Bigging It Up
Proceedings of a debate held as part of Newcastle
Science Festival 2007
by Mo Lovatt and Caspar Hewett
Chair: Caspar Hewett
Click here for printer friendly version of this page
Click here for full details of event
Click here for review of the debate
Ian Abley, architect, project manager
John Thackara, design producer, Director of
Doors of Perception
Dr Sean Wilkinson,
Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering,
Ian Abley opened by saying that the “Megastructures” of the title of this debate
are the issue of our age: Humanity consists of
6.5 billion people and is expected to rise to 9.0 in the next quarter of a century. Together with
uncertainties such as China transforming into a huge powerhouse, the issue is one of
housing production. The invention of carbon fibre means that big structures are now
possible and Abley thinks this is an exciting development. The discussion of megastructures has
a long history going
back to Fumihiko Maki's investigations in Collective Form, published in 1964, writing
at a time of massive social change and technological
advancement. However, this architectural debate had lapsed by the 70s, and has only
recently come back onto
the agenda particularly with people like Jeremy Till who are arguing for sustainable
housing growth. In contrast to the debate of the 1960s the new debate centres on
trying to downsize demand rather than
arguing for more housing. 75% of housing in the UK is new housing. There is an
urbanising, growing population and it is possible to sprawl out, removing the green
belt, so London could be doubled in size. Or we could sprawl upwards. However we
do it, it is clear that housing needs to be increased.
In closing Abley made the point that energy efficiency does not need to compromise behaviour and argued
that we should be confident about moving forwards in architecture, citing exciting examples of
technological changes in kitchen and bathroom developments in Germany.
Sean Wilkinson began by holding up a £50 note and asking what can you buy with £50? More
specifically what area of land could you buy with that much money? In Belgravia,
for instance, you could afford a piece of land about 1/3 the size of the £50 note. That
works out at £65,000 per square metre (and that’s cheap by international standards).
Furthermore, the higher you get (i.e. the taller the building) the more expensive it becomes.
Designing against the effect of wind loads become increasingly expensive.
There are also human factors such as the fact that most people don’t like to walk up more
than two flights of
stairs, so you have to put in lifts. Even in Tokyo, 30-40 storeys is about as high as
you can justify building on the grounds of economically viability. Fifty storeys is pretty
much as high as you get in Tokyo, although there are higher buldings in some places such as Hong
Kong, New York and Chicago.
So why build tall buildings? Basically, vanity – it’s a bit like owning a Porsche. The
tallest building in the world is 101 storeys, which is twice as high as what can be
justified economically. Some buildings in Dubai that are currently under construction,
are going to be about
150 storeys. How can that be justified? Well, CEOs of big companies, footballers and
rock-stars will pay for the prestige of living such places. Well, isn’t that okay? Buying is
a risky business. You have to start selling the apartments / office space before you
begin building. You don’t start building until you’ve sold at least 50% of the space.
Sometimes these spaces are bought and sold speculatively and the proceeds used to buy
new land for further building, which can lead to
point where the bubble bursts and the industry collapses.
The human cost when this happens is high: ex-pats, builders and engineers lose their jobs and have
to go home. Local builders go back to their previous jobs or unemployment. Wilsinson was not
saying whether this is a bad or a good thing, just that it is a symptom of an economic system that
encourages huge accumulation of wealth.
John Thackara opened by making the point that a tonne of concrete leads to a tonne of
CO2 emissions. He argued that the megastructures discussion represents an old paradigm
way of thinking about how we should populate the planet and how we should live. It is
brute force over rational thinking, which should rather consider using less matter.
Megastructures are things like
the internet and the global information network (mobile phones), man-made devices
which make our lives better – tele-density over material-density is the way forward for
revolutionizing our lives. Tele-geography concerns itself with the efficient use of
matter. We should deploy resources in the best ways. For Thackara the megastructures debate is a
problem because it is backwards thinking.
Ian Abley responded first to John Thackara, saying that of course we are physical
creatures and so we do rely on matter. We
need material things: things wear out and need to be replaced. We should not restrict ourselves to
thinking we have to do more
with less. In response to Sean Wilkinson Abley simply wanted to say that "going up"
(bulding high buildings) is a good thing.
