Corviale, a one-kilometer residential complex in Rome(archdaily.com)
archdaily.com
Corviale, a one-kilometer residential complex in Rome
https://www.archdaily.com/956906/corviale-a-one-kilometer-residential-complex-in-rome
109 comments
Well, if you are going to try to build affordable housing quickly, such large projects are the way to go. At least in the sixties and seventies city planners in the "western world" tried to do it (with more or less success), today they're not even trying anymore.
A more successful example is the former Munich Olympic Village (https://goo.gl/maps/1HTQWvGcRcoXAWvH6). It's composed of 3 streets which are completely built over, so the cars at ground level are hidden from view and the pedestrians are walking in a completely pedestrian area at level 2 (I think). The buildings are also very linear and all look the same, but all apartments have huge south-facing terraces with lots of greenery (including shrubs or even trees). Public transport connection is also very good with a subway station nearby. Today the apartments are very sought after - wish they had built more projects like this. But if you look at more recent projects, like the "Messestadt Riem" (https://goo.gl/maps/tVrahc4uDFkijGCC9), they are much more cramped and spread out over a larger surface, with squat buildings that look very interchangeable - not really better, I'm afraid.
A more successful example is the former Munich Olympic Village (https://goo.gl/maps/1HTQWvGcRcoXAWvH6). It's composed of 3 streets which are completely built over, so the cars at ground level are hidden from view and the pedestrians are walking in a completely pedestrian area at level 2 (I think). The buildings are also very linear and all look the same, but all apartments have huge south-facing terraces with lots of greenery (including shrubs or even trees). Public transport connection is also very good with a subway station nearby. Today the apartments are very sought after - wish they had built more projects like this. But if you look at more recent projects, like the "Messestadt Riem" (https://goo.gl/maps/tVrahc4uDFkijGCC9), they are much more cramped and spread out over a larger surface, with squat buildings that look very interchangeable - not really better, I'm afraid.
Isn't that exactly was gp was asking about? Why shape a big project like one huge monolith, if you could also try to disguise the size? Munich Olympic Village is all about appearing human-scale despite its size, Corviale makes its hugeness the core of its identity.
> cars at ground level are hidden from view and the pedestrians are walking in a completely pedestrian area at level 2 (I think)
Helsinki tries to do the same in an area called Merihaka. I don't like it. Feels "off". The lower (car+transit) level feels like the Morlocks in The Time Machine, or some other kind of sci-fi dystopia, and the upper level has weird entryways to the netherworld and no real grid of "streets" (or whatever) for locating buildings and also some trees (in big planters, one presumes) and how can you have healthy, respected trees that are more or less suspended in mid-air, disconnected from the Earth ?
Helsinki tries to do the same in an area called Merihaka. I don't like it. Feels "off". The lower (car+transit) level feels like the Morlocks in The Time Machine, or some other kind of sci-fi dystopia, and the upper level has weird entryways to the netherworld and no real grid of "streets" (or whatever) for locating buildings and also some trees (in big planters, one presumes) and how can you have healthy, respected trees that are more or less suspended in mid-air, disconnected from the Earth ?
hm I thought they were to impress people... show off "we can build this in one-go" / "we can compensate/take this big-land from the owners in one-go"
In construction, you have to have the timing right for the whole building in one-go...
In land-ownership issue, you have to own the whole land / negotiate with/seize from with owners who own some of the land
In construction, you have to have the timing right for the whole building in one-go...
In land-ownership issue, you have to own the whole land / negotiate with/seize from with owners who own some of the land
This was one of the big failures of modernism and related architectural schools.
Being charitable, the thinking at the time was somewhat mechanistic: that you could build utopic urban environments from first principles as massive campuses vs individual buildings.
Inevitable these projects underestimated the organic and evolutionary complexity of urban environments. No single design team organized by some maestro can come close to anticipating and designing around all the needs of an urban neighborhood.
But on the other hand, these mega projects were a simple story to sell politically. Look, we're being bold and thinking big, we're going to actually address problems in housing supply vs kicking the can down the road, etc. Someone else saying they needed to think in terms of flexible zoning and a variety of tax incentives looks not nearly so compelling.
Today we look back on these projects differently, because the failure of "housing projects" in the US, UK, and elsewhere are a familiar meme almost, so people are much more skeptical about mega projects working out.
