How should we build?
In today’s economic climate and environmental instability, the issue of housing is a complex, growing concern that faces much of the world today and especially for future generations. With cities growing in citizens and prices rising with the demand, it’s a pressing matter. More specifically, affordable, sustainable housing needs reform. However, with a variety of different factors at play it’s a difficult balancing act to satisfy them all.
Fortunately, most governments seem to be aware of the issues urban sprawl brings to a city’s structure and the difficulties it imposes on those living in the far-out suburban communities. These problems can range from an individual scale (a longer commute time to work) to a larger societal problem such as a massive strain on public transport, or pressure from citizens to expand upon the transport network, all of which cost not only the state but also the environment on multiple levels. Firstly, there is the cost of expansion alone, which in turn raises questions over how roads will need to be redeveloped to combat congestion, leaving potential to disrupt more than just the proposed land for building upon. Next is the emissions caused from construction over such a large footprint of land, although this level of pollution will soon be dwarfed by the quantity of emissions that the new urban areas will emit from transport. This issue is summarised by István Bart, a former member of the climate policy team during Hungary’s EU presidency “It would require a very complex analysis to fully map the long-term evolution of trip-lengths and destinations for all passengers and goods. In the following, this complexity will be minimized by assuming that the increase in road transport emissions can be explained by the increase in urban areas. An increase in urban areas increases individual trip lengths, and as most newly urbanised areas are fully car-dependent with no public transport, these areas would have to lead to increased road transport emissions. This assumption is well grounded in the findings of researchers”. So, if not for urbanising and expanding our communities, what is the sustainable approach?
The obvious answer is to build higher but on a smaller base to maximise the value of the land and the footprint a building possesses. By housing more people on a tighter scale and reducing their commute time, less people require a car whilst also negating the immediate need to lay new connecting roads. Granted, this is a more economically taxing approach to building as one structure can push budgets to the limit, however in the ultimate goal of achieving a sustainable future, it seems like a worthwhile endeavour. Depressingly, many of the skyscrapers being developed today aren’t aimed at meeting the needs of its citizens and instead target the minority of people rather than majority.
Controversial buildings such as New York’s 111 West 57th Street, like many non-social housing developments chases the lavish clients rather than the masses. With an impressively thin façade the building has a height to width ratio of 1:24 and is built to withstand both wind and seismic activity therefore appearing to show promise in terms of sustainability. Unfortunately, this engineering feat is completely undermined by how worthless it is to the city it inhabits. Despite standing at a height of 438 metres of which house 82 floors, there are only 60 residencies available starting from 18 million dollars and finishing at 57 million dollars for the penthouse. Obviously, these are entirely unaffordable for the majority of people based in New York and will likely not become fully occupied within the next five years at least as a result. Take the shard for example that still has all ten of its luxury apartments empty. The building will remain an impressive addition to the city’s skyline the same way it will remain a vain proposal to the city’s inhabitants, a more social or affordable approach is needed.
One of the more successful examples of high-density housing schemes comes in the form of the popular Sydney Cook projects in Camden, London. The schemes include some of the most influential and ground-breaking sites not only for British architecture but also for the global community of architects. Cook’s projects challenged the notion that there is only two options, sprawl or skyscraper and demonstrates how high-density housing doesn’t necessarily have to mean high rise housing.
The iconic Alexandra Road Estate is one of the most effective manifestations of this philosophy. The lead architect Neave Brown aimed to make a departure from poor terraced housing without opting to develop another tower block that often rest incongruent to their setting. Thanks to their layered/tiered approach to building, Brown and his team managed to develop an estate dense enough to rival many tower blocks being built at the time despite being little taller than the tenements they replaced. More importantly, the team built with careful considerations to the site being built upon, not only does the terraced method provide conveniences like individual front doors, it also maximises the dampening of sound from the neighbouring railway. This integration and implementation allows for an uncompromised style of urban living without needing to develop new roads or connections.
Perhaps contemporary urban planners can learn from the success of Cook’s projects and develop for the city’s needs. Or maybe we should expect to see more empty luxury apartments cropping up across the centre of our cities. Should we also accept that our cities will continue to grow laterally and encroach upon the environment? Perhaps an outside technological advancement will provide the solution to city sprawl such as hyperloop which promises to cut commute times from Edinburgh to London to just 30 minutes, allowing people to distance their homes from their occupations.
Until solutions that deliver for both the environment and the people are implemented the future of both the planet and housing will hang in the balance.
