A lot of questionable countries are keen to use events like the Olympic games or Soccer Championships to show off their modernity or ‘open democracy’ on the international stage. Meanwhile behind the scenes the population is being repressed because governments do not want negative headlines in media, relocated in order to create space for the giant stadiums, exploited to pay the costs, nature is destroyed. Architects play an ambivalent role in those affairs. In order to design another awarded and prominent project they are happy to serve those events without questioning them much. They let themselves be utilized for critical projects as well as they use them to increase their prestige.

Olympic Summer Games Beijing 2008 – decay or reuse?

The Olympic games in Beijing in 2008 had to face multiple of the problems mentioned above. Critique for human rights was repressed. 1,5 million people where relocated in order to create space for the Olympic infrastructure. Architects did not seem to have a problem with that. Renowned Swiss-based Herzog & de Meuron won the competition for the Beijing National Stadium – better known as Bird’s Nest. Definitely the design is very poetic but is it 100% good architecture? Is it reasonable to build a 293€ million building for an event of 16 days duration? 110.000 tons of steel where used for the construction, during the Olympic games it could hold 91.000 people. After the event the buildings capacity was reduced to 80.000 but it is rarely used at its capacity. If – IF – Chinas application for the Olympic Winter Games in 2022 is successful, it could be reused. Meanwhile there are some plans to convert it to a shopping mall… It seems like if urban planners do not know what to do with something anymore, it often ends up as a shopping mall….

A more sustainable example from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 is the Beijing National Aquatics Center nicknamed Water Cube. With total construction costs of 94 millions euros it seems like a bargain compared to the Bird’s Nest. The design of the building focuses on ‘green’ aspects. Therefore the building features various technologies: solar energy is used to heat the interior; there is a system to reuse the water of the facilities; the façade material is self-cleaning with rain. During the Olympic games the building held a capacity of 17.000 seats. After the games the venue was reduced to 7.000 seats, which is less than half. The building was converted into a public leisure aquatic park. This may seem like a trivial reuse but there is a reuse and the building has a new life after the Olympic games. An economic use it important to maintain the buidlings sustainability. Architects should think ahead more often and not just design single-use architecture.

Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014 – faster, higher, most expensive

The Olympic Winter Games in Sochi last year remain in history as the largest yet most expensive ones in history so far. The estimated cost ranges up to 41 billion euros. Only the Fisht Olympic Stadium planned by Populous and Buro Happold cost 628 millions euros. At least it is going to be reused for the 2018 FIFA World Cup and the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup. Severe damage to the environment had been done by the event; again people were displaced. The architects of the facilities were happy to serve as uncritical accomplices to those topics. The value for the population of Sochi remains little. The image benefit for Russia is diminished by international crises like in Ukraine. If Sochi will remain an international attraction for tourism seems doubtful.

Olympic Stadium Tokyo 2020 – big, bigger, the biggest?

The Olympic games of 2020 in Tokyo are still in planning stage. But one object is already highly criticized: the Olympic National Stadium by Zaha Hadid. Located in the historic outer gardens of the Meiji Shrine, on the site of the 50.000-seat capacity Olympic National Stadium from 1964, Hadid’s 80.000-seat venue is planned with arches rising up to 70m high. After massive public criticism it had been downscaled by a quarter in order to reduce the budget for 40%. Still it is estimated to cost 169 billion yen  (1.14 billion Euro). The reduction did not affect the public opinion. Opponents still label the building as too big and too expensive.  Hadid’s statement ‘…we don’t make nice little buildings’ does reveal the attitude a lot of (star-)architects have nowadays. Sure it is the dream of an architect to design a landmark, not a building, no matter what it might cost to eternize their delusions of grandeur. But is that really necessary. Sometimes yes. Nobody would question Sydney’s opera house despite all the struggles, delays and cost explosions. But still, if there exists already some infrastructure, would it not be possible to adapt, reuse and rebuild the existing facilities? Of course they are not up-to-date but wouldn’t it be more sustainable to alter them? It might be less prestigious but maybe more reasonable.

Soccer World Cup Qatar 2022 – call of duty?

Another big sports event which is planned to happen in 2022 is already prominent in nowadays newspapers. The Soccer World Cup in Qatar is highly criticized by human rights activists. Although there are still some years to pass until the event, more than 1.000 Indian and Nepalese workers already died on the construction site. Accommodated under terrible conditions and without any papers they have no choice to leave. There are already plans to build a monument for the victims but this is not a war, it is simply the construction of a soccer stadium. So would it not make more sense to focus on the conditions of the workers that are still there and assure them proper work circumstances? When star-architect Zaha Hadid who is in charge of the design for the al-Wakrah stadium was interviewed she pointed out that she has ‘nothing to do with the workers.’ She stressed that this is the duty of the government and not the duty of the architect ‘to look at it’. Furthermore this would not concern her more than the deaths of the war in Iraq. Of course it is not her fault. But is it that easy? Architects sell the design and what happens with it is none of their interest anymore? Can we just close our eyes and ‘not look at it’? This unattached view of an architect is critical. It should not be that architects make sumptuous designs no matter at what cost – may it be money or lives. It would be cynical to talk about sustainability when facing over 1.000 deaths for an event eight years ahead during preparation. But that something went terribly wrong in the planning of this world cup is obvious. Architects are not responsible for everything but by the choices they make, which project to plan, with what companies or countries to cooperate and for whom to work they have some influence. After international and prominent critique conditions for the construction workers are being improved. Architects involved remain silent collaborators by saying ‘it is not my duty’.