Sean Wilkinson picked up on Abley's points about building on the green belts,
agruing that you need to decide if you want
to build into recreational spaces or to go up. People talk about the social problems
with high-rise buildings, but that is a European phenomenon. Other countries do not
experience these problems. However, going higher than 50 storeys is the equivalent
of taking the kids to school in a 4x4. The other problem is that there is an overheated
construction industry at present. What is more, there is not a big enough skills base,
so inexperienced labour is used.
People say that concrete is unsustainable, but timber is a sustainable resource.
However, you have to use more sophisticated materials if you are going to build high.
John Thackara though it unthinkable that nine billion people could live sustainably.
He thinks that human beings do not
have the capacity to think long-term and that we do not think collectively about how to live
efficiently. For him the design challenge is about more people living with finite resources.
One person in the audience wanted to know why we want to people to live crowdedly in
cities? She though this would be at a huge cost. A second participant argued that
there is a limit to how many people the earth can accommodate.
Alistair Horsfield pointed out that John Thackara was not presenting an alternative to
high-rise and larger structures and asked if he had one.
John Thackara argued that no one knows the capacity of the planet. However we do know
that we live inefficiently as compared to, for example, someone who lives in the desert.
The point for him is that human activity is having a negative
effect on the biosphere.
Sean Wilkinson though it would be nice if the population was smaller, but that this was
not the point. The greatest population growth is in developing countries where people need more
kids to farm the land and to look after them in their old age.
He made the point that most people actually prefer living in communities and not in
isolation and that cities are actually very popular.
Ian Abley made the point that human intervention has a long and healthy history of generating
social and technological development. He wasn't buying old Malthusian arguments about population -
after all Malthus has already been proved wrong several times over.
He argued that there isn't a limit to accommodating a growing population, and that this
is a flase way of looking at the problem. What we should realise is that there is
the possibility of developing space.
The next round of questions and points from the floor was quite varied, including:
Cities are where people like to live – we need cities to be more friendly;
Population growth is always followed by a population crash; The birth-rate in the UK
is stable, our population has grown by 10% but this is mostly through immigration;
We share this planet with other living things and we never ask snails and slugs if they
mind if we build on their environment; How much would it cost to dismantle these huge buildings?
Aidan Burton asked the panel if they could come to a consensus as to whether living in a city is
more cost-effective than sprawling out?
Ian Abley thinks we should be going up and out arguing that we cannot design-out
materiality. If more houses were built then the demand and cost of housing would go down
and it would be more feasible for people to live nearer to where
they work, there would beless need to commute and people could live more efficiently (if they so wished!)
Sean Wilkinson argued that mono-cultures reduce bio-diversity.
Living in cities may not be better (i.e., thay can be
overcrowded) but cities do save spaces for other things. The market tends to work these
things out. Wilkinson thinks that Megastructures are usually ugly and that they are designed
for prestige, not for aesthetics reasons. He added that the UK government, after Kyoto,
looked at thermal ratings of buildings saying that they
had to be more efficient (they were about the only government to do so). Heating
and cooling of buildings has a huge impact on global warming.
Peter Alic pointted out that cities are where innovation takes place.
He is for high rise bulding rather than letting cities sprawl –
in the 1960s in the UK high rises were popular until it was found that
people didn’t like living in them. Some were knocked down but some were re-marketed
at middle-class people who loved living in them, but that was because they could
disappear off to France for the weekend!
Michael Anderson stated that there are too many people in the world.
Sean Wilkinson closed by drawing attention to the way the debate had turned into one
about mega-cities rather than megastructure. However, that was fine as it is a debate that needs
to take place. In developing countries, there is no alternative to growing populations (unless you
consider it acceptable to take draconian measures such as those implemented in China). Ian
Abley thought the more people the better - more people means more solutions to problems in
the future. John Thackara made the point that 25% of the ecological footprint comes
from the way people eat. There is no one single solution - everything is connected.
Top of page