Take a look at this photo from Central in Hong Kong and note the MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) systems running up the cutout in the middle of the tower. Also note the bamboo scaffolding next door and the epic terrace on top of the ground floor bank. The building on the opposite side put parking on top of its podium.
I was told that systems are commonly run on the outside of buildings here to maximize interior square footage. Again, space is a precious commodity in this city. But it also speaks to not having to worry about freeze-thaw cycles. Winter in Hong Kong has so far equaled me walking around in a t-shirt.
These exposed systems look ugly as all hell, but I suppose they also mean not having to break open drywall when you have a problem.
I am fascinated by the relationship that buildings have between interior and exterior space. In cold cities like Toronto we are forced to hermetically seal off our buildings from the elements. We have to worry about thermal bridging and about heat tracing cold spots.
But in a city like Hong Kong I would imagine that the greater concern is stifling heat and humidity. All of this comes through in the built form.
Yesterday I wrote about urban-suburban divides within cities. And I argued that built form will largely dictate the kinds of transportation choices that people will ultimately make.
As a follow-up to that, here is a chart based on the findings of a research report completed by Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy way back in 1989. On the x-axis is urban density (i.e. built form) and on the y-axis is per capita transport related energy consumption.
Vancouver BC City Skyline and Stanley Park by Jit Lim on 500px
In the comment section of my post about Vancouver’s transit referendum, a reader suggested I take a look at an article by Peter McMartin called, The real Vancouver emerges (from the ruins of the plebiscite).
McMartin’s argument is basically that Vancouverism – the name given to the city’s progressive architecture and planning approach – isn’t as widespread as it might seem. The reality is that Vancouver, much like Toronto and other cities, is divided.
“Vancouverism might be a reality for two or three neighbourhoods huddling in the downtown, and that greener, more progressive ethos might hold sway in one or two more.
But Vancouver — and I speak of it in the metro sense — is the sum of its parts, and most of its parts are suburban in their sensibilities, and that includes not just all of the suburbs but most of the neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver proper.
They’re resistant to change. They abhor densification. They’re conventional in their sensibilities and they’re highly dependent on the automobile. More importantly, they’re not just dependent on the automobile, they prefer it.”
Here in Toronto, we know our city is divided. And many people see it as evidence that amalgamating the city in 1998 was a big mistake. The inner suburbs are holding back old Toronto and elitist old Toronto just doesn’t understand the priorities of the inner suburbs.
But I’m not convinced that amalgamation is to blame.
Most cities have long histories of amalgamating adjacent towns, villages, and cities, and I suspect that there was opposition all along the way. At what point is amalgamation acceptable and and what point is it problematic?
The anti-amalgamation camp here in Toronto seems to believe that it would have allowed old Toronto to continue doing what it wants to do and allowed the inner suburbs to do what they want to do.
But this to me feels parochial.
Our cities need to think bigger than that. We need to think as cohesive urban regions. And as Vancouver demonstrated this past week, that’s not always easy. But I don’t think the answer is to just think smaller and ignore the people whose views don’t match our own.
Interestingly enough, what a lot of this comes down to, I think, is built form.
Because different kinds of built form will encourage and often mandate different kinds of transportation choices. And how you get around a city will inform a big part of what you value and what you vote for.
Over time though, I believe that we will see built form start to level out across our city regions through continued intensification. Many people won’t be happy about this change. But it is likely that it will end up creating more cohesive cities.
Built form is no small thing.
Take a look at this photo from Central in Hong Kong and note the MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) systems running up the cutout in the middle of the tower. Also note the bamboo scaffolding next door and the epic terrace on top of the ground floor bank. The building on the opposite side put parking on top of its podium.
I was told that systems are commonly run on the outside of buildings here to maximize interior square footage. Again, space is a precious commodity in this city. But it also speaks to not having to worry about freeze-thaw cycles. Winter in Hong Kong has so far equaled me walking around in a t-shirt.