Olympic Games 1992 – Learning from Barcelona

The Olympic Summer games in Barcelona in 1992 had a huge impact on the city. The general urban plan for the games is still influencing the city nowadays, the method was so successful that it got its own name: the Barcelona model. Although more than twenty years ago, it is still a role model and quoted in other ambitious Olympic ‘plans’ like the Games in London. During the rule of General Franco Barcelona had become and industrial backwater. By the time Barcelona was voted to host the Olympic games in 1992 it was still suffering form the consecutions of that time. But once the decision for the Olympics was made, the planning started carefully. Urban planners started to increase the city’s qualities already years in advance by small urban interventions. More public spaces where created, sometimes just as simple as boulevards with palm trees or a few benches in public space. Aware that the Olympic games often leave host cities with numerous abandoned and sumptuous structures, facilities in Barcelona where created for further use. Football games still happen in the Olympic stadium, but it is capable of doubling its capacity for concerts or shows. But the planners were not afraid to face big infrastructural projects as well – despite the costs they were going to face already for the Olympic infrastructure. The city created a whole new beachfront by demolishing the industrial buildings on the waterfront at marina. A new promenade was created at the beachfront, setting new landmarks as Frank O. Gehry’s giant fish. It became a magnet for tourism; one restaurant is neighboring to the other at the beach boulevard. Nowadays the beach is a main public attraction for tourists as well as for locals. By the time the project was realized people probably were shaking their heads in doubt about the costs and the magnitude. But today no one could think away the beach from Barcelona. It is one of the most precious parts of the city and a main economic drive. The Olympic infrastructure created for the games is thought to have provided over 20.000 permanent jobs for the city. Therefore although costly it remained sustainable.

Conclusion

In connection with careful urban planning the city experienced a huge image benefit from the Olympic games and remains one of the most popular European cities. Architects and urban planners should consider more thoughtful those big events. If planned carefully they can have a massive sustainable effect for decades. But if just planned in short term view the host city usually remains financially ruined, whole neighborhoods abandoned and in worst case society is destabilized and the environment damaged.  Nowadays political pressure of these events is increasing: bigger – faster – more sensational. But architects should consider if they want to be a accomplice in that system. By planning the buildings as well as playing a role in the master plans of those projects they can have some influence. Architects should reflect their social responsibility. Of course it is tempting to plan an iconic landmark when costs do not matter. But somebody has to pay the bills and it is usually the people of the particular country. Reducing some extravagancies and finding a reasonable scale is one way. Thinking ahead about the use of the building is the even more important part. It is absolutely not sustainable or economic to construct a million heavy blown up stadium to leave abandoned and unused ever after. This should be already an important part in the architectural competitions and to be considered in the choice of the awarded projects.  But as long as the juries and committees of those yearly sensations do not reflect those topics, it will remain to the architect to be self-responsible. Architects cannot teach governments or society to act sustainable. But they can use those events to show how things can be done. In a time when world seems to become smaller and smaller anyways, it is important to show new ways to give those architectural giants a second life after their main purpose and stay at least to a certain way economical with the recourses and space.

Said that, it is important to understand that as a more civic city is our objective, we should increase the value of peoples decisions over their lives, and since with all the information that we already offered to people, some of them still believe that the private transportation is the best for them. In this scene, the use of the city streets become a representation of the city’s life, and it is its most public space.

Jane Jacobs wrote at “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961) that streets “serve other purposes besides carryng wheeled traffic in their middles. Streets and their sidewalks, the main public places of a city, are its most vital organs.”

Understanding one important lesson of economy will be useful to understand why the majority of cities in the world will not be totally free of cars in the next years: If someone can choose between two things to consume, they will always consume what in their minds in good for them. So it is not difficult to understand that in some countries where the infrastructure of the city public transport system is bigger and well manteined (western europe countries and japan) people use less cars, and countries in which the private transport receives a big amount of invesments (North America) and countries which the public transport system poorly exist (South America and Eastern Europe), the private way of transport is the major used among the others.

Presenting what is happening in São Paulo (Brazil), this article pretends to show a way of a non planned union between the Private and Public Sector to increase the use of bicycles in this city without any form of pushing the users to do this by punisment and spending almost any public money, just urban planning.

At the beggining of December 2014, the Paris mayor announced plans to ban diesel cars from the French capital by 2020 as part of an anti-pollution drive. Anne Hidalgo also said parts of central Paris would severely curtail private car use by creating semi-pedestrianised zones, beginning with an experiment on weekends which could be “rapidly” extended to include weekdays. Vehicle use inside these zones would be limited to the cars of residents, and emergency and delivery vehicles.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/07/paris-mayor-hidalgo-plans-ban-diesel-cars-french-capital-2020

São Paulo is the major city in Brazil. In its metropolitan area lives more than 11 million people and the city has the largest economy by GDP in Latin America and Southern Hemisphere. But besides of its wealth, as other mega-cities in emergent economies, the city has a lot of unequal healthy and underdevellopped infrastructure, which causes a very difficult life for the poorest, since they do not have a easy access to public services, and forces the ones who have the economical power, to get those services by the private sector. This situation occurs in the public transportation also. In the last decades of Brazil, the private transportation have been understood as the mainly method of transportation, and also as a way of economical development by the growth of the car industries. Hopefully this idea has started to change since the end of the military dictatorship (primary a right wing government).