Being charitable, the thinking at the time was somewhat mechanistic: that you could build utopic urban environments from first principles as massive campuses vs individual buildings.
Inevitable these projects underestimated the organic and evolutionary complexity of urban environments. No single design team organized by some maestro can come close to anticipating and designing around all the needs of an urban neighborhood.
But on the other hand, these mega projects were a simple story to sell politically. Look, we're being bold and thinking big, we're going to actually address problems in housing supply vs kicking the can down the road, etc. Someone else saying they needed to think in terms of flexible zoning and a variety of tax incentives looks not nearly so compelling.
Today we look back on these projects differently, because the failure of "housing projects" in the US, UK, and elsewhere are a familiar meme almost, so people are much more skeptical about mega projects working out.
One interesting aspect of how many people view urban planning is that a lot of urbanists like to point to the like of Jane Jacobs who (correctly IMO) opposed a lot of centralized planning, especially with respect to roads. At the same time, she favored organic and community-oriented development which I suspect a lot of people today would consider NIMBY and would mostly be opposed to large-scale housing developments. She did live in the West Village after all.
Large-scale housing developments exist largely because of the regulatory burden. If you need to spend years, if not decades, shepherding a project through a bureaucracy, then you need that economy of scale in units of housing per unit of regulation to make a project financially viable.
The lesser the regulatory burden, the more organic development you'd see, including a much larger proportion of smaller projects and smaller buildings. Large steel or steel + concrete structures are grossly inefficient in terms of construction costs per square footage, except where property values are incredibly high. (Wherever you see such structures in areas without extremely expensive property prices, you can be sure there are other factors at play--regulation, government funding, etc.) That's why 5-over-1 (wood framing over concrete) is so common where possible. Some people might complain that many 5-over-1 buildings have too large of a footprint, but that's also largely due to the same regulatory economics.
Anyhow, if communities simply made a laundry list of things they don't want--e.g. no more than 4 stories, ground footprint smaller than N square feet, etc--and then provided for approval by-right (i.e. if your project meets those restrictions, you're automatically approved), then most areas suffering from severe housing supply issues would be in a dramatically better situation than they are now, California especially.
But NIMBYs won't accept approval by-right; they want every project, no matter how small, to go through the same endless gauntlet where every interest group or interested party effectively gets a veto based on whatever imaginary impact they can think of ([insert comparison to security theater and fantastical terrorist threats]), with predictable and deliberate results.
The lesser the regulatory burden, the more organic development you'd see, including a much larger proportion of smaller projects and smaller buildings. Large steel or steel + concrete structures are grossly inefficient in terms of construction costs per square footage, except where property values are incredibly high. (Wherever you see such structures in areas without extremely expensive property prices, you can be sure there are other factors at play--regulation, government funding, etc.) That's why 5-over-1 (wood framing over concrete) is so common where possible. Some people might complain that many 5-over-1 buildings have too large of a footprint, but that's also largely due to the same regulatory economics.
Anyhow, if communities simply made a laundry list of things they don't want--e.g. no more than 4 stories, ground footprint smaller than N square feet, etc--and then provided for approval by-right (i.e. if your project meets those restrictions, you're automatically approved), then most areas suffering from severe housing supply issues would be in a dramatically better situation than they are now, California especially.
But NIMBYs won't accept approval by-right; they want every project, no matter how small, to go through the same endless gauntlet where every interest group or interested party effectively gets a veto based on whatever imaginary impact they can think of ([insert comparison to security theater and fantastical terrorist threats]), with predictable and deliberate results.
> But NIMBYs won't accept approval by-right; they want every project, no matter how small, to go through the same endless gauntlet where every interest group or interested party effectively gets a veto based on whatever imaginary impact they can think of ([insert comparison to security theater and fantastical terrorist threats]), with predictable and deliberate results.
Just because a project was approved by right doesn't mean that NIMBYs won't file a lawsuit against you anyways to find some reason to get the project canned.
Just because a project was approved by right doesn't mean that NIMBYs won't file a lawsuit against you anyways to find some reason to get the project canned.
