文章 Articles

Embracing urban evolution

China risks building a generation of rigid cities, unfit for the demands of a changing society, writes Adrian Hornsby. But there is an alternative approach – as an exercise this summer demonstrated.

Article image

The design of cities takes place in a curious middle ground between invention and evolution. They are the product of the artificial designs of urban planners and, at the same time, subject to forces that shape and remould them through time.

Human designers and engineers like to strip systems down to their core elements, identify the simplest response and then build it with a mind to minimising cost and materials. But the longer cities evolve, the less engineered they appear, and the more they incorporate the kinds of complexities and counter-intuitive patterns and uses which characterise natural systems. And as cities become older and more evolved, they tend to become more adaptive. Ironically, the newest cities are frequently the ones that deal worst with modernity.

Thinking on cities has itself undergone a form of evolution. In the 1930s when the discourse was young, it was dominated by Le Corbusian ideals of the city as a “machine for living”. The 1970s tended to prefer more organic metaphors, thinking of the city as something closer to a cellular structure, like a leaf, or indeed a human body. One of the core concepts of the 2010 Shanghai Expo, which bore the slogan “Better City Better Life”, is of the city as a being – less an organic structure than an organic entity, with a life force and an evolving will of its own. According to this logic, the city can be designed and engineered in part, but it may also fight back, and grow in directions counter to those proposed by planners.

The relevance of this thinking to China could not be more immediate. New city building is being pursued across the country at extraordinary levels of magnitude, yet an excessively engineered approach dominates, with little consideration of how the city may evolve. The clear risk is of building new cities that rapidly become old cities – and then obsolete cities. Too often, the new city is conceived as a static, one-step product: something like a toothbrush, which is made to be used and then thrown away.

This is problematic on two fronts. Firstly, city-building implies very considerable investor lock-in. Once built, the demand for financial returns (for example on infrastructure) requires that the city be used in the specific way it was built, at least until the investment is paid off. Cities conceived of as one-step products do not easily turn into something else. Secondly, from the sustainability perspective, building and then throwing away entire cities is clearly disastrous.

The Caofeidian Genetic City project, which formed part of the Dutch contribution to the Shanghai Expo, applied the concept of city evolution directly to the semi-paradox that is the brand new Chinese eco-city. Caofeidian itself is among China’s most ambitious development projects. It comprises a US$50 billion (334 billion yuan) combined deepwater port and industrial zone (set to become one of China’s largest sites of steel production and oil refining) and a nearby eco-city to be built from scratch for over a million people. These apparent contradictions are taken as the starting point for an “evolutionary master plan” for the Caofeidian eco-city.

The concept of the “genetic city” was inspired by the structure of the human genome. According to “classical gene theory”, genes were in effect a series of blueprints for the construction of proteins, the building blocks of cells and of human beings. But 10 years ago, the first draft of the sequence of the human genome revealed that less than 3% is concerned with protein-building. As to what the other 97% does, much remains mysterious. Importantly, the one-gene-one-protein theory was shown to represent a profound misunderstanding of how nature works and the lesson was this: evolution, in this case of the human genome, does not favour the “designed” solution.

The evolution of the Caofeidian Genetic City master plan took place between January and July this year. Ten architecture offices (five Dutch and five Chinese) were invited to design the eco-city in relay. The first team drew a master plan for the 2010 to 2013 period; the second planned on top of that for 2013 to 2016; the third for 2016 to 2019; and so on through to the final master plan for 2040 (stage 10). This evolutionary model ensured the city developed via a process of organic emergence rather than direct design, thus allowing the city to generate a complexity and inner logic of its own. Most importantly, it forced the plan to confront two things conspicuously lacking in contemporary Chinese planning: a long-term vision, and a changing future.

The results of the process were presented in Shanghai in August in the form of an exhibition and an all day forum. The forum drew together the teams involved and a host of leading practitioners and theorists to discuss the process, the findings, and the greater challenges facing sustainable cities in China.

