High rise, low spirits
Le Monde diplomatique
-----------------------------------------------------
March 2008
NO LIFE OF THEIR OWN AND NO LIFE TO GIVE
High rise, low spirits
___________________________________________________________
How did the tower block come to dominate the imaginations first
of the moneyed, then of architects and planners, and then the
skylines of cities worldwide?
by Thierry Paquot
___________________________________________________________
Tower blocks came in with the new construction techniques of
the later 19th century - metal frames, reliable lifts,
telephones - and with the desire of wealthy firms for
symbolic edifices to attract the envy of all. The world's
first proper high-rise building, at 40 metres, was erected in
New York in 1868, the second in Minneapolis, and the third in
Chicago.
The tower was capitalism on the rise made visible, a symbol
constantly outdated as more powerful enterprises commanded
ever-higher towers to appease the appetites of captains of
industry and high finance; they wanted their tower, their
seat of power, their commercial and public image. There's
something childish in this insatiable one-upmanship, although
there are architects who still see the 19th century tower as
the 21st century future.
But today's real challenge lies in developing an architecture
that moves with the times as the city evolves, and can deal
with people's expectations of wellbeing and environmental
quality. The first urgent steps must be towards housing for
all - those sleeping under bridges, families now poorly
housed. We need new standards and a new urban geography for
social housing. This calls for courageous new approaches in
funding, allocating housing and planning. Why not involve
future tenants in the construction of their homes?
High-rise buildings won't help. Their rents are high so they
remain in the luxury range. They offer no public space: life
revolves around lifts and the need for home deliveries. They
are vertical impasses such as those described by Paul
Virilio (1). They don't offer better office space either
(their air-conditioned universe is statistically proven to
provoke certain illnesses). After 9/11, World Trade Centre
businesses found offices in smaller units chiefly in New
Jersey; apart from occasional nostalgia for the Manhattan
scene, everybody was happier.
Still many prominent architects, with the real estate lobby
behind them, believe without proof that high-rise buildings
can resolve the land problem (which might be true in part),
improve densities (not proven), reduce energy needs (the data
is contradictory) and contribute to the community (how is not
clear).
At Mipim, the 2007 international real estate fair in Cannes,
visitors admired the proposals for Moscow's Federation Tower
(448m, delivery in 2010), Warsaw's Zlota 44 (54 floors), and
New York's Liberty Tower (541m) and New York Times Building
(228m). There were others for Dubai (over 800m) and Paris,
Nexity's Granite tower by Christian de Portzamparc, the
Generali by Valode and Pistre, and Thom Mayne's 300-metre
Unibail. And in London there was Renzo Piano's 300-metre
London Bridge Tower. All of this can only be explained by
corporate arrogance. As far back as 1936 Le Corbusier evoked
the possibility of a 2,000-metre tower for Paris. Only the
Japanese have gone that far to date, with a 4,000-metre tower
on the drawing board, and a 2,004-metre pyramid designed to
accommodate 700,000 residents and 800,000 office workers.
No life to give
The American architect Frank Lloyd Wright condemned the tower
phenomenon in 1930; skyscrapers, he said, had no life of
their own and no life to give, having received none at their
conception. They rise above a landscape without regard for
their surroundings or for others: "The skyscraper envelope is
not ethical, beautiful or permanent. It is a commercial
exploit or a mere expedient. It has no higher ideal of unity
than commercial success" (2). But then he couldn't have
imagined the impact of today's commercial shopping malls and
their decors, the complacent ersatz communities overshadowed
by towers.
Guy Debord, the radical French writer, attacked Le Corbusier
in 1954 for seeking to do away with the street and confine
people to towers. Debord thought architecture should be a
positive force in the community, intimately engaging with our
capacities for play and for knowledge (3). He went on to
develop the concepts of psycho-geography and unitary
urbanism, and criticised the cold geometry underlying modern
monumental urbanism and its towers and blocks.
The Chinese urban planner Zhuo Jian has counted 7,000
high-rise buildings in Shanghai; 20 of them exceed 200
metres. He has warned of ground subsidence of several
centimetres a year. Other experts have shown that tower
blocks are energy-intensive to construct (the manufacture of
sophisticated glass and steel demands enormous resources).
Nor are they cheap to maintain, with air conditioning, lifts
and central floorplate lighting - though alternative
techniques have been proposed, such as Jacques Ferrier's
energy-generating Hypergreen model. Critics point to the
short 20-year lifespan of a product that is costly and ill
suited to multi-functional requirements - how can
universities, libraries, luxury apartments and 5-star hotels
lodge under the same roof, given the disparities of activity
and clientele?