The “Elevado Costa e Silva”, built in the 70′s by the military dictatorship, crossing a central residential area in downtown was at the beggining received as a wealth signal and later became a reason for degradation of the area. Their demolishment started to be seriously discussed by the city major at 2006, and again by the current mayor, both from different political parties.
Source: http://wikimapia.org/12916395/pt/Elevado-Presidente-Costa-e-Silva-Minhoc%C3%A3o

During the last three decades, NGO’s started to appear in São Paulo trying to aware the popullation for issues like preservation of the enviroment, public participation on politics of cities, use of bicycles, among others. Those NGO’s ttogetherer with the spread of information from the press about those issues made some segments of the society (usually higher-medium segments) tried to respond in a positive away about those questions. Those people started to consume more ecological and social responsable products. Sooner, companies started to capitalize and became, at least apparentaly, more ecological and social responsable. One of those segments were the banks, who saw an opportunity to gather a more positive and up-to date image among young and rich consumers. Those banks made a system of renting bicycles for a couple of minutes for free, and charge for a little value if the user rides more hours, but you could only use this service if you are a client of those banks. At begining those stations for renting bicycles were instaled in a very few areas and only in rich neighborhods of the city to atract those young rich consummers. Those stations started to function as a unique way of advertisement of the banks, since public advertisement are extremely controlled in São Paulo. Sooner they realized that those stations could function not only as a way of self promotion, but also as a little source of income and due to the good reception, those banks installed those stations in different parts of the city. The idea of a bicycle as a way of transportation achieved a status of ‘possibility’ in the minds of the rich popullation, who were using them during the weekends.

Images of the two stations of the different banks. The first one is from Itaú in, the program started at 2012 and is called Bike Sampa (http://www.bikesampa.com.br/app/), and the other was Bradesco, who started the Ciclo Sampa in 2013 (http://www.ciclosampa.com.br/), both of them with the suport of the cityhall, but made and controlled by the banks.

In 2013 the current mayor of São Paulo started a big program that would deliver 400km of bicycle lanes to the city (http://www.cetsp.com.br/consultas/bicicleta/400km.aspx), which already have built 78km at September 2014. At the beggining the population was extremely against this program, but later gained more than 80% of aproval (http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2014/09/datafolha-80-aprovam-ciclovias-em-sp-aumenta-popularidade-de-haddad.html). Those lanes were installed and planed by the public sector, and different from the private, started on the downtown area and spread fast to reach more distant regions, mainly by poorer people. Today those lanes are not only used by poor people, but by everyone. The government is still installing the lanes which are used as a way of transportation and as a hobby during the weekend. Also, developed a small station similar to the ones of the banks, but continue working together with the banks to install the first ones.

Map of the current bicycles lanes of the city: 1- in all over the city, 2- in downtown and at 3- a maily rich area.
Source: http://vadebike.org/2014/07/mapa-ciclovias-sao-paulo-ciclofaixas-ciclorrotas/

In conclusion, it is clear that the car is still the major way of transportation among the rich people, since the most rich neighborhoods are the ones with the fewest amount of lanes in the city, and the ones in which the program is the most unpopular. But also, it was because of those rich regions that those banks installed those stations. Both of them functioned in a coexistence way. Both of them could exist without each other, but they become more effective together. The stations were the initial step on this coexistence, their job was to gather public awareness to the transport issue and were done by the private sector and are the most efective way of charging. The lanes in other hand, is an infrastructure in the city, it is very cheap to be installed, but could only be installed by the public agent and since there are no eficiant way of charging people for using it, it is perfect to achieve the poor regions. They represent a balanced existence between two sectors, none of them took the right of the car to share the city, and shows a economic sustainability change in the city, made without a center agent, but with all agents working together: Society, Public Sector and Private Sector.

Introduction:

It is impossible to explain Venice by words: you cannot understand its uniqueness until you see this city with your own eyes. The beauty of its setting, its architecture and its artworks are the reasons why Venice is listed as a World Heritage Site in its entirety.

 Venice is made of 117 little islands separated by canals and linked by bridges. Venice has grown on the water and thanks to it, the city flourished for centuries as a Maritime Republic. However the water has been also the main Venetian enemy (after Napoleon): the city was born on a river mouth (the Brenta’s). During the Middle Ages the Venetians massively intervened on the surrounding ecosystem: the Brenta and other small rivers were deviated and the canals excavated in order to prevent the city’s sinking and permit their navigation.

