
The new world model is different. As they were starting to grow in the late 19th century; just as trains and trams, and later, cars were becoming the general mode of transport, the well-to-do placed themselves in the greenery of the country and commuted long but easy distances to work. As immigrants came from the old world and from the developing world, they filled the inner-city, gradually graduating to, and filling out, the rest of the urban area with automobile based suburbia.
These models offer extreme sides to an argument on how urban development may progress in the rest of the world. I, myself am a proponent of the walkable 'old-world' way of thinking, and, living in Glasgow these last couple of years, have greatly benefited from a dense, walkable urban core free from much obstruction from urban traffic, and is very safe compared to Glasgow's hard-edged reputation.
The developing world situation however does not fit these models for development exactly, and perhaps represents a third way. The developing world generally already hosts cities with high population and 'natural' geographic settlements like Europe does, but has embarked upon a new period of population growth in the last half-of-a-century. This means its cities are squeezed and forced to come up with ways of housing a new growth and influx of urban dwellers.
While the old-world/ new-world question is not directly applicable, it offers us some extremes that may tease out some results when faced with the new housing question. Will (or is) Dehli settling it's new entrants in the suburban fringe, with a fresh Toyota Camry, or is it signing them up for a yearly Oyster card? By picking through some of the findings of the American/European problem, we can begin to formulate some findings.
Density is the defining characteristic of a city's urban fabric
One clear difference between America and Europe is the density of it's settlements. While Manhattan, and maybe Chicago, and maybe San Francisco, have what appear to be dense urban cores, these, and in every other case more-so, quickly descend into suburban sprawl.
Europe, however built up quite dense settlements, exemplified by the arrondissements of Paris, containing walkable neighbourhoods with mixed usage and flat but consistent and sustained density. Perfect. This is a very western-centric view of the extremes however, and comparing population density on a global scale, we learn a different lesson.
And, removing india just so we can actually see the rest of the data;
So most of the countries in the developing world, especially India, are already densely packed, and definitely more than the 'new world' example of Argentina, Mexico and the USA. Another finding is that the most densely populated regions today have also been the most densely populated regions throughout modern history. Which leads us to believe there may be something macro-culturally, or at least geographically, about why these regions hold such high urban densities. The top charts for urban density by city are as follows:
There is a mixture of interesting Asian cities and never-heard-of European towns here, which may be a result of favourable metropolitan area definitions, but the message is clear. Developing nations, and in particular India, are not waiting for skyscrapers to be built, they already have a dense urban fabric. This leads to some interesting examples of urbanism that may surprise the western world at first glance:
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Kottayam, Kerala, India
Ernakulam, Kerala, India
Delhi, India
As I have already said, and as the images show, developing countries are fully behind urbanism and have all the resources available, without the need to complicate their massive programme with 'architecture' This leads me to the next point:
Developing countries are building their cities with the benefit of already-available technologies.
One defining feature of the growth of American and European cities is that they had to grow with new building and infrastructure technologies as they were developed. New York & Chicago hosted the first skyscrapers, London had the first underground metro rail system, and Manchester developed and benefitted from the ship canal and the first commercial railways.
The countries in the developing world need not wait to suffer these growing pains, but can benefit from the 'shopping basket' of available technologies with little-to-no teething problems. In the now-developed eastern world; the densely packed living residential blocks of Hong Kong, the massive commercial quarters of Dubai, and the expansive spread of concrete that is Tokyo are testament to how cities and nations can now develop alarmingly quickly into prosperity.
The lesson to take from this is that we cannot expect that western nations will continue to lead the game. With little precious infrastructure in place, developing nations may be better placed that the 'advanced' west to deliver radical (or otherwise) schemes. Add to this the geographical condition that many developing urban areas are already highly dense and we begin to unfold a picture of a housing situation that may force solutions that are both new, dense and innovative.
One of the main findings, which we should finally explore, is that:
As a specific example, I can bring up the example of the southern part of Tokyo's metropolitan area, where I lived in for three months last year (did I ever tell you I lived in Japan??). Minato Mirai 21 (above) is an area which only started development in 1983, and yet now it is probably streets ahead of any comparable business district in Europe in terms of cleanliness, order and density.
Further afield, in Fujisawa, we are exposed to generic examples of Asian high-density living. In contrast to Glasgow's efforts, these are likely products of the free market and remain clean and aspirational examples of urban housing right in the center of the action.
Now, Japan is at the forefront of exploring smart technologies, such as Panasonic's Fujisawa Smart Town.
The lesson to take from this is that we cannot expect that western nations will continue to lead the game. With little precious infrastructure in place, developing nations may be better placed that the 'advanced' west to deliver radical (or otherwise) schemes. Add to this the geographical condition that many developing urban areas are already highly dense and we begin to unfold a picture of a housing situation that may force solutions that are both new, dense and innovative.