Fair enough. In my head I'm implicitly assuming that in a state like California approval by-right would necessarily require as a practical matter reform to, for example, CEQA so EIS reports couldn't be so trivially challenged. But in the abstract it's the same pathology--the opposition abusing legal procedures to hold up projects indefinitely, rather than advocating for and relying on substantive law. The problem with the latter is that it makes the opposition uncomfortably accountable; it becomes much more transparent that requirement X is responsible for Y costs, which allows the public to make more informed decisions about the utility of X.
Even with approval by right many buildings that exist could not be built today. Sometimes for good reasons like fire code but often not.
https://la.urbanize.city/post/forbidden-city-how-los-angeles...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-... (archive of same without paywall: https://archive.ph/mvLpO )
https://la.urbanize.city/post/forbidden-city-how-los-angeles...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-... (archive of same without paywall: https://archive.ph/mvLpO )
Six stories is probably my preferred urban scale, but the 5 over 1 buildings we get in the US are just terrible. A six story apartment in Berlin has windows front and back while the US version has windows only on one side due to the long central corridor to connect to the two stairwells required by US regulations (a result of the wood construction?)
Yeah, having two fire escape routes in a large apartment building is not some sort of mistaken regulation.
Also I very much doubt your characterization of properties in Germany. I'm sure there's a wide variety that broadly resembles what we see in all developed urban areas.
The US uses wood construction a lot because it's a cost effective local material. Fire safety standards in the US are generally quite high. Building with wood is not some sort of problematic thing as you imply.
Seriously, the weird chip on the shoulder some people get about the US is tiresome. Sure we have some stupid laws and bureaucracy like anywhere, but we're not aliens with pokadot skin or anything. I assure you people are pretty much the same everywhere.
Also I very much doubt your characterization of properties in Germany. I'm sure there's a wide variety that broadly resembles what we see in all developed urban areas.
The US uses wood construction a lot because it's a cost effective local material. Fire safety standards in the US are generally quite high. Building with wood is not some sort of problematic thing as you imply.
Seriously, the weird chip on the shoulder some people get about the US is tiresome. Sure we have some stupid laws and bureaucracy like anywhere, but we're not aliens with pokadot skin or anything. I assure you people are pretty much the same everywhere.
I like the US a lot (enough to emigrate here and become a citizen) but having seen other parts of the world it is impossible not to see the things that are wrong with it too. I guess I struggle to understand why Americans are so sensitive to even very mild criticism of this country, the richest and most powerful in the world by a long way.
Most of Europe allows single stairway buildings. Germany has half the fire death rate of the US. It’s the US (along with Canada) which is the outlier in multi family building design here. They could be so much better!
https://slate.com/business/2021/12/staircases-floor-plan-twi...
Most of Europe allows single stairway buildings. Germany has half the fire death rate of the US. It’s the US (along with Canada) which is the outlier in multi family building design here. They could be so much better!
https://slate.com/business/2021/12/staircases-floor-plan-twi...
Generally speaking Americans criticize our country far more than anyone else.
The annoyances I'm talking about aren't substantial criticisms, they're just stupid. "Oh no, the US makes buildings out of wood, how silly of them" is just people being both ignorant and shitty.
The annoyances I'm talking about aren't substantial criticisms, they're just stupid. "Oh no, the US makes buildings out of wood, how silly of them" is just people being both ignorant and shitty.
I’m agnostic on the construction materials used but dual staircase regulations subject us to far worse apartment design than other countries. Having lived in both I really hope I never have to live in one of these dual staircase apartments again. It felt like a deep dark cave.
2 fire escapes is a good thing, redundancy also helps in cases of unforeseen failure and disasters.
As an alternative, a 1.5 level (per apartment, a ramp, stair, or interior elevator) design where one side has 2 floors and the other just one, such that three floors are split among 2 floors of buildings. I'd still want enough acoustic insulation and isolation to enjoy silence, and an airflow design for the whole building that keeps all the exhausts and smells away from all residences.
As an alternative, a 1.5 level (per apartment, a ramp, stair, or interior elevator) design where one side has 2 floors and the other just one, such that three floors are split among 2 floors of buildings. I'd still want enough acoustic insulation and isolation to enjoy silence, and an airflow design for the whole building that keeps all the exhausts and smells away from all residences.
