The Three Tiered City

Between the beginning of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 21th Century the population of the world grew from approximately a little over a millionto about six and a half million. Cities, which until then had been essentially horizontal, added a second tier, mostly in the West, but also elsewhere in the world, growing vertically skyward, with the addition of high-rise buildings. Cities with populations of ten million or more will number about sixty within the next seven years. Cities will have to expand vertically again, downward, this time to add a third tier.

For the cities to continue to grow only horizontally to accommodate this explosive growth has meant the expansion of vast urban slums surrounded by suburban growth, putting unsustainable pressure on extended roads, streets, sewers, water, power, communication and energy systems. Continued vertical expansion skyward with densely packed skyscrapers only adds to the increasing congestion on the surface. The parks, plazas and great public open spaces through which cities have not only offered relief from crowding, but conducted their most important public affairs, bringing people together to maintain a civic and peaceful society, will become increasingly relatively fewer, lost in a warren of mean streets and alleyways.

There’s nowhere else to go but down to add usable building space and increase surface open space at the same time. This will require a bold re-thinking of how we define urban space, how we design our buildings, and how we integrate them with the array of utilities, services and transit already in place.

In urban areas, many of the spaces designed for commercial and public activities are essentially interior—or a combination of largely interior function with some need for an exterior public exposure. In this category are theaters, museums, stadiums, shopping centers and transit centers. For significant of parts of each of these types of uses, exterior exposure is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. Although sports arenas can function, and have functioned, as outdoor spaces for thousands of years, more and more enclosed, climate-controlled stadiums are being built –on the surface, enclosed with blank walls. Significant parts of most theaters and museums do not and cannot function as outdoor spaces in their principal areas which are designed for presentation and display. Theaters in particular need to have complete control over the use of light. Modern 20th and 21st century shopping centers, for similar reasons, are almost always designed so the outer shell is completely blank, shielded from daylight, except perhaps from above. Because they are so enclosed, these kinds of spaces require as much mechanical ventilation as they would underground, where the cost of heating, cooling and maintaining them would be substantially reduced.

At the same time, most of these building types have an equally compelling need for visibility and exposure to attract users and to serve ancillary functions for social activities— and often to make a cultural statement through their architecture. Almost invariably, they are enclosed in exterior envelopes which their designers strive to make more meaningful and interesting by the fevered manipulation of geometry, materials, and color. Yet, the Louvre museum addition in Paris, where a single relatively small glass pyramid in a large surface open space with an equally large museum below it, has all of the iconic power of any major building of this type constructed in the last fifty years, and stands as a powerful example of the three tiered approach to urban expansion. There are other examples.

All of this may seem very specialized and peripheral to the concerns of the vast majority of people, particularly the urban poor, who populate the cities around the world. It is not. Apply this approach to every public building, every school, every community facility, every hotel, every housing complex which has an auditorium, gymnasium, theater or other gathering space which is an essentially interior space which could just as well be constructed underground, leaving more space available on the surface. Multiply these by hundreds or thousands in any city of any size, tie them to subway transportation and the shape of the city changes – more compact and with more surface open space at the same time.

Building down, or 'Oh my Architect, There are no Architects'

The question of building down as opposed to up, is a very pertinent one if we are discussing the role of ICT in particular and technology in general, as an architectural response to problems of poverty and the generic malefaction of density which typically falls under the heading ‘urbanization’. I want to contribute here as an architect, that is to say as someone dedicated to expanding spatial experience by either removing blockages to that growth or by creating paths anew.

At what point, we could ask, does the architect intervene and what, for goodness sake, do we mean by an architect globally with regard to the question of ICT? A profession is nothing if not its regulation, so says the critic Terrence Johnson in Professionals and Power. If we adopt this truism, which lines up well with the question of licensure in a City currently debating whether or not the Department of Buildings should be led by a licensed architect or no, (New York), we run into difficulty as to what place architectural practice as such has in the policy making of ‘cities’, taking the term to mean one thing across an incredibly diverse and sensitive field of politics, culture and indeed technologies.

Licensing implies that the licensed is privy to information, and ways of manipulating that information, that the non-licensed do not. It also implies that there is a disavowal of conflict of interest, and that therefore a naturalized oxymoron in working within one’s jurisdiction always emerges for the architect in contemporary scenes. (If I depend on the state that credits me the boon of architectural labor, I am no longer disinterested as licensure is easily revoked. If I practice in exedra of that jurisdiction I would be of course, an illegal immigrant).

There are always negotiations in moving from one jurisdiction to another, and beneath the radar so to speak, but the question of building down from the regulatory pile is a pertinent one if we can dictate in any measure where and when architectural forays can occur.

The architectural problem of ICT’s, it seems to me, is in how one gives space to technologies, how one breaks them on the ground and transforms them. Before we ever get to the question of effect however, (that is to say the various translations between image, word and technological implementation), or service (what measurable benefits there are to be had in such translations one by one), the problems of regulation and politics loom large.

During the UN Conference, which covered many wonderful and critical topics and projects, delegates were treated to a variety of approaches in the translation of ‘architecture’, from Istanbul (in which globalized practice found purchase), to Newark (where the local reigned supreme), to Singapore (where one was led to consider the benefits of State ‘participation’ yet again).

Now, the necessity of case studies in the implementation of spatialized technologies, and the position of the regulated ‘architect’ in such practices, arises. In this sense, for an architect at least, the Conference will have ‘legs’.

Oh my architect, there are no architects.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Captcha
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Security question, designed to stop automated spam bots
Syndicate content