 Nowadays the water is still a problem for Venice: the high-tide phenomenon is more and more frequent, due to the climatic changes. This photogenic event attracts and seduces millions of tourists every year, but for those who live and work in Venice the high-tide is an economical bother, as well as an impediment to a normal daily life. The municipality has activated several devices in order to inform people of the incoming phenomenon: an SMS is sent to mobiles the day before and, from the bell towers, an acoustic alarm alerts Venetians a couple of hours before (it sounds differently according to the supposed tide level). So people are informed they have to wear boots! But basically the diseases are not cancelled: the public transport is not regular because water-buses cannot pass under the bridges and a lot of fondamente, calli and campielli (the Venice streets) are underwater and not served by gangways. The M.O.S.E., the great engineering project still under construction, maybe one day will solve or, at least, will limit the damages.

 However I am not going to talk about that, because I think the water is not the main city hazard, but the millions of tourists I have mentioned before. The excessive commercial exploitation of the city centre is damaging the fragile Venetian equilibrium and creating serious problems for its population.

Moreover, a bad city management has been producing the gradual death of Venice.

THE VENICE’S PLAGUES

 Mass tourism:

Tourism has been an important sector of Venetian industry since the 18^th century, when it became a necessary step of the Grand Tour because of its beautiful cityscape, uniqueness, and rich musical and artistic cultural heritage. In the 19^th century the city was a fashionable centre for the rich and famous, often staying or dining at luxury establishments such as the Danieli Hotel and the Cafè Florian. It continued being an in vogue city right into the early 20^th century. In the 1980^s, the Carnival of Venice was revived and the city has become a major centre of international conferences and festivals, such as the prestigious Venice Biennale and the Venice Film Festival, which attract visitors from all over the World for their theatrical, cultural, cinematic, artistic, and musical productions.

 Today Venice is the second most visited city in Italy (source: Hotel Price Index) and one of the most desired destination in the World. Euromonitor International estimates that 3’165’000 people visited Venice during the 2013 (the 45^th most visited city in the World).

Nevertheless, according to the cultural association ItaliaNostra, in 2013 at least 30’000’000 of tourists visited Venice (that means 82’000 tourists a day in less than 4 km²) but in the majority they stayed in the city just for one day, booking an hotel in the nearby cities and arriving in Venice thanks to the public transports (so they are not included into the internationals statistics).

 A lot of shops in the area between San Marco and Rialto’s Bridge have been converted in touristic stores and all the public facilities are more and more “in tune” with the guests, while all the activities not strictly related to the tourism are moving to terraferma (inshore).

 The promotion of a policy of investments deeply connected to the mass tourism (considered as the cardinal economical source of the city) has soon created a huge facilities imbalance.

A non-policy of modernization:

The problem of the mass tourism is combined with a policy that does not care about the city modernization. The last intervention dates back to 1810 and was promoted by Napoleon.

 This is unfortunately a typical Italian affliction: preserving the historical/artistic heritage means to keep the status quo. The “experts” think that restoring an historical site could pervert its nature and spirit, as well as keep it less attractive to tourists.

 So Italy has created hundreds of laws “for the preservation”, as well as a lot of authorities for the artistic and cultural heritage management, producing the total paralysis of any initiative of urban redevelopment.

The Campanile di San Marco parable (the Venetian St. Mark’s Bell Tower) is maybe the best example to illustrate this concept. They said: “Com’era, dov’era”, which means “As it was, where it was”. So after the 1902 collapse, the Campanile was re-built in 1912 by copying the first one: exactly as it was, exactly where it was, creating an historical fake.

 Replacing a window with a new one could be a big problem in Venice: you have to question the Municipality Architectural Heritage Office, which needs from three to six months to answer, and usually the answer is a negative one. The main policy could be resumed as following: do not authorise any architectural intervention that can barely modify the buildings aspect.

So the private citizen has only two choices: to restore without authorization, or to let the house perish.

Public facilities:

This preservative mania unfortunately involves the public service too.

For example, the public transportation does not answer to the current needs. The “fashionable” transportation by boats on the water has always been preferred to a better and faster system such as the subway: there is a project of a lagoon subway for 35 years and still under consideration of the committees.

The result is the complete collapse of a system that is not able to match supply with demand. Furthermore the timetable seems to be conceived to satisfy tourists routes and needs rather than the citizens and workers ones.

The currently recession forced the transportation public service to cut down some lines, but it seems the top management preferred to cut the citizens lines than the tourists ones. Tourism is always considered as the main income source, the only strategic asset of the town.

 Also the waste management has great problems.

The ancient method door-to-door is still in force, demanding a great employment of human and economical sources, but not leading to results up to the civilised cities standards. The inability to act in the interest of the city and the lack of a modern system are carrying the actual waste management to the collapse. The public waste baskets are few (to do not ruin the landscape) and always full, so along the streets it is not so difficult to find piles of trash that rude tourists throw down.

The death of Venice:

This blind and one-directional policy is getting to a slow depopulation of the city. The number of young people deciding to move to Mestre (the part of Venice grown up on the lagoon border) or the hinterlands is increasing every year. In the 16^th century Venice had 200’000 inhabitants, today they are less the 55’000 and still decreasing.

Those few “survivors” feel lonely, emarginated by their own institutions and forced to live in those areas not yet invaded by the mass tourism. They are witnessing the transformation of the city in a tourist attraction, the morphing of Venice into “Veniceland” (as Disneyland), as they sadly started to call it.