Or just do what other developed countries with far lower fire death rates do and build single access apartments out of less combustible materials. They provide far more pleasant layouts.
https://slate.com/business/2021/12/staircases-floor-plan-twi...
https://slate.com/business/2021/12/staircases-floor-plan-twi...
I don't buy the failure narrative at all. In a lot of Eastern European and also to an extent Western European cities large housing projects work reasonably well especially for lower income households, they've kept rents affordable, they're energy efficient and they aided in rapid urbanisation.
Many of them don't look great but they pretty much did their job given the limited resources that a lot of cities had available.
If you look at modernist cities around the world, in India for example as well, cities that took inspiration from this kind of planning have generally good standards of living, costs, little homelessness and decent environmental footprints.
Many of them don't look great but they pretty much did their job given the limited resources that a lot of cities had available.
If you look at modernist cities around the world, in India for example as well, cities that took inspiration from this kind of planning have generally good standards of living, costs, little homelessness and decent environmental footprints.
On the other hand, they(TM) have an interest in the failure narrative being perpetuated. The housing shortfall in the US is severe, somewhere around 5 million units, depending on where you look. A good chunk of the electorate cannot afford starting their own household, they live with roommates or their parents. Imagine they pointed to 1960s Lisbon or late 1950s Soviet Russia and insisted the government implement a sensible housing policy. It would be a bloodbath for investors and consequently cannot be allowed to happen.
> Imagine they pointed to 1960s Lisbon or late 1950s Soviet Russia and insisted the government implement a sensible housing policy. It would be a bloodbath for investors and consequently cannot be allowed to happen.
Those buildings would be illegal in most of the US. If similar quality and floor space per inhabitant was legal to build you could indeed solve housing problems in short order. No need to have the state do it. If flophouses/SROs were legal developers would build them.
Those buildings would be illegal in most of the US. If similar quality and floor space per inhabitant was legal to build you could indeed solve housing problems in short order. No need to have the state do it. If flophouses/SROs were legal developers would build them.
>It would be a bloodbath for investors and consequently cannot be allowed to happen.
If it will be a bloodbath for investors it's not a matter of not allowing it, people just won't invest and it won't happen anyway. Or the government will massively subsidise it and under-wright it to make it happen, and the public purse will carry the can. If it were financially viable on it's own, the private sector would most likely do it anyway, but if you're starting from the point of financial non-viability of your housing scheme as a starting assumption, blaming investors seems a bit silly.
If it will be a bloodbath for investors it's not a matter of not allowing it, people just won't invest and it won't happen anyway. Or the government will massively subsidise it and under-wright it to make it happen, and the public purse will carry the can. If it were financially viable on it's own, the private sector would most likely do it anyway, but if you're starting from the point of financial non-viability of your housing scheme as a starting assumption, blaming investors seems a bit silly.
That's assuming the current prices are reflective of the actual value rather than a degenerate speculative market.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a degenerate speculative market, but if you've got some special way to perceive value others haven't, watch out Warren Buffett.
I mean a market selling houses that will never be lived in and exist solely as a speculative investment for foreign buyers, one where corporations and funds behave like feudal lords while people remain renters their whole lives and get evicted at will.
I'm not surprised you don't understand what I mean when I speak of the value of housing if your first thought is Warren Buffet. The value of a house is the stability, safety and shelter it gives to the citizenry, it's allowing people who live in it to prosper and to build families.
I'm not surprised you don't understand what I mean when I speak of the value of housing if your first thought is Warren Buffet. The value of a house is the stability, safety and shelter it gives to the citizenry, it's allowing people who live in it to prosper and to build families.
The thinking at the time was driven by greenery: you take the early industrial urban density that was a lifeless (except for humans) city of stone, but stack the humans a few times higher to open up room for trees and birds and perhaps a little pond. Everybody gets their own window to nature, as if they had a cabin in the woods! That's how their reasoning went, but humans aren't that easy to fool.
> No single design team organized by some maestro can come close to anticipating and designing around all the needs of an urban neighborhood.
This is also true about people who designed american urban sprawl.
This is also true about people who designed american urban sprawl.
Also here, last photo https://www.google.com/amp/s/bernadetealves.com/2020/06/12/u... , the 700-meter Minhocão (Big Worm) at UnB (Universidade Nacional de Brasília). I started EE program there in 1984 before deciding to move to the USA (student/teacher strikes were gonna lead to lost semesters). Going between classes was real inconvenient.