Among forum panelists, the project was generally interpreted to originate from a high concept and essentially utopian position. None of the 10 stages was costed, nor were they held to critical account against defined sets of sustainability measures (for example embedded carbon costs, CO2 emissions and offsets). Nor, and perhaps more significantly, were the proposals thought-tested for palatability among the major developers who effectively represent the market, and they were drawn unilaterally without reference to the constraints of contemporary Chinese planning regulations. These were conscious choices on the part of the project, which explicitly sought to take a more abstract approach. The question was then: how could it be relevant? In particular, by what mechanisms could the ideas explored in the project be switched on in the China of today?

As was rapidly pointed out, much if not all of the proposed Genetic City was unbuildable under current regulations, contravening, for example, stipulated parking provision per residence, required building setbacks, road capacity and rigid zoning. It was further noted that these regulations often mirror the inclinations of developers, as befits the peculiar context of China where officials, the development of land and business interests are invariably melded.

However, it would be a mistake to interpret this regulatory situation as necessarily static, or to think that what market-orientated developers want to build is an appropriate expression of what people actually want to buy. Architecture and cities are supply-side dominated, especially in China, where demand for new built volume is such that “consumers” of architecture arriving in cities have little realistic opportunity to “shop around”. The strength of the urbanisation wave effectively protects developments from failure (at least at the low end). This in turn fuels the rapid production of low quality cities.

An “aspiration gap” was identified by forum panelists between the new cities China is currently building, and what a city could be. It was felt that while millions of new urbanites may find an apartment with a bathroom and a paved road satisfactory for now, there is a considerable risk that in 10 years’ time, millions of these new developments will be seen to be failing to deliver on urban desires and the promise of a modern, urban, comfortable life.

It was in this field that the Genetic City, with its greater focus on the dreams and desires of its users, scored an eminent success. The resulting city clearly was exciting and attractive to live in – even though, or perhaps because of, its abnegation of the contemporary regulatory environment and developer interests. The layering of plan upon plan created a complexity and variety unrivalled among new cities in China. Moreover, the green objectives of the designers led to a city which naturally encouraged its users to engage with and enjoy greenness in all senses of the word – leafy parks, public transport, teleworking, green food, green waste, green dreams …

A city is less an engineered space than a social construct. It is built by people for people to live in and interact with each other in. Accordingly, the true challenge of building a sustainable city comes less from specific technologies and points of environmental engineering than from points of social engineering. The green hardware will come in anyway, but the ideas that have to be dealt with are those relating to how people want and will want to use the city. And it is on this front that planning which envisages and allows for evolution – for the progression toward complexity through time – is critical. An evolved city is simply that much more likely to be interesting, enjoyable, and therefore successful than a static one.

Michelle Provoost of the International New Town Institute stated that, according to her research, often one of the best things that can happen to a new town is to undergo a period of failure. This necessarily forces the new town to re-evaluate the principles under which it is developing, and to evolve toward something more adaptive. There is perhaps some hope for the long-term success of China’s new cities in this success-in-failure. Only it does seem to be a heavy way to go about things – to allow the greatest mushrooming of cities in human history to go wrong before it can go right.


Adrian Hornsby
is a writer on numerous subjects, including architecture and urbanism.

Homepage image from Neville Mars

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
gaidee

“城市让生活更美好”

作者可能忘记了吧,那就是我们是先有规划再来设计,规划呢,是政府之所为,建筑师不过是体现业主的意志而已。你不“敞开怀抱”欢迎,那么就只好默默地走开,想做规划的人都排起长龙了呢。让我想起了,城市让生活更美好,让我们拥抱吧,不拥抱你能拥抱什么呢?