This dramatic situation is due to the wrong city planning and management, unidirectional and more focused on the economical profit than the social equity and welfare, bringing the city to paralysis as well as to its gradual depopulation.

 Only a new urban and social long run plan conceived by a knowledgeable management could carry Venice to its rebirth as city.

IS A DIFFERENT CITY POSSIBLE?

Intervening in a city as Venice is not so easy.

Therefore each involvement should be discussed and shared with the citizenry and the small available resources should be concentrated on really essential projects.

It could have been avoided colossal and high-priced projects such as the M.O.S.E. or the Constitutional Bridge (Calatrava’s Bridge), preferring social and urban micro-re-qualification projects, able to awake the citizen social identity as well as a series of private initiatives.

 The social participation in the public management is another important topic.

Thanks to the social networks, independent groups of users have been constituted in order to suggest ideas, signal interventions or just promoting social initiatives. However, the city’s managers have always unheeded these free and passionate contributes, considering them useless and inappropriate.

For example, when the Venetian transportation company (A.C.T.V.) in 2013 decided to change the transportation timetable, a Facebook group tried to collaborate with the company to prevent potential problems for the users.

Unfortunately the company did not accept the users’ suggestions and when the timetable changed, those problems the users widely forecasted have been emerged.

Tourism:

No one can deny that tourism is a vital asset for Venice. However, the city cannot live basing its economy only on this sector. New commercial activities must be promoted and a “business bio-diversity” should be subsidized.

 In addition to that, tourism should be regulated in a more rational way, disciplining the touristic flows and the city pathways. For example, it could be interesting to promote alternative ways to discover the city, trying to decongest the main touristic stream and spreading it in a bigger area.

Moreover the visit of alternative sites could be encouraged. For example, the islands faced to the Bacino Marciano (like San Giorgio and the Giudecca) hide little known treasures, and from their banks it is possible to admire Venice from a different perspective.

Buildings:

Defining Venice as a “different” or a “particular” city and consequently banning any kind of energy upgrading intervention is not acceptable. The municipality must change its conservation concept. It should be understood that Venice must adapt itself to the 21^th century needs and adopt any kind of sustainable progress as done in the other cities of the World. Venice cannot consume three time more energy as a normal city.

 From this perspective, the bureaucratic grip should be reduced and case study projects could be promoted, in order to demonstrate the benefits (even economical) of using solar or photovoltaic panels (now prohibited in Venice), insulated glazing windows and thermal insulations.

According to a recent research promoted by the Venetian architect Board, most of the houses in Venice are rated as F in the energy class scale. A series of small intervention such as windows upgrading as well as the development of a minimal insulation layer to the external walls could reduce the entire annual energetic balance up to 40%. Less consumptions means less monthly bills as well as less CO₂ emissions.

So why Venice cannot be a more eco-friendly city?

Another interesting topic could be the real-estate market regulation.

Nowadays a speculator is totally free to buy and rent apartments to tourists; this market fosters a big housing bubble that does not permit to young couples and not very wealthy families to buy a house in Venice.

It could be interesting to create a touristic houses register, establishing an upper limit for the tenement (for tourist purposes), in order to incentivize the real citizen market.

Public facilities:

The public transportation system needs a careful planning and it should consider social participation in order to share ideas and proposals.

New forms of transportation should be discussed (boat sharing), and the system map could be reshaped in order to solve the actual frictions between tourists and citizens.

 As well as the waste management is concern, many alternatives could be developed and debated with the venetians.

On one hand, new generations could be educated, teaching them the importance of recycling. This really easy action has carried several other Italian cities to increase their recycling part in the total amount of waste. Indeed for an adult is easier to change its behaviour if this has been asked by his son: the generational interaction is the most extraordinary sword to a radical change of habits.

 From the other hand the waste collect system should be changed, especially because the actual one is not able to supply the total daily amount of waste. It could be useful studying how other historical cities have solved their waste management problems.

In Perugia, for example, in the historical city centre an automatized system (using robots) has been experimented. For the same purpose the city centre of Barcelona  is served by the automated vacuum waste collection system that ensures a good clearness level, avoiding an excessive waste stock.

CONCLUSIONS:

 A different city is possible.

Even if Venice is actually flogged by problems only at first glance unsolvable, its citizens conditions could be changed and improved. It must be understood that Venice, despite it has 1500 years of history, can be transformed, adapting itself to the current humans lifestyle.

 After all, Venice is still a very liveable human-scale city. The imbalance caused by the excessive touristic exploitation could be fixed only by a good planning that considers the citizens’ needs, and during this process the social participation should be held in high regard.

 In conclusion, I believe that most of the above proposal could be developed with minimum investments and have immediate benefits for the venetians.