I guess the utilities wouldn’t have to deal with weather so much, so that is cool.
It is sort of funny, not many people complain about skyscrapers but they are similarly excessive. Think of it as 200m taller than the Burj Khalifa, just sideways and fewer stars I bet.
We’re just a bunch of apes that like to mess with our environment, inventing a new type of environment is in our nature.
It is sort of funny, not many people complain about skyscrapers but they are similarly excessive. Think of it as 200m taller than the Burj Khalifa, just sideways and fewer stars I bet.
We’re just a bunch of apes that like to mess with our environment, inventing a new type of environment is in our nature.
What do you mean by efficiency of land usage?
The only thing I could think of is surface area and, compared to "a large number of reasonably sized ones", this obviously would be more efficient.
I see them as skyscrappers in landscape mode.
The only thing I could think of is surface area and, compared to "a large number of reasonably sized ones", this obviously would be more efficient.
I see them as skyscrappers in landscape mode.
In reality this is not different from any densely urbanized suburb. It doesn't mater if this is one "long building" or several building that have small gaps between them. You want cheaper, dense housing, you are going to run into similar issues.
In less hospitable climates this kind of giant building has its place. No need to go outside in the freezing cold or scorching heat.
In Whittier Alaska, (pop: 275-300 or so), most folks live in the Begich Towers which was a former Army building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittier,_Alaska
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begich_Towers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittier,_Alaska
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begich_Towers
If you haven't read "Seeing like a State" I think you would find it quite interesting. There was a period where urban planners thought that they could, starting from first principles, design the perfect urban environment. It wasn't just authoritarians doing it, but those were the places most able to continue to execute on a vision and disregard the pushback.
In Japan, clusters of identical buildings were constructed around the same period of Corviale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danchi
These communities also didn't age too well, becoming associated with aging population, urban degradation and poor architecture.
These communities also didn't age too well, becoming associated with aging population, urban degradation and poor architecture.
The renovated ones are pretty nice (and cheap!) to live in. At least assuming you can stand living in such a building in the first place.
These buildings are basically an anti-individualism ideology, cast in concrete. Which is why far left and far right regimes alike like to erect such structures.
And it’s not even a thing of the past. In its most recent incarnation, the German Greens have declared war on single family homes. The fashionable justification being their carbon footprint. Instead, they are for policies to house people in apartment blocks that are densely spaced within cities instead of suburbs. Often while mixing different demographics that would not normally like to live within the same neighbourhood. Suffice it to say that people continue to pursue the dream of owning houses on their own plot of land.
And it’s not even a thing of the past. In its most recent incarnation, the German Greens have declared war on single family homes. The fashionable justification being their carbon footprint. Instead, they are for policies to house people in apartment blocks that are densely spaced within cities instead of suburbs. Often while mixing different demographics that would not normally like to live within the same neighbourhood. Suffice it to say that people continue to pursue the dream of owning houses on their own plot of land.
If you live in (or near) a city center, you'll live in a large apartment building. If you want a single family house, you move outside the city center. You cannot have an urban city environment, with restaurants, bars, stores and walkable streets if you only have single family buildings with yards there.
There is a place for everything, houses and large buildings.
Otherwise, I agree with the comment above, that such buildings seem impractical, and can be replaced with separate buildings, even higher, with open space in between them (and greens and parks and benches,...), eg: https://goo.gl/maps/TneCupaRNq3SgQYL7 (imagine this, but with undeground parking instead of cars parked on the steet).
There is a place for everything, houses and large buildings.
Otherwise, I agree with the comment above, that such buildings seem impractical, and can be replaced with separate buildings, even higher, with open space in between them (and greens and parks and benches,...), eg: https://goo.gl/maps/TneCupaRNq3SgQYL7 (imagine this, but with undeground parking instead of cars parked on the steet).
I agree insofar as it actually involves people being in constructed environments. Houses are an anti-individualism ideology in all their forms. The only individualistic people are the homeless, who heat themselves with their own body, and and cover themselves only with what they can bring with them on their person.
