NYT | The New, New City

[LouReed]

It's a great century for the Chinese.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by slide_rule

you're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not.

Originally Posted by slide_rule

so you never said the place was sprawling, yet from one picture, you concluded that the place absolutely didn't look like anything capable of urban functionality?

No, I never said either of these things. I said Shenzhen looks ugly and horribly planned.

Originally Posted by slide_rule

...realize that it's the way a place functions, not the way it looks.

No, it's both. Some places in Mexico City look sorta like that picture, and they function with lots of transit and pedestrians, but (as in Shenzhen, I presume) it's in spite of, not because of, the architecture and planning.

An area doesn't magically become well-planned because lots of poor people are running across a (sidewalkless) eight-lane highway to catch an illegal minibus (a pretty typcal scene in parts of Mexico City).

I'm not going to laud superblocks and superhighways because poor people are resourceful enough to survive in a hostile environment.

Originally Posted by slide_rule

but the density does allow for myriad advantages for its occupants. yet you have continually overlooked this and restated your subjective dislike.

I never even mentioned the density. I am concerned with the design and aesthetics.

Density can be a great thing for long-term sustainability. That picture doesn't show me anything resembling an ideal high-density environment.

I refuse to believe that the most efficient planning for the benefit of the masses is by building enormous slabs ringed by superhighways, and I'm not going to make excuses for such development just because the city is in a rush to achieve some sort of threshold of wealth and prominence

[slide_rule]

crawford, just what do you know about urban planning?

you've crafted myriad paragraphs against some place because of one initial picture. you don't seem to realize the NYT's depiction of shenzhen, or dubai, or any other place in the world is not the empirical truth. that photo was of a half-finished plot. it's akin to using a picture of some former asparagus field in exurban new york and stating that it was representative of new york city as a whole.

Density can be a great thing for long-term sustainability. That picture doesn't show me anything resembling an ideal high-density environment. I refuse to believe that the most efficient planning for the benefit of the masses is by building enormous slabs ringed by superhighways.

funny that you mention it. if you possessed the urban planning knowledge you claim to have, you'd realize the high density buildings can be a part of a good urban environment. all that population makes transit more efficient and feasible, cuts down on actual commuting distance, allows for easy walking access to a wider variety of local retail, etc.

and really now, if you choose to base your claims on one photo, why didn't you choose any of the more flattering ones posted by muppet? at least those buildings are located in the built areas themselves.

two 'wealthy' cities, hong kong and singapore, which were hermetically sealed city states for most of their existence, followed this path. if you actually go to that part of the world, you will most likely disparage their aesthetics, but you'd have to be in deep denial, or have absolutely no clue about urban planning (or both), if you state that the various superblocks of hong kong and singapore are anything but urban success stories. i have no idea how you can interject tales of mexico city minicabs, but hey, at least they're not SUVs. you can disparage shenzhen or mexico city or ____ place because they're not as wealthy as what we've come to expect. but that really isn't the same as bad planning. plus as these places become wealthier, their ease of life will improve.

Shenzhen looks ugly and horribly planned

it may be ugly to you, but at least acknowledge that its horrible planning has allowed for urbanism to actually exist? you can actually walk to local amenities and use public transit. yes, it's frustrating and it doesn't fit with your heuristics, but it's been documented and verified. there's no way you can say that about 99% of the stuff being built here. funny how the NYT could write an article critiquing urban planning elsewhere, lauding some high profile yet ultimately unimportant starchitects, yet overlooking many positive facets, and have people like you taking it at face value.

[mhays]

You make some good points Crawford. So is slide_rule, but he also keeps responding to things you never said, and with incredible condecension.

Shenzen has density, but like many newer Chinese highrise districts it's laced with horribly wide roads, and buildings (or complexes) are often far too separated. I'm sure most people walk and take transit in these areas, but it must be pure hell walking through Shenzen's humidity every day. The urban design could be far more pedestrian-friendly.

I'm on the fence about HK/Chinese-style "ribbon" highrises. I love the density, and they can bring efficiencies in terms of design repetition, construction repetition, shared facilities (like one concierge for multiple buildings, or one pool), and, if they're connected all the way up, even building elements. For example, a solid row equal to 5 "towers" might have two elevator cores with 8-10 total elevators rather than 15-20 total spread among 5 cores in 5 buildings. But the ribbon towers tend to be located in those new areas with the ultra-wide roads and dysfunctional urban form.