Next spring, after years of scandals and corruption, Venetians will elect the new major. We all hope it will be able to take, for the first time, important and radical decisions thinking about the citizens’ welfare and not only aimed by personal or lobbyist interests.

image: courtesy from venessia.com

Derinkuyu underground city in the Derinkuyu district in Nevşehir Province, Turkey

“If you would see how interwoven it is in the warp and woof of civilization… go at night-fall to the top of one of the down-town steel giants and you may see how in the image of material man, at once his glory and his menace, is the thing we call a city. There beneath you is the monster, stretching acre upon acre into the far distance. High over head hangs the stagnant pall of its fetid breath, reddened with light from myriad eyes endlessly, everywhere blinking. Thousands of acres of cellular tissue, the city’s flesh outspreads layer upon layer, enmeshed by an intricate network of veins and arteries radiating into the gloom, and in them, with muffled, persistent roar, circulating as the blood circulates in your veins, is the almost ceaseless beat of the activity to whose necessities it all conforms. The poisonous waste is drawn from the system of this gigantic creature by infinitely ramifying, thread-like ducts, gathering at their sensitive terminals matter destructive of its life, hurrying it to millions of small intestines to be collected in turn by larger, flowing to the great sewers, on to the drainage canal, and finally to the ocean.”

Frank Lloyd Wright, “The Art and Craft of the Machine” in On Architecture: Selected Writings (1894-1940)

We live in urban nets whose central points represent the cities as density attractors. The development of this grid has been evolving since its first appearance following the concentration, conceived to envelop almost all human activities in opened systems that allow people to exchange matter and energy within and between them. Just after the second world war, nets begin to grow in complexity and functionality according to new technologies and cultural visions, and regained his central position in contemporary debates, exactly as the industrial revolution had made in the previous century.

We live in a spatially limited system (Earth) and our population is rocketing. Our main energy resources are scars or economically not desirable because of the actual market. We are used to say we live in a urbanized world only because half of our population lives in cities, that easily disappear near the nature extension. In addition, circulation and transportation facilities, with housing technical equipments, have been overloading cities and people since the first Ford T. From there, we were really near to the real and mature industrialism.

Within the world actual economic and cultural system, money market and labour market assume the main role in leading people interests and desires. As Adam Smith remind us,

 “Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth was originally purchased;  and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command (The Wealth of nations, 1776).

Robert Minor, The Daily Worker (22nd December, 1924)

With the adoption of the money the labour itself became alienating and, instead of applying your own skills to gain goods and services with values (first of all of survival), you work to obtain something without immediate values with which you are able to get what you need. From a conceptual point of view, what seems to be inappropriate is to insert in this process a third and overcomplicating element. We needed to set a objective rule or method to exchange but this new market has been responsible to transform the way we conceive life and cities. As natural consequence, almost every existing product has a price that rarely corresponds to its real value, the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay.

Christoph Gielen, Nevada aerial

Even if, as L. Mumford said,

 “The city is a fact in nature, like a cave, a run of mackerel or an ant-heap. But is also a conscious work of art, and it holds within its communal framework many simpler and more personal forms art. Mind takes form in the city; and in turn, urban forms condition mind” (The Culture of Cities, 1938),

we know that, at this point, cities shouldn’t be considered like the only source of knowledge and experience. In reverse, cities are becoming a place in which is almost impossible to pander to solitude and calm. For this reason, many people have been moving toward the outer areas, hoping to find better and healthier conditions. But at the level with which this phenomenon appeared, it is clear that this is not going to reveal itself as the right solution, especially thinking that suburbs are the most problematic areas within the cities.

Although we should consider time as a valuable conceptual created by our minds, it is a useful parameter to measure duration. Time, as goods, is scars and everyone has to manage with it, gathering from it all needed activities. This leads us to think about how time is conceived in the city. Without mentioning any examples given that every urban agglomerate has its own rhythms, it is clear that time has become a luxury good according to a always faster and more dynamic world (job, transports, individual growth).

World urban density

After centuries of architectural research and thousands of failed attempts, the human beings recognized that their development, as they conceive it now, it is not the most reliable and fluid growth modality. Seen from outside, our nets are liable to collapse. Looking at the world urban density map it is easy to detect that our spatial occupation is not balanced and widespread all over the planet, according to different parameters like natural conditions and resources, history, cultural development. The most of the population is condensed in Europe, North America, South Asia and beside coasts. The main empty spaces: the inner part of South America (Amazon forest), North Africa (Sahara desert), Australia and central Asia. Human beings always tried to settle in the natural habitats that allowed him to provide materials and energy, accomplishing a constant and continuous concentration mainly towards temperate and flat lands.

Speaking about occupation there are different and contrasting opinions, some of them toward the idea of a dense and compact urbanized habitat and some other toward toward an enlargement of our presence in the natural environment. The first one is about decreasing footprint, reducing pathways and resources use, still maintaining a high rate of consumption. The second one is about occupying the space we have at our disposal dismantling the city and scattering it all over the nature. This concept has strong and little appreciated roots in Frank Lloyd Wright research in relation with north american planning approach. There, urbanization reached its maximum peak despite the huge amount of flat and empty terrain and the critic against urbanization is heart-felt.