In Paris, the Seine embankment, the skyscraper residences in
the Olympiades and Flandres tower blocks, the Italie 2
shopping complex and the Montparnasse tower (1973, 209m)
don't encourage high-rise construction and platform urbanism.
In 2003 63% of Parisians didn't like high-rise buildings. In
1977 the authorities had set a 37-metre limit on the height
of new projects, but in June 2006 architects identified 17
sites in Paris suitable for towers of up to 150 metres or
17-storey residential blocks. The city council chose three
for further study in January 2007 (Porte de La Chapelle,
Bercy-Poniatowski and Masséna-Bruneseau) and 12 teams entered
proposals for towers on inhospitable terrain surrounded by
noisy and polluting infrastructure. Most were careful in
their design of green and public spaces, and paid attention
to neighbourhoods and public transport. Even so, they
neglected the impact of the towers on wind speed, light and
social nuisance; and the energy costs of construction.
The debate over aesthetics has barely started. There are many
splendid creations that beautify the skyline and grace their
location - who has not been impressed by the vertical beauty
of New York or Chicago? Yet no tower, however impressive,
should be imposed on a landscape without regard for its
environment - the network of streets and open spaces, public
transport, the impact of its scale on the buildings around
it, and its interplay with the facades and green spaces
below. Towers are anti-social - no wonder they are the
location for disaster movies.
If architects were to focus their skills on the pursuit of
more intelligent and sustainable urban environments, the
results would be less alienating: there is a need for
existential quality. Urban architecture is about people,
place and city features that affect the people who live there
(for example, street lighting). We should be cultivating much
more diversity in our urban landscapes.
________________________________________________________
Thierry Paquot is a philosopher and lecturer on urban issues,
author of Petit manifeste pour une écologie existentielle,
Bourin Éditeur, Paris, 2007, and editor of the journal
Urbanisme
(1) Paul Virilio, City of Panic, Berg, Oxford, 2004.
(2) Frank Lloyd Wright, "The Tyranny of the Skyscraper" in
Modern Architecture, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
1931.
(3) Debord in Potlatch, no 5, 20 July 1954.
Translated by Robert Corner
-----------------------------------------------------
March 2008
NO LIFE OF THEIR OWN AND NO LIFE TO GIVE
High rise, low spirits
___________________________________________________________
How did the tower block come to dominate the imaginations first
of the moneyed, then of architects and planners, and then the
skylines of cities worldwide?
by Thierry Paquot
___________________________________________________________
Tower blocks came in with the new construction techniques of
the later 19th century - metal frames, reliable lifts,
telephones - and with the desire of wealthy firms for
symbolic edifices to attract the envy of all. The world's
first proper high-rise building, at 40 metres, was erected in
New York in 1868, the second in Minneapolis, and the third in
Chicago.
The tower was capitalism on the rise made visible, a symbol
constantly outdated as more powerful enterprises commanded
ever-higher towers to appease the appetites of captains of
industry and high finance; they wanted their tower, their
seat of power, their commercial and public image. There's
something childish in this insatiable one-upmanship, although
there are architects who still see the 19th century tower as
the 21st century future.
But today's real challenge lies in developing an architecture
that moves with the times as the city evolves, and can deal
with people's expectations of wellbeing and environmental
quality. The first urgent steps must be towards housing for
all - those sleeping under bridges, families now poorly
housed. We need new standards and a new urban geography for
social housing. This calls for courageous new approaches in
funding, allocating housing and planning. Why not involve
future tenants in the construction of their homes?
High-rise buildings won't help. Their rents are high so they
remain in the luxury range. They offer no public space: life
revolves around lifts and the need for home deliveries. They
are vertical impasses such as those described by Paul
Virilio (1). They don't offer better office space either
(their air-conditioned universe is statistically proven to
provoke certain illnesses). After 9/11, World Trade Centre
businesses found offices in smaller units chiefly in New
Jersey; apart from occasional nostalgia for the Manhattan
scene, everybody was happier.
Still many prominent architects, with the real estate lobby
behind them, believe without proof that high-rise buildings
can resolve the land problem (which might be true in part),
improve densities (not proven), reduce energy needs (the data
is contradictory) and contribute to the community (how is not
clear).