“Better city, better life"

Perhaps the author has forgotten that inChina, we first plan and then design. The plan is the government's doing, architects are merely there to reflect the business owner's wishes. If you don't welcome it "with open arms," then it's best to go away quietly because there is a long line of people waiting to do the project. Reminds me of a better city better life. Let's embrace each other because if I don't embrace you, what will I embrace?

Default thumb avatar
alternativeview

短命建筑与气候变化政策相矛盾

考虑到中国每单位GDP减少能源消耗的政策,人们可能会问为什么那些不适于缓解气候变化的建筑——隔热不好或者低使用寿命——仍在被建。建筑的生命周期会产生大量碳足迹——从建设、居住到拆除。

尽管政策制定者自2008/9年较小的全球衰退起一直追求中国经济的通货再膨胀时, 应该已经预见到目前的建筑泡沫,但他们一直没有计划这个。

这显然是中央政府说一套地方政府做一套的又一个案例。

Short-lived buildings are inconsistent with climate change policies

Given China's policy of reducing energy consumption per unit of GDP, one might ask why buildings, which are unsuitable for the sort of evolution essential to mitigate climate change - poorly insulated or which have a short life span - are still being built. The life cycle of buildings tends to have a particularly large carbon footprint - from construction and habitation, to demolition.

Although the current building bubble should have been foreseen by policy makers when seeking to reflate China's economy since the minor global recession of 2008/9, it would not have been planned.

This seems to be another example of the central government saying one thing and the local government doing another.

Default thumb avatar
kumaramar

有关客观性

人们希望在中外对话里看到的,是比这篇文章写的更好、也更客观的关于中国城市化和可持续发展问题的独到见解。
更令人不解的是,作者并没有提到自己与这个即将进行的项目的关系和在其中的角色。所以,这看起来更像是作者的自吹自擂和自我宣传。
文章对于这些建设项目和所涉及的话题的看法缺少必要的客观性。因为作者与“进化城市”这个项目有连带关系,他自然会得出“在这一领域,由于进化城市对其使用者的梦想和需求投以更多的关注,因此大获成功”这样的结论。
除了提到具体有哪些建筑事务所参与了这个项目以及他们对这个项目的主要理论观点,难道就没有更让人感兴趣的内容了吗?

a total of objectivity

One would expect from ChinaDialogue some better written and objective insights in the topic of urbanization and sustainability in China than the one written here.
It is even more intriguing that the author does not mention his own involvement and role in the coming together of this project. As such this contribution is rather a blatant example of ego-tripping and questionable self-promotion on the part of the author. It lacks any form of objectivity towards the projects and the topic presented. Understanding the author's involvement in the Genetic City, it is of course easy to state that "It was in this field that the Genetic City, with its greater focus on the dreams and desires of its users, scored an eminent success."
Would it also not be more interesting to know which architecture offices where involved and what their key concepts were regarding this subject?

Default thumb avatar
adrianhornsby

作者的回应

文中所涉及的有关建筑事务所的所有细节,他们的工程理念和方法,以及我个人的参与都可以从以下链接向读者开放。请访问http://burb.tv/view/B.A.R.C._-_Greening_the_Metropolis

简短地回应一下Gaidee,我相信在“敞开怀抱”欢迎一切和“默默走开”之间能够找到一个位置。第三种方法可以被描述为“尝试明智地思考问题为了以后能做的更好”。

持续波或短命建筑的碳排放影响的确不利于国家气候变化政策。

RESPONSES FROM THE AUTHOR

Full details of the architecture offices involved, their concepts and approaches to the project, and of my own involvement are naturally all immediately available to the reader via the links embedded in the text. Please visit URL: http://burb.tv/view/B.A.R.C._-_Greening_the_Metropolis

In brief response to Gaidee, I believe it is possible to find a position in between welcoming everything “with open arms” and “going away quietly”. This third approach may be characterized as “trying to think about things intelligently in order to do them better in the future”.

The carbon emission implications of successive or continuous waves or short-lived buildings are indeed in rank opposition to stated climate change policies.