These exposed systems look ugly as all hell, but I suppose they also mean not having to break open drywall when you have a problem.
I am fascinated by the relationship that buildings have between interior and exterior space. In cold cities like Toronto we are forced to hermetically seal off our buildings from the elements. We have to worry about thermal bridging and about heat tracing cold spots.
But in a city like Hong Kong I would imagine that the greater concern is stifling heat and humidity. All of this comes through in the built form.
Yesterday I wrote about urban-suburban divides within cities. And I argued that built form will largely dictate the kinds of transportation choices that people will ultimately make.
As a follow-up to that, here is a chart based on the findings of a research report completed by Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy way back in 1989. On the x-axis is urban density (i.e. built form) and on the y-axis is per capita transport related energy consumption.
Vancouver BC City Skyline and Stanley Park by Jit Lim on 500px
In the comment section of my post about Vancouver’s transit referendum, a reader suggested I take a look at an article by Peter McMartin called, The real Vancouver emerges (from the ruins of the plebiscite).
McMartin’s argument is basically that Vancouverism – the name given to the city’s progressive architecture and planning approach – isn’t as widespread as it might seem. The reality is that Vancouver, much like Toronto and other cities, is divided.
“Vancouverism might be a reality for two or three neighbourhoods huddling in the downtown, and that greener, more progressive ethos might hold sway in one or two more.
But Vancouver — and I speak of it in the metro sense — is the sum of its parts, and most of its parts are suburban in their sensibilities, and that includes not just all of the suburbs but most of the neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver proper.
They’re resistant to change. They abhor densification. They’re conventional in their sensibilities and they’re highly dependent on the automobile. More importantly, they’re not just dependent on the automobile, they prefer it.”
Here in Toronto, we know our city is divided. And many people see it as evidence that amalgamating the city in 1998 was a big mistake. The inner suburbs are holding back old Toronto and elitist old Toronto just doesn’t understand the priorities of the inner suburbs.
But I’m not convinced that amalgamation is to blame.
Most cities have long histories of amalgamating adjacent towns, villages, and cities, and I suspect that there was opposition all along the way. At what point is amalgamation acceptable and and what point is it problematic?
The anti-amalgamation camp here in Toronto seems to believe that it would have allowed old Toronto to continue doing what it wants to do and allowed the inner suburbs to do what they want to do.
But this to me feels parochial.
Our cities need to think bigger than that. We need to think as cohesive urban regions. And as Vancouver demonstrated this past week, that’s not always easy. But I don’t think the answer is to just think smaller and ignore the people whose views don’t match our own.
Interestingly enough, what a lot of this comes down to, I think, is built form.
Because different kinds of built form will encourage and often mandate different kinds of transportation choices. And how you get around a city will inform a big part of what you value and what you vote for.
Over time though, I believe that we will see built form start to level out across our city regions through continued intensification. Many people won’t be happy about this change. But it is likely that it will end up creating more cohesive cities.
Built form is no small thing.
What this chart shows is that as cities become more dense, “automobile dependence” is reduced in favor of, other, more sustainable forms of transport.
Here we have Houston at the top left (meaning it has the highest transport-related energy consumption per capita) and Hong Kong all the way on the bottom right. Hong Kong has by far the highest density among the cities looked at in this study, but Moscow seems to have the lowest per capita energy consumption. Still, the trend appears clear.
Some people think of “density” as a dirty word. But there are lots of benefits to dense urban centers. And density does not necessarily have to mean tall buildings.
What this chart shows is that as cities become more dense, “automobile dependence” is reduced in favor of, other, more sustainable forms of transport.
Here we have Houston at the top left (meaning it has the highest transport-related energy consumption per capita) and Hong Kong all the way on the bottom right. Hong Kong has by far the highest density among the cities looked at in this study, but Moscow seems to have the lowest per capita energy consumption. Still, the trend appears clear.
Some people think of “density” as a dirty word. But there are lots of benefits to dense urban centers. And density does not necessarily have to mean tall buildings.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog