David Owen, author of Green Metropolis, will deliver a talk at the Playhouse on March 17; the event starts at 7:30 p.m – and it’s free (thank you, Sam Sullivan). The Straight has a piece on him here. He’ll be making the case for urban density – and the highrise buildings that make a place like Manhattan possible.
Meanwhile, over at Grist, the always irascible (in a good way!) James Howard Kunstler weighs in:
Do you find yourself swayed, even a little, by these defenders of urban density?
A. I am completely on board with compact, dense urbanism. It’s a mistake, though, to think that’s the same as an urbanism of mega-structures — either skyscrapers or landscrapers.
A lot of this misunderstanding derived from David Owen’s 2004 New Yorker article, “ Green Manhattan,” which declared that stacking people up in towers was the ultimate triumph of urban ecology. Owen is a very nice fellow, but this thesis was a crock.
… We are entering a capital-scarce, energy-scarce future. The skyscraper is already obsolete and the architects and academic economists remain tragically clueless about it.
Oddly, the main reason we’re done with skyscrapers is not because of the electric issues or heating-cooling issues per se, but because they will never be renovated! They are one-generation buildings. … You cannot have a city of buildings unavailable for and unsuited for adaptive re-use. This final exuberant generation of skyscrapers built the past few decades — including the mis-named “green” skyscrapers — may be considered the architectural expression of the final cheap oil blow-off.
A few thoughts:
Without adding skyscrapers, most Vancouver neighbourhoods could be 3X as dense by shifting to a duplex plus coach house on a standard 33X122 lot. And, you keep a unique authentic, historic character of the neighbourhood in the process.
High rise towers are great, but they don’t suit everyone’s tastes, and a city would be quite boring if that was the only type of architecture offered.
Kunstler makes an excellent point about lifecycle of high rises. If a single-owner, rental apartment building comes to the end of its useful life, it wouldn’t be that hard to demolish and build a new tower. By contrast, what happens in a 200-owner condo building? Or–what will happen when the building needs millions in repairs, but no strata owner can afford their share? will nothing get done until the city condemns it?
Ed Glaeser seems to be making a big deal at the moment regarding how skyscrapers are the saviours of cities. I agree with Wendy – high density does not automatically equal tall buildings. The areas in London with the highest density are in fact Chelsea, Kensington Mayfair, i.e. neighbourhoods with traditional street patterns and terraced housing.
I agree with Wendy and @MusingUrbanist. Skyscrapers versus sprawl is a false dichotomy.
The issue of stratified ownership is a ticking time-bomb as Wendy describes. It isn’t clear how these micro-polities will be restructured once they face increasing renovation costs, but I suspect some form of insolvency and receivership will evolve to deal with it. Not a pretty scenario however. As to the one generation notion, there are lots of turn of the 20th century high rises that remain in active uses perhaps having gone through several different stages of renovation/reuse over the years. However, I like the notion of vertical walkability implied in low-mid rise high density.
Agree with Kunstler.
In one of my final planning classes, one of the development policies for a brownfield project I was working on included a policy to ensure that any “new builds” be designed so that they have the ability to be renovated in the future for adaptive re-use.
My instructor didn’t understand what I meant or why that policy was in there. I think her attitude is reflective of the way we currently (and always have really) think about building. In the past the type of building just lent itself to adaptive re-use, so our generation kind of lucked out I guess.
Kuntsler does raise a good point on adaptive reuse, but unfortunately generalizes. The Qube at 1333 Georgia is a great example of a building that was renovated from commercial to residential as needs changed (much to the chagrin of many). But thing is, it can be renovated back. You can’t say the same of any of the new condos in Yaletown, as those condos are built so the walls of each unit are load-bearing and concrete, and can’t just be moved around or taken out.
I think we need more low-rise density in this city. We have great exampels – other cities have many more.
I really wish people would stop using “towers” or “highrises” as a synonim for “density.” The words are hardly interchangeable, and Paris, with hardly any buildings more than six storeys, still remains denser as a whole than New York City (double, in fact, at 20,807 per square kilometre to 10,630). Towers does not equal dense, necessarily, and neither does dense equal towers. Yes, we need density, but no, we don’t need towers, and people like David Owen can’t seem to make the distinction.
Also, in Vancouver building new high rise housing is particularly expensive (why it rarely ends up being purpose-built rental), in part because of concrete costs.
But wood-frame structures are less expensive to build, although can only be four storeys (I believe, but please correct if wrong). Therefore, adding density to Vancouver might be best done in wood frame, and lower heights, as this can help keep the cost down, and help housing get built that otherwise would not.
@Tessa,
to be fair, it could be more relevant to compare Paris (105km2, 20,000inh/km2) to Manhattan (87km2, 27,000inh/km2)…
Outside Manhattan, NewYork is largely low rise built too.
Also I suggest that building form could be a response to the market demand.
I have heard lot of critic of olympic village: ” I can see my neighbor bathroom from my kitchen”, or there is no “sunlight in the too narrow street”…which could apply perfectly to the Parisian urban form, and could be a motive why people are looking for some differents option to achieve high density (see http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/chronicle-of-paris/)
Wendy, I think there is a place and need in the region for a variety of housing forms…single family homes, duplexes, fee simple row houses, low rise apts, mid and high rise apts, and yes coach houses. Not everyone wants the same thing.
That being said, I am proposing a rezoning in West Vancouver that will create a duplex and a coach house on each of three single family lots, one block from Marine Drive, next to the Recreation and Seniors’ Centre. I consider it a template for what can happen elsewhere in the region. I do hope you’ll support this approach to densification at the Public Hearing!
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the invite! When is the public hearing?
That’s a great site to offer more housing per lot as the usual excuses like “not enough green space/park/rec amenities” don’t hold up. There are few places in the lower mainland with as many rec options as that location.
W
I agree with Voony – Paris flats can be quite dreary.
The front windows overlook narrow streets in perpetual shadow and the rear windows overlook lightwells barely 20 feet across.
The only saving grace is that they have extraordinarily high ceilings.
Regarding density in Vancouver – the leap isn’t between mid-rises and high-rises – the leap is between West Side single family homes and carriage houses/laneways houses to significantly higher densities – even “just” up to the densities of 4 storey walkups, let along mid-rises or highrises.
WRT condos and long term maintenance – co-ops have existed in New York for many years – those co-op apartment blocks fronting Central Park have been there since the 1930s or earlier. They pay for upkeep. Over time those costs will become part and parcel of living downtown – sinmply because there won’t be any new supply that presents a cheaper alternative.
The real concern is that because what is built now (condo-wise) will be around so long, any efforts to increase the density of a condo block in the future will not be possible (because the building is still in good condition 60 years from now, and there are 100’s of owners that would need to agree to demolish).
To Wendy’s point…”RE: Without adding skyscrapers, most Vancouver neighbourhoods could be 3X as dense by shifting to a duplex plus coach house on a standard 33X122 lot. And, you keep a unique authentic, historic character of the neighbourhood in the process.”
Wendy’s point above is not accurate. Vancouver’s RS zones (single family) already permit 3 dwelling units per standard lot (33×122) – without a stratificaiton requirement. 3 units are main house, basement suite and laneway house. This offers lots of additional density within existing zoning and also creates affordable rental housing for residents.