|
Densification may not be the valve to ease the pressure on space that Joburg is experiencing; in fact, the city may end up with densification and urban sprawl. A reader responds to Neil Fraser.
 |
About Citichat
NEIL Fraser is a partner in 'Neil Fraser & Associates trading as Urban Inc', an urban consultancy dedicated to the revitalisation and regeneration of cities and of the inner city of Johannesburg in particular. He can be contacted on 083 456 0242 or 011 444 4895 or by e-mail at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Citichat is a free weekly publication concerning cities generally and Johannesburg specifically. Please forward Citichat to your colleagues who may wish to be placed on the subscription list. To subscribe please contact us at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
READ previous editions of CitiCha
|
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 (it's too long for just this
week) I thought I'd bring two of these to your notice. The authors have
agreed to let me make use of their opinions.
Firstly regarding densification, in response to Citichat 33, 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
sceptical 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 two adjectives as if they naturally went
together is deceitful.
Defining efficient
"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 précised.
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 fewer 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.
Importance of architecture
I agree 100 percent on the importance of architecture (and not only in
vertical cities). Here is the one condition under which I would truly
rejoice the new spatial development framework (follows a piece of urban
utopia): those densification corridors should be called 'improved
architecture corridors' instead, and proposals be submitted for 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 wellbeing 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 three-dimensional
environment, prosaically bound by the sheer physicality of reality.
'Very pleasant lifestyles in extreme densities' - this is the
type of theoretical challenge architects like to tackle, and
contradiction 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 pollution in one's tiny apartment to know that high
densities are more likely to increase stress and reduce the wellbeing
of inhabitants.
Limitless capacity
"In this respect, the third
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 it clearly shows that we are here, more than in 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 favour of
verticalisation and densification, disguised as an 'expert's'
statement, not unlike those simplistic and delusional 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 Sao Paulo, the world champion of urban
densification).
- Cities are too important to be left to the politicians and
economists; 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
"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 exacerbate the problem. Think of the vast amount of
housing that is being built behind barbed wires, 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 two 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 fewer trees, more pollution and more congestion in the
streets (not mentioning the bus traffic jams, because its 'Bus Rapid
Transit' system soon got limited by the road surfaces, despite the
allocated lanes).
Urban sprawl
"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 opportunities, 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 increasingly
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 to 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?
Regards,
Neil
Related stories:
|