What we are speaking about is an intense change both in architectural development and in urban life concept. After having fought with the nature for a long time, now we can occupy all the available space, even in that extreme sites that we are not used to consider. Every occupation act would be different from one to another, since every building would be conceived starting from the natural properties and features of the site. Spontaneous diversity is able to construct a more flexible and reliable world, since there are not any central poles able to fall apart. In a continuous natural inhabited space people would be able to have their own space and to contribute to evolve it, in a more conscious way. Every different location would have its own resources and could exchange them with neighbours. This asset would permit to add cultural multiplicity and more interesting activities in a smaller spatial range, saving time and money from the transportation system. With more space we would have more time since every activities would be present in each cell of this human pattern. Thousands of different dwellings that adapt themselves to the natural elements contributing to create a personal private space for everyone. No more archetype or models. No more passive approach. So that this could be realized the main goal is to change and improve our economical system.

Capitalist production has become our first activity but, as J. M. Keynes said, Capitalism is “the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds”. What mainly appears unusual is that, instead of beginning a consequence of demand, production always control the market. Goods are produced and then sold to people, without counting how many unities the market is asking for. This behavior generates a general misunderstanding about what people really need.

photo credits: http://www.logitravel.co.uk/hotels/rome-11613374.html

Lately there has been a major transformation. Until a few decades, historical heritage (monuments) were the basis of cultural and architectural tourism, today excellent Modern architecture has the same power of attraction, what makes cities great increase in the number of tourists and turning cities into a new tourist attraction. The example that best describes this is Dubai, known worldwide as a Middle Eastern capital of extravagance. If we look at photos from 20 years ago, and 10 years in advance can be clearly seen how the city for only 10 years, thanks to oil money, became a popular and the last few years one of the major tourist destinations in the world. However, it is well known that today oil plays a very small role in the overall revenues of the state, while tourism and trade play a most important role. This is an example of modern branding of the city by the imposing architecture.

Modern architecture is a commercial, whether it be on the premises or on the context in which it is created. The building itself is an attraction, a great advertising that its form points to the leisure facilities, but when placed in the context of the city, the region and the environment in which it is located (location, climate, relief,  cityscape) then becomes a symbol of not only the author’s work but rather the symbol of the city, region, country, society.

An ideal example is Sydney Opera House( by architect Jon Utzon) is a true example of the impact that architecture can have, not only the location at which it is generated, but also to the global culture. Location of the property affects the inspiration for the shape of the object, which visually should be a sail on the high seas. The image that was created by unique performance of shell of the object became a global landmark in Sydney, but also symbol across Australia. Surely, such a facility would be a spectacle at any location in the technological sense, but its siting in the coastal city has a specific meaning and thus the dependence of the location comes into play. Such objects of course should contribute to a better positioning of the city in the network / system of European and world cities, which has the effect of economic advancement.

photo credits: http://www.prideviewproperties.co.uk/listing/dubai-marina/

 However, is this modern architecture economicaly and functionally viable?

As for the commercial component architecture and tourism, art and expressive architecture is certainly a luxury where economically successful enterprise functionality of the building deemed sufficient. For the purpose of explanation must be noted that in this case we’re talking about architectural design that is reduced to the minimum requirements set by one such a functional building. Tourist property mostly have value if they are  profitable, no get no value. Architecture costs and naturally multiplies the investment compared to the facility that is reduced to pure functionality. Already at the stage of business planning topics architecture is the first critical point and requires a professional economical budget and highly professional estimation of the location and design of products. In contrast, good or unusual architecture increases the interest of the market and, depending on the product evaluation, can give a new location, attractive appearance. This again increases demand and real price, which in turn makes for a larger commercial success than it would perhaps be achieved by conventional functional construction.

Architecture creates also new functionality, or causes by using this new functionality that all inherited and old different experiences, thus offering the possibility of tourism development of new products. From the perspective of visitors still here must not remain non-mentioned discussion ‘form follows function’ or ‘function follows form’ that just in tourism real estate and products can lead to oscillation in the evaluation of both positive and negative. Tourism and architecture never before were so closely together on the development of products such as is the case today. This again closes the circle of mutual success. Therefore, unsuccessful projects are “monsters”, built as a demonstration of a specific conceptual directions in architecture, which are successful in their intent to share certain thoughts and way of looking at architecture and urban space and there are only a sculptural, while their function transforms.

There we come to the point of sustainability, which is not just a technical problem. In order to achive success, a sustainable project must be socially sustainable as well as economically. Such a project should comunicate with its society, should attract and be inspiring, and over all mast make economic sense. Architecture in terms of tourism  is now an integral element of the planning of the city, whether it is of cultural heritage or contemporary architecture. When it comes to heritage, it is the architecture resulting in a particular context that is completely defined and therefore it is a testimony about history. In this sense, the architecture can become a brand that describes the identity of certain social or cultural groups, and linked to the cultural and educational tourism.  Although today in most cases this architecture is unfunctional and hard switching to modern forms of construction works and the city life, it must be preserved and used in the planning of sustainable development of the city just as part of the tourism industry.

Modern architecture, unlike the architecture of cultural heritage, is viewed from the aspect of entertainment and spectacle, even if we talk about function of the structure, location or shape. Unusual and controversial form that uses all the benefits of modern technology certainly attracts the attention of visitors, but this is not always enough. Location which provides the context and function that brings the economic viability and the possibility of continued use of space is also one of the important factors for the transfer of a work of architecture in the branded product. Modern cities  nowadays pay  a great attention to precisely such projects, as drivers of further development and city expansion, as well as the region, in some cases and countries. Great architecture, not only that it promotes economic and social development, but it becomes a product that markets itself as a symbol that exceeds target group and everyone’s must-see tourist destination.

