Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork
i have honesty no clue how to answer this..
|
Don't worry bro i gotchu
The hallmark of Human civilization is our cities. No civilization has ever existed without a city, nor could any civilization in the future. By definition, cities are human habitats, built
for humans only,
by humans only. Any non-human organism we allow into our cities is
solely for our enjoyment, whether it be pets for comfort, parks for aesthetics, or crops and livestock for food. As long as we have been a species, we have instinctively built cities, strictly BECAUSE they
eliminate nature and all its inherent risks to our survival.
THEREFORE, a city, BY DEFINITION cannot integrate with nature. If it did, it would immediately cease to be a human-optimized environment and thus cease to be a city.
and THEREFORE, any attempt to integrate the two will always be detrimental to either
1) Nature, 2) Human civilization, or 3) Both. Examples provided below.
1) Attempt is detrimental to Nature but beneficial to Human Civilization: City Parks
Parks are great. Urban greenspaces never cease to be aesthetically pleasing, no matter the city, country, or culture. But the fact is,
urban parks are no better for nature than the cities that surround them. In the urban planning process, we decide to allocate patches of the untouched land to parks, to protect them from being cut and developed. All seems well and good...
We then proceed to surround it with buildings, pave it with roads and trails, cut down as much underbrush as possible (and in doing so, immediately eliminate almost all of the area's biodiversity), and bring in grass and flowers and other non-native species that we find aesthetically pleasing. Finally, we create a list of all the native plant species that were eliminated and classify them as "weeds," and hire a park maintenance crew to prevent these "weeds," as well as anything in the kingdom of "fungi" or "insectae" from ever returning to levels that would constitute a healthy ecosystem.
Sadly, many city dwellers believe this to be what nature really is.
Yes, it is commendable that Shanghai is attempting to preserve the Pudong forest, but the reality is that
there is no longer a Pudong forest. It is gone. Sure, there are a good many remaining stands of trees all over the city, but, as anyone who has spent time in a forest knows, a bunch of trees does not a forest make. I'd be willing to bet good money that more than
90% of the native Pudong forest species are either
extinct within a 100 mile radius of Shanghai or extinct entirely.
Again, I am not suggesting in any way that Shanghai's forest preservation efforts are without good reason; it is beautiful, and in urban planning, beauty is a good reason. I am, however, trying to emphasize that there is a huge difference between a stand of trees that is kept for human aesthetic appeal and a pristine old-growth forest that hasn't been tampered with.
2) Attempt is detrimental to Human Civilization but not detrimental to Nature: Isolation from civilization
It is very rare for integration attempts to result in humans having anything but the upper hand. Thoreau and Walt Whitman have tried this, and according to them, it seemed to go reasonably well. But if everyone suddenly decided to live this way, we would essentially be giving up everything we have ever worked for as a species. World population would plummet back down into the tens of millions, and lifespans would plummet back down to 30 years max. Need i go on?
3) Attempt is detrimental to both Human Civilization AND Nature: "Sky City" Concept
Cities are a lot like forests; the best ones are
dense, dynamic, and diverse. All three qualities come together in great cities to give them their character and resilience.
Density is the catalyst that brings people together, and encourages dynamism through the sharing of ideas and culture.
Dynamism is the engine of creativity and innovation. Just as how a forest constantly creates new niches for different species, a good city is constantly creating new niches for culture, business, and industry. Finally,
diversity is a wide breadth of environments and experiences; the result of powerful dynamism over the span of many generations. The flourishing of culture, business, and industry that occurs within the ever-changing niches of a dynamic city creates cultural and economic diversity, and ensures economic resilience.
Now imagine a city in the middle of nowhere. This city consists of ten giant, identical, megatall skyscrapers all spread out, connected by some roads and paths. Everyone in this city has pretty much the same view, of trees, horizon, and several other identical buildings. Their offices are identical to their houses, save for the furnishings and color of the walls. Kids go to identical schools with different names. Sometimes they hang out in the parks below, (but they can't see anything down there because of the damn shadows.. and then the park died. the end.) (hehehehehe), or at a friend's apartment. Everyone can spot the tourists and newcomers because they're always asking "What floor is this?" "How do you all tell the difference?" and people respond by saying "137" and "practice, practice."
Now ask yourself if that sounds like a place you'd want to live? Logically it seems to make sense, but emotionally, it feels excruciatingly
bland. It has no
character. It is a lack of one of the three Ds, diversity, that is to blame here.
Sky City, quite unsurprisingly, is not really a city at all, but just a building. There is no diversity of environments and experiences in such a city, no distinct neighborhoods with a distinct feel, no unpredictability. without this diversity, people will find it extremely difficult to start businesses. Why start a pizza place on floor 131 of building 5 when there is already one on floor 79 and another one in the building next door on floor 184? There simply wouldn't be enough niches for businesses to fill. No business will be able to provide anything that a seemingly identical business doesn't already.
Secondly, although the concept is touted as a revolution in urban environmental friendliness, the environmental benefits will be so minuscule as to render them worthless. The reality is, although a bit better, the "Sky City" concept is only slightly less detrimental to nature than any traditional city. Yes, there would be
far more greenspace, but it would still be the kind of well maintained, park-like greenspace described above in the first scenario. Even if all the paths and roads were elevated up to 20 meters and the land was left completely to its own devices, the effects would still be worthless. After all,
cities only occupy 1% of the earth's land area. Agriculture, by comparison, occupies close to
70% of the earth's land area, most of which was previously forested.
Reforesting all of our cities won't make much of a difference when an equivalent area of rainforest continues to be slashed and burned to create farmland every year.
So here it is: Sky City is simply not worth the loss of urban diversity. Building a pre-fabricated supertall building in the middle of a forest and calling it "Sky City" is no different than transplanting a
fully-grown giant sequoia tree into the middle of a city and calling it a "Sky Forest".
"Sky City" is just as much a healthy city as "Sky Forest" is a healthy forest.
Prev
Linear Mode