To rely on wood and concrete to protect you is the death of self reliance
To rely on wood and concrete to protect you is the death of self reliance
> The only individualistic people are the homeless, who heat themselves with their own body
that doesn't sound true. How can you survive aa a homeless person in New York, Seattle or Boston? of course you need shelter provided for you, or you'll be dead in a single winter night.
that doesn't sound true. How can you survive aa a homeless person in New York, Seattle or Boston? of course you need shelter provided for you, or you'll be dead in a single winter night.
He’s trolling, or alternatively pointing out that we live in societies where we rely on others doing their jobs to allow us to ok in the manner to which we have become accustomed.
It’s nothing to do with imposing ‘far left’ ideology. It’s physics. A dense urban neighbourhood of uninsulated housing that supports most trips by walking and public transport is more energy efficient than a passvihaus located somewhere that requires driving. Once built that suburban house has an ongoing and high transportation energy cost for maybe hundreds of years. Obviously if your political ideology is Green you are against wasting energy.
This sounds like a speech you rehearsed for a San Francisco HOA meeting to keep more housing out of your neighborhood to keep your property values up.
No, the Greens have not declared war on single family homes. That was just the right-wing pitch on the observation by a green politician, that inside dense city regions, there is not enough real estate for single-family houses and that multi-unit houses have a way better energy balance.
If you live in a more rural region, feel free to have single-family houses. With an energy-efficient building style and rooftop-solar, that should be very environmently friendly. That is, if you don't waste too much energy commuting.
In and directly around cities, there is a huge scarcity of space for buildings and a shortage of homes. Having more dense units is both socially and environmentally friendly.
If you live in a more rural region, feel free to have single-family houses. With an energy-efficient building style and rooftop-solar, that should be very environmently friendly. That is, if you don't waste too much energy commuting.
In and directly around cities, there is a huge scarcity of space for buildings and a shortage of homes. Having more dense units is both socially and environmentally friendly.
Thanks for not ignoring that tyranny can come from both the left and right. The left has done a job on everyone by sugarcoating far left sins. They have used Hitler and Nazism to paint anyone who is not in their ingroup. This includes people who are just anti-authoritarian in general.
I dunno, I like it. It would be normally impossible to do something like this. The forest or rules surrounding something this massive would normally make it a fools errant.
Or maybe that’s why they make it so huge. Only need to deal with all the permits once.
Or maybe that’s why they make it so huge. Only need to deal with all the permits once.
Bombay (a city in India) is pursuing at least 2 large scale cluster development projects for housing owing to its very high density. It remains to be seen how it pans out. Previously, such clusters have only been realised for economic zones / business districts.
To appreciate it, you need to prefer housing people over aesthetics. But that's not for everyone.
Lower amount of outside walls = lower maintenance?
Yeah I can't see much point either. I think it's just one of those things architects and urban planners do sometimes because it's interesting and unusual, not because it's good.
Another example is guided busways. Inferior to a road in every respect but that isn't enough to stop them.
I guess I shouldn't single out architects and urban planners - probably every field has projects that a back of the envelope calculation shows are obviously a terrible idea but they go ahead anyway. Solar roadways. Space based power.
The issue with architects doing it is that buildings stick around for a long time and people have to actually live in them, so I feel justified in reserving special resentment for modern architects.
Another example is guided busways. Inferior to a road in every respect but that isn't enough to stop them.
I guess I shouldn't single out architects and urban planners - probably every field has projects that a back of the envelope calculation shows are obviously a terrible idea but they go ahead anyway. Solar roadways. Space based power.
The issue with architects doing it is that buildings stick around for a long time and people have to actually live in them, so I feel justified in reserving special resentment for modern architects.
"probably every field has projects that a back of the envelope calculation shows are obviously a terrible idea but they go ahead anyway. Solar roadways"
Solar roadways for example are only a terrible idea, as long as sturdy solar panels remains expensive, and there is lots of other unused area to be covered much more cheaply. That might change one day, but yes, until then it is an idea from people who are too lazy to do the basic math.
Solar roadways for example are only a terrible idea, as long as sturdy solar panels remains expensive, and there is lots of other unused area to be covered much more cheaply. That might change one day, but yes, until then it is an idea from people who are too lazy to do the basic math.
I think it will be a long, long time until a solar panel which can be driven over is price competitive with a normal one.
Anyway, we’ve signed up for a bit of desertification already with climate change, right? So there will be somewhere to put the panels in a nice space efficient shape like a square.