[muppet]

More Shenzhen projects,

eco friendly 'horizontal skyscraper' with 'explicit environmental features', the Vanke Center:





Linked Hybrid





Shenzhen Museum



Fukuda Center



Shenzhen CBD



Shenzhen Station



Tencent HQ


More projects:








Shenzhen Sheraton construction pics












Tomorrow Plaza



Unknown, emerging Chinese style imo


Great China Tower





East Pacific Center



Hon Kwok Center (by SOM)



Xinghe Group 300m Twin Towers.

[muppet]

This is how new Shenzheners live and how these millions of newcomers are housed as the city grows - basically a new patch of paddy fields is taken over and the infrastructure to it blasted through to it, with space for further development. In socialist stylee higher income and lower income highrises look identical from the outside. However, for detached housing (read: US style sprawl) is solely for the upper classes and an increasing capitalist, developer driven trend.
By Chinese law all residents need x amount of green space in x vicinity, hence the patchwork parks. This is Shenzhen style sprawl:

Shenzhen Metro Planning (Line No.4) suburbs












Shenzhen satellite:



Shenzhen is part of the Pearl River Delta (guangzhou, Zhuhai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong) housing 45 million people in an area smaller than LA or NYC

[urbanactivist]

^^ Honestly I think the Shenzen form is pretty workable... areas of urban density are well defined, and areas of greenspace are well definied. Americans (from the older cities) get so worked about continuous urban form, but that is not what makes a successful city. We're all aware that people are creatures of proximity... i.e. they tend to use what is most convenient to them. If you live in a small area of density that is also mixed-use AND well-connected through transit, does it really matter how close the next area is to you?? To the average person, the answer is no. Continuous urban form is aesthetically pleasing to some, but not necessary to achieve city sustainability.

[mhays]

You're partially right.

I'm thinking more in terms of walking everywhere. That's not the case for most people who commute outside their neighborhoods.

On the other hand, walking a half-mile in Shenzen heat and humidity would be very uncomfortable. With older-style urbanity people could at least stay on the shady side of the street.

Rain is another issue. This isn't the baseball cap light rain I'm used to. Sometimes walking across the street can be like taking a shower, with rivulets flowing off even after you're under cover. Even umbrellas aren't good enough. Continuous or near-continuous awnings would be nice.

[holladay]

I think part of the point of this article is that the conventional ideas that we hold in the West about urban environments don't hold water in places like Shenzhen and Dubai. Modernism failed in America but in a lot of ways it works in China. Plus, our ideas about public space are very narrow and cut-and-dry and the Chinese find ways to self-organize within the chaos of their built environment. Sometimes in China even a dull project can spur new cultural realities. And whereas a project like Holl's eight towers linked by skybridges would be a disaster for streetlife if it were built in America, in Beijing it can actually work. On that note, the author's inclusion of starchitects in the article is meant to show that some of their wild - and even undercooked - ideas can give birth to new urban events, even when they aren't intended. Anyone who continues to look at Asian cities and tries to compare them to New York and Paris is thinking through an anachronistic lens. Throw away all your urban planning bibles and go witness first-hand all the new things that are happening. What is true and what works on this side of the ocean does not usually apply in Asia.

[slide_rule]

Shenzen has density, but like many newer Chinese highrise districts it's laced with horribly wide roads, and buildings (or complexes) are often far too separated. I'm sure most people walk and take transit in these areas, but it must be pure hell walking through Shenzen's humidity every day. The urban design could be far more pedestrian-friendly.

as with many foreign places, shenzhen ISN'T accurately depicted in the media, and gets a bad rap from many members of american-centric ssp. those wide roads aren't some example of hubris or flat out idiocy. they aren't even representative of the whole. i'll try to explain my perspective. the eastern half of the pearl delta, from shenzhen stretching up to guangzhou, has tens of thousands of industrial firms. the vast majority of industry (not only in shenzhen, but most everywhere now) uses the just-in-time inventory system. thus the flexibility of trucks is needed to ferry goods and components back and forth through a labyrinth of assemblers, subcontractors, exporters, etc.

the number of WIDE roads in shenzhen can be counted on two hands. the wide roads are also the ones which contain/will contain subway paths. most other roads aren't nearly as wide. if you take the aggregate length of all the lanes of roadway in shenzhen, it would be much smaller than the number for comparably sized cities in north america. but the relatively small number of roads and their traffic seem to be magnified because of the high density. just like north american downtowns are full of cars, but aren't nearly as auto-dominated as the outwardly serene burbs. because there is such density and a need for trucks and buses, wide arterial roads ARE needed. one should not critique the layout of a very large industrial agglomeration with the standards of post industrial cities whose roads are overwhelmingly used by single occupant cars.

the principle of induced demand states that an increase in road supply results in an increase in the aggregate distance traveled. conversely a decrease in aggregate road supply will lead to less traffic. 'cept it doesn't really work here. aside from the already small supply of road vis-a-vis the population, shenzhen (and most of the pearl delta's) roads are disproportionately used by trucks and buses. there's very little elasticity, as these vehicles are driven for utilitarian purposes and would be on the roads regardless, plus these are the vehicles you don't want to impede.

you could argue that shenzhen and other large, high density asian cities aren't pedestrian friendly. many arterial roads in shenzhen (and even in wealthy developed hong kong and tokyo) force pedestrians to use ramps and overpasses to cross. yet at the same time, residents of these high density cities do not have to travel nearly as far to reach amenities and/or transit. compare that to the average resident's experience in a large north american city.

those superblocks aren't that bad of a choice for the conditions of shenzhen. shenzhen suffers from an extreme humid cooling climate and pollution. much of the pollution is generated from the legions of diesel trucks and buses, thus it makes sense for residents to live higher up. if you look closely, each superblock apartment has at least 3 exposed walls. cross ventilation helps to keep a/c costs down in humid cooling climes. some traditional villages still exist in the rural areas of shenzhen and dongguan. they are much more appealing, especially to americans whose tastes drift towards historicism. but residents of superblock enjoy quantitatively better ventilation, in addition to easier access to amenities and transit (one absolutely cannot overlook the advantages and efficiencies of high density).

i'm not saying that life in shenzhen or any other developing world industrial city is great. it isn't. you just cannot avoid the pollution and the dirt. but that's a byproduct of each city's level of economic development, and not a result of bad planning or bad architecture. the planners, architects, and engineers are capable and do their best, but ultimately face many factors outside of their control. the high density asian cities are different, but that isn't the same as saying they're inferior.

[slide_rule]

walking a half-mile in Shenzen heat and humidity would be very uncomfortable. With older-style urbanity people could at least stay on the shady side of the street.

the older style urbanity cannot house nearly as many people as the often derided superblocks. shenzhen's rural villages (some still exist, smack dab in the middle of newer developments) are great for walking. you absolutely cannot escape the heat nor humidity though. cars and trucks cannot fit into their lanes. the villages are quaint but they aren't an appropriate model for an industrial city.

higher density DOES have drawbacks. waiting for a subway in hong kong or worse yet, summertime new york, isn't as comfortable as walking a trail. yet at the same time, shenzhen has become an industrial center, requiring many workers and fed by long lines of motorized vehicles. the low rise villages cannot accommodate the workers, the industry, nor their transportation requirements.

[muppet]

the suburbs tend to be heavily reliant on public transport. Theyre only ever built if the mass transit system is extended that way - theyre basically built on the model of the New Towns in Hong Kong. High rise developments surrounding self commercialised and sufficient town centres, shops, diversions and infrastructure, but connected to the main city centre for commuters.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by realm0854

I think part of the point of this article is that the conventional ideas that we hold in the West about urban environments don't hold water in places like Shenzhen and Dubai. Modernism failed in America but in a lot of ways it works in China. Plus, our ideas about public space are very narrow and cut-and-dry and the Chinese find ways to self-organize within the chaos of their built environment. Sometimes in China even a dull project can spur new cultural realities. And whereas a project like Holl's eight towers linked by skybridges would be a disaster for streetlife if it were built in America, in Beijing it can actually work. On that note, the author's inclusion of starchitects in the article is meant to show that some of their wild - and even undercooked - ideas can give birth to new urban events, even when they aren't intended. Anyone who continues to look at Asian cities and tries to compare them to New York and Paris is thinking through an anachronistic lens. Throw away all your urban planning bibles and go witness first-hand all the new things that are happening. What is true and what works on this side of the ocean does not usually apply in Asia.