Part 1. Economics and Architecture

When seven emirates were united into a country that today is known as United Arab Emirates, Sheikh of Dubai was one of the first that took that opportunity and turned his city into mast visit place. In 90’s Dubai was so economically stable, it made it possible to turn area in the Middle Eastern desert, into a dream city, which by 2014 was visited by half of the world’s population. But this city has experienced ups and downs during its development.

At first the economic performance of Dubai was the main factor that triggered rapid growth of the city. Starting in 1991 city started changing dramatically. The roads started expanding, the bridges started connecting areas that were one separated by river, the building were growing faster than the palm trees. Eight years later more and more people started recognizing Dubai because of its architecture. In 1999 Burj al Arab hotel, built on the first man maid island, became one of the first architectural projects that made Dubai famous. In 2004, thinking that nothing can ever stop them, Dubai starts their biggest project yet, Burj Khalifa (previously known as Burj Dubai), the tallest tower in the world, the tower that can be seen from any point of the city. In 2006 (two years before crisis) Dubai changed to the point that no one could ever imagine. Still thinking that they could go further, Dubai brings more experts in almost every field. They start new projects, and they build a unique city.

No one ever thought that the crisis of 2008 could do much to Dubai. The city never prepared for it. By the end of 2008 more and more constrictions were put on hold or canceled. Apartment occupation dropped, more and more towers became less occupied. By the end of 2009 almost 80% of all towers were empty. Dubai was in debt. The city spent all its resources in order to bring their dream to life. In order to bring Dubai’s economic performance back on track, the government started selling their projects. First the palm island was sold to Abu Dhabi, within the same month Burj Dubai, the tallest tower in the world, was also sold to Abu Dhabi, thus changing the name to Burj Khalifa. Ever since then project were postponed, cancelled or altered in order to have a possibility to be built with current economic situation of the city. The economic performance became a limiting factor for architecture and urbanism, there was no more room for design and unique ideas. Projects had to be functional and cheap.

After living there for 7 years, I’ve experienced the changes that this city went through. It’s known to everyone, the life of a person, city, and even country always has its ups and downs, and Dubai is no exception. In my opinion the unfortunate time came to an end in 2011, when I witnessed an opening of a new tower built by Foster and Partners, the Index tower. A new building that did not substitute design for money. The economic stability started growing, while most of the countries were still suffering from the crisis. The city that was developing for almost twenty years before the crisis, started going back on track. How was this possible? What is one thing that always attracts people? People are always attracted by something new, something undiscovered. Dubai is famous for its modern architecture. For architecture and urbanism that was developing during its best time. In other words, architecture was main reason that started bringing money back to Dubai. Because when we think about architecture, we don’t only think about glass and concrete. Architecture is our everyday life, it’s a flow, and it’s an organism that constantly attracts people.

Part 2. Economics and Sustainability

When we talk about “designing with nature” Dubai is not the first city that comes to anyone’s mind. Since there is no nature to design with. For Dubai it’s more like designing against nature. Being located in a very unwelcoming area, where in summer the temperature reaches 55 degrees Celsius, Dubai’s main goal is to protect people from exposure to the sun or sand storms. In the last couple of years they’ve been rethinking their decisions, and started “creating” nature. Projects that depend on themselves, projects that are dedicated to minimize required inputs of energy, water and food, and waste output of heat, air pollution, and water pollution.

People that build this city today, are depending not only on new technologies and ways of construction, but they also take into consideration local (Middle Eastern) historical architecture. In the past people found ways to live in that harsh environment in comfort. They used local materials in order to build houses. In order to bring cold air into the “shelter” they constructed wind towers that guide air, which cooled down on the way, into the house.

Historical and New ways of building made it possible to create a LEED platinum building. The Change Initiative Building (TCI) in Dubai, UAE, has been awarded 107 out of 110 LEED points from the US green building council, which technically makes it the most sustainable building in the world. The 4,000-square-meter retail shop, which provides sustainable solutions to customers, received the world’s highest LEED Platinum rating. Economic performance of Dubai made it possible to invest into green technologies in order to start a new chapter of construction. More and more projects started following this success. In the near future Dubai will completely turn into an eco-city. Sick building syndrome – a situation where building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects due to unhealthy and toxic material use, will no longer be an issue for Dubai.

But they don’t stop at this point, since there is no actual nature in that region, building green for them doesn’t mean only sustainable ways of building, but literally building green. They don’t design only with materials and new technologies, but also with nature. Urban systems can be more environmentally sustainable than rural or suburban living, with people and resource located so close to one another it is possible to save energy and resources things such as food transportation and mass transit systems. Planting trees and growing food is one of the main challenges that architects deal with nowadays when they design new buildings in Dubai. Today Dubai is building nature, and the economic factor is helping them at achieve this goal.

Right now Dubai is developing a new city called “Mohammed Bin Rashid City” a new “green” frontier for its people. A project that should be self-sufficient without harming habitats and region’s economy, and might also boost its performance.