At Mipim, the 2007 international real estate fair in Cannes,
visitors admired the proposals for Moscow's Federation Tower
(448m, delivery in 2010), Warsaw's Zlota 44 (54 floors), and
New York's Liberty Tower (541m) and New York Times Building
(228m). There were others for Dubai (over 800m) and Paris,
Nexity's Granite tower by Christian de Portzamparc, the
Generali by Valode and Pistre, and Thom Mayne's 300-metre
Unibail. And in London there was Renzo Piano's 300-metre
London Bridge Tower. All of this can only be explained by
corporate arrogance. As far back as 1936 Le Corbusier evoked
the possibility of a 2,000-metre tower for Paris. Only the
Japanese have gone that far to date, with a 4,000-metre tower
on the drawing board, and a 2,004-metre pyramid designed to
accommodate 700,000 residents and 800,000 office workers.
No life to give
The American architect Frank Lloyd Wright condemned the tower
phenomenon in 1930; skyscrapers, he said, had no life of
their own and no life to give, having received none at their
conception. They rise above a landscape without regard for
their surroundings or for others: "The skyscraper envelope is
not ethical, beautiful or permanent. It is a commercial
exploit or a mere expedient. It has no higher ideal of unity
than commercial success" (2). But then he couldn't have
imagined the impact of today's commercial shopping malls and
their decors, the complacent ersatz communities overshadowed
by towers.
Guy Debord, the radical French writer, attacked Le Corbusier
in 1954 for seeking to do away with the street and confine
people to towers. Debord thought architecture should be a
positive force in the community, intimately engaging with our
capacities for play and for knowledge (3). He went on to
develop the concepts of psycho-geography and unitary
urbanism, and criticised the cold geometry underlying modern
monumental urbanism and its towers and blocks.
The Chinese urban planner Zhuo Jian has counted 7,000
high-rise buildings in Shanghai; 20 of them exceed 200
metres. He has warned of ground subsidence of several
centimetres a year. Other experts have shown that tower
blocks are energy-intensive to construct (the manufacture of
sophisticated glass and steel demands enormous resources).
Nor are they cheap to maintain, with air conditioning, lifts
and central floorplate lighting - though alternative
techniques have been proposed, such as Jacques Ferrier's
energy-generating Hypergreen model. Critics point to the
short 20-year lifespan of a product that is costly and ill
suited to multi-functional requirements - how can
universities, libraries, luxury apartments and 5-star hotels
lodge under the same roof, given the disparities of activity
and clientele?
In Paris, the Seine embankment, the skyscraper residences in
the Olympiades and Flandres tower blocks, the Italie 2
shopping complex and the Montparnasse tower (1973, 209m)
don't encourage high-rise construction and platform urbanism.
In 2003 63% of Parisians didn't like high-rise buildings. In
1977 the authorities had set a 37-metre limit on the height
of new projects, but in June 2006 architects identified 17
sites in Paris suitable for towers of up to 150 metres or
17-storey residential blocks. The city council chose three
for further study in January 2007 (Porte de La Chapelle,
Bercy-Poniatowski and Masséna-Bruneseau) and 12 teams entered
proposals for towers on inhospitable terrain surrounded by
noisy and polluting infrastructure. Most were careful in
their design of green and public spaces, and paid attention
to neighbourhoods and public transport. Even so, they
neglected the impact of the towers on wind speed, light and
social nuisance; and the energy costs of construction.
The debate over aesthetics has barely started. There are many
splendid creations that beautify the skyline and grace their
location - who has not been impressed by the vertical beauty
of New York or Chicago? Yet no tower, however impressive,
should be imposed on a landscape without regard for its
environment - the network of streets and open spaces, public
transport, the impact of its scale on the buildings around
it, and its interplay with the facades and green spaces
below. Towers are anti-social - no wonder they are the
location for disaster movies.
If architects were to focus their skills on the pursuit of
more intelligent and sustainable urban environments, the
results would be less alienating: there is a need for
existential quality. Urban architecture is about people,
place and city features that affect the people who live there
(for example, street lighting). We should be cultivating much
more diversity in our urban landscapes.
________________________________________________________
Thierry Paquot is a philosopher and lecturer on urban issues,
author of Petit manifeste pour une écologie existentielle,
Bourin Éditeur, Paris, 2007, and editor of the journal
Urbanisme
(1) Paul Virilio, City of Panic, Berg, Oxford, 2004.
(2) Frank Lloyd Wright, "The Tyranny of the Skyscraper" in
Modern Architecture, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
1931.
(3) Debord in Potlatch, no 5, 20 July 1954.
Translated by Robert Corner
No comments:
Post a Comment