One of the main findings, which we should finally explore, is that:
Transport is linked inseparably to the general growth pattern of the city, and they develop together in a symbiotic relationship.
From the western examples, Europe developed largely in accordance with the rules of walking distances, which lead to natural, well formed cities. This is a good thing which, in his enthusiasm for the automobile, Le Corbusier unnecessarily attempted to overturn in his Plan Voisin.
As a big supporter of the sustainability and quality of life that walkable commuting offers, I personally hope that urban growth in the developing world accords to the naturalistic foundations that Europe accidentally found itself on. Even though most of these settlements are already mostly establised however, problems can still arise:
"bicycle use in Beijing has dropped from about 60 percent in 1986 to 17 percent in 2010. At the same time, car use has grown 15 percent a year for the last ten years." - CityLab
It is not right of me though, to object to negative aspects of developing second-world economic development and consumerism, as we in the west were happy to nonchalantly accept it's benefits 70 years ago. But if these cities do symbiotically accept the car as the new paradigm of how they plan their developments, I do not predict good things. Thankfully, the powers-that-be-agree.
"Now, facing air pollution, relentless gridlock, and an opportunity to become a global leader in climate change, China wants that title back. " - CityLab
If these chinese cities can stave off the growth of the car market before it is too late, and leapfrog to an amsterdam-style solution - where everyone cycles - then it will stave off both the short term pollution, but also the even worse effect of suburbanising, getting too used to car travel and long commutes, and then having no other choice. There is no way that LA is introducing a cycle scheme, it's just too big, but London still has a chance.
Japan, and Tokyo in particular, famously has a well developed metro and rail system. In my experience abroad, many cities were thankfully following suit. I saw established systems in Hong Kong and Bangkok and Dehli, and they are taking form in Ernaklum, Hyderabad, and Ho Chi Minh City, to mention a few. HCMC is developing an urban metro system with specific assistance and investment from Japan. Sophisticated infrastructure, I think, will lead to more sustainable communting habbits and therefore lead to a mobilised and enthusiastic urban community ready to take on the world's other big problems.
***
What I have found is that it is important for cities to learn lessons from what has come before, and the main measurements and objectives of this problem are those of density and transport infrastructure.
But the 'developing' world, if such an adjective gives them enough respect, doesn't need a western academic to tell them that, let alone an undergraduate engineering student. The central governments of China, India and Nigeria especially have ambitious plans for the development of their major cities. Japan and Thailand are funding many specific development plans in south east Asia, and China is investing heavily in Africa. They don't need our help, not in the least architecturally.
If we're going to be predictive, cynical and uncreative, then how will the 90% live in the future has a very straightforward answer ..
The future of housing in these countries will most likely be tall multi family apartment blocks, at whatever height economic density requires.
They will probably yield to local construction methods and constraints somewhat, but most will be poured and reinforced concrete. This doesn't necessarily preclude them from being of architectural (or general) quality, especially as these countries become more wealthy.
Since 2011 Social housing has been the BIG THING in Chinese domestic policy, as a result China built 4.4million new homes in the first 6 months of 2014 alone.Full story in the China Issue of Icon magazine #China #ChinaIssue #SocialHousing #Architecture #IconMagazine pic.twitter.com/PivJCcpaCU
— ICON (@iconeye) February 24, 2018
This is not really a bad thing, as the inhabitants of these buildings will be coming from sustenance farms in the rural areas, or from denser and dirtier urban slums.
The question for me, and us as architects, engineers and designers globally is if and how we can make this situation better or more efficient than it already is. This is a task that should not be underestimated. Housing is probably the most necessary bit of design that any human interacts with, and there are embedded problems in it's provision, but it is also an economic commodity, and without large and specific top-down intervention, one of the most impervious to academic design efforts on any large scale.
We have no choice but to embrace mass-urbinisation, I feel, and we should be happy for it. But the modernist schemes of the early 20th century first focused on villas for the uber-rich, extended to specific social housing schemes, and in the end gave up and reverted to designing museums and government buildings. Can architecture and design buck up it's ideas and start solving real problems,? Should it?
Regardless, what technologies can the 'proper' disciplines of engineering, urban planning and construction offer that may actually change the course of building and urbanisation beyond the current and inevitable plan for the mass housing of the newly urbanised developing world?
I hope to look at this problem in more depth in the next one.
Very informative with just the right to keep you wanting to read more, well done!!
ReplyDeleteAluminium Scaffolding Manufacturer In Pune
Our manual for consolidated kitchen and lounge area designs is ensured to rouse you to make a plan that assists you with profiting these advantages from there, the sky is the limit Kitchen With Dining Starlet Brings Footwear for Men, Women and Kids for Everyday Comfort. Shop Online Top Brands Shoes For Men And Women Switch Up Your Products It's easy to fall into bad hydration Prepping Up For Summer Skin Best Swimsuit Brands For Mix And Match Pieces · Perfect Swimsuit
ReplyDelete