The number ONE aspect that we failed at in America was not establishing a cohesive transit system. We were very well on our way prior to WWII with virtually every major city having a well definied streetcar system, and several "interurban" systems. But once we as a nation decided that we should all have our own little piece of the country... backyard, house, picket fence... hope for a beautiful transit network was destroyed. Even now as Asia develops, they will never have the chance to rip up their nations and create suburbs like the ones we have... too many people and too much dependence on each other.

The cool thing is that as much of the United States that we have wrecked through the suburban movement, we're still a small nation (in proportion to the amount of land), and still at a point where we can turn some of that around. But it won't happen until we develop a reliable mass transit system.

[mhays]

I'm fine with ribbon towers and other superblocks. I just want them closer together, and I want streetwalls.

The number of wide roads is overshadowed by how much they damage connectivity. They're psychological and logistical barriers to anyone wanting to walk across. Just as one or two freeways can damage a whole district, so can one or two 8-lane roads on 200' ROWs. It would be nicer if they put some of the traffic in tunnels at least through more key districts.

I haven't been to Shenzen, but I've been to Hong Kong and Macau. I much prefer the older sections of HKI and Kowloon to the newer districts. The old sections manage huge densities and do it in a much more walkable manner. My ideal would be a mix of the two types -- streets and streetwalls like the old districts, plus towers/ribbons with a little airspace between them (connected ribbons ok, but space to the next ribbon).

[slide_rule]

I'm fine with ribbon towers and other superblocks. I just want them closer together, and I want streetwalls.

The number of wide roads is overshadowed by how much they damage connectivity. They're psychological and logistical barriers to anyone wanting to walk across. Just as one or two freeways can damage a whole district, so can one or two 8-lane roads on 200' ROWs. It would be nicer if they put some of the traffic in tunnels at least through more key districts.

I haven't been to Shenzen, but I've been to Hong Kong and Macau. I much prefer the older sections of HKI and Kowloon to the newer districts. The old sections manage huge densities and do it in a much more walkable manner. My ideal would be a mix of the two types -- streets and streetwalls like the old districts, plus towers/ribbons with a little airspace between them (connected ribbons ok, but space to the next ribbon).

hong kong and macau are older than shenzhen. in the 3rd quarter of the last century; after an influx of refugees, a colossal shantytown fire, and multiple riots, the british colonial government embarked on hong kong's large-scale public housing projects.

the older walkup buildings you saw in kowloon and hong kong simply could not house the population, nor could they be built quickly enough. thus superblocks were chosen because they could be erected quickly. they also provide advantages over the older housing stock. hong kong has a borderline humid subtropical/tropical wet dry climate. as such, its buildings require as much cross ventilation as possible. something with the streetwalls of temperate climate cities like paris would result in diminished natural ventilation and higher reliance on air conditioning.

if you spent two weeks in hong kong, and divided the time evenly between living in an older apartment block which faces the street, and in one of the newer superblocks; you would most likely realize that the superblock dwellings offer advantages in ventilation and an escape from the myriad fumes and noises of the street. hong kong has already de-industrialized to a large extent, and its minibuses and taxis run on natural gas. however, the number of motor vehicles on the street result in poor streetside air quality and abundant noise. others apparently feel the same way, as rents and sale prices for superblock apartments are higher than for the streetwall complexes.

other hot humid climate cities' contemporary high density districts are built similarly. newer high density districts of brazil, panama, and miami resemble hong kong more than say.. paris or boston.

8 lanes and 200' widths aren't common in shenzhen. in an ideal world, wide arterials would not exist. it's not an ideal world. shenzhen (and most other developing cities in asia) are very large industrial cities. there's no alternative to having them. it's an inevitable compromise of life in the big city. you could choose to cover them a la the big dig, but shenzhen ISN'T a wealthy place. even boston had its second thoughts about that. if shenzhen were wealthy enough to cover the arterials, it most likely would no longer have its factories. plus, shenzhen at least is building a comprehensive mass transit system. so a resident of shenzhen would be inconvenienced by wide roads and footbridges if he/she attempted to walk several kilometers. yet that same resident would also have many amenities in his/her immediate vicinity, and be able to take transit instead of walking long distances.