Honestly I wonder every time it comes up whether the solar road was a straightforward grift or something more nefarious like an attempt to make environmentalists look ridiculous.
Anyway, we’ve signed up for a bit of desertification already with climate change, right? So there will be somewhere to put the panels in a nice space efficient shape like a square.
Honestly I wonder every time it comes up whether the solar road was a straightforward grift or something more nefarious like an attempt to make environmentalists look ridiculous.
"Honestly I wonder every time it comes up whether the solar road was a straightforward grift or something more nefarious like an attempt to make environmentalists look ridiculous."
It is easy to forget, but the majority of people hate math and are not scientists. The idea of solar panels sounds and feels good, so it must be good.
And I strongly feel and identify as a environmentalist, but sadly I have to state, that many fellow environmentalists are acting ridiculous, or rather naive.
It is easy to forget, but the majority of people hate math and are not scientists. The idea of solar panels sounds and feels good, so it must be good.
And I strongly feel and identify as a environmentalist, but sadly I have to state, that many fellow environmentalists are acting ridiculous, or rather naive.
It won't change one day. If we exhaust all better locations for solar panels than roads then we will already have enough solar energy to power the world many times over. Almost anywhere is better than a road.
"Almost anywhere is better than a road."
No, because land close to humans is limited and I would like at least some forest to remain forests.
If it would be really cheap to add solar panels as a bonus, even with no high efficency, this whole idea makes sense, otherwise not. So I wouldn't rule it out, if there would be a significant cheaper way, but I surely would not bet on that idea.
If anything, I would make the panels as a roof over the road and get sound protection for the people and snow protection for the road as well. Still quite expensive
No, because land close to humans is limited and I would like at least some forest to remain forests.
If it would be really cheap to add solar panels as a bonus, even with no high efficency, this whole idea makes sense, otherwise not. So I wouldn't rule it out, if there would be a significant cheaper way, but I surely would not bet on that idea.
If anything, I would make the panels as a roof over the road and get sound protection for the people and snow protection for the road as well. Still quite expensive
> and I would like at least some forest to remain forests
You're dramatically overestimating the actual land coverage that would be needed to power the entire world with solar panels (assuming one abstracts away the problem of actually running power lines everywhere). A square 340 miles on a side would do it, from the back-of-the-envelope calculations I've seen.
You're dramatically overestimating the actual land coverage that would be needed to power the entire world with solar panels (assuming one abstracts away the problem of actually running power lines everywhere). A square 340 miles on a side would do it, from the back-of-the-envelope calculations I've seen.
The forests are not cut down because of solar panels, but because of agriculture. The more land that is covered with solar panels, means less land for agriculture (I like the dual use concept, though).
The spaces here in germany, that are covered with solar panels, would have been adequate agriculture area, but is now ugly and in use. So if you could just use the road as the space, you could save that other land for other use. This is the idea behind it.
The spaces here in germany, that are covered with solar panels, would have been adequate agriculture area, but is now ugly and in use. So if you could just use the road as the space, you could save that other land for other use. This is the idea behind it.
> No, because land close to humans is limited
It's not that limited. Think how many roofs there are. Or car parks.
Also HVDC power transmission is a thing now. You don't even need to have your power source close to humans.
It's not that limited. Think how many roofs there are. Or car parks.
Also HVDC power transmission is a thing now. You don't even need to have your power source close to humans.
"Also HVDC power transmission is a thing now."
It has always been a thing, but it still means losses and expenses to build it. If you could have solar panels in the road, you could charge electric cars directly and efficently. But like I said, unlikely to happen.
It has always been a thing, but it still means losses and expenses to build it. If you could have solar panels in the road, you could charge electric cars directly and efficently. But like I said, unlikely to happen.
I mean yeah but "if we had magical technology that doesn't exist we could use it" isn't a very interesting fact.
Solar panels are a very real technology and solar roads are working.
It is just that they are too expensive to make much sense. With many potential new solar tech that is in the pipeline, that might change.
It is just that they are too expensive to make much sense. With many potential new solar tech that is in the pipeline, that might change.
Being myself from Rome, I know that complex and have been several times there in the past, also in the late 90s knew a girl who lived there. That's a place you definitely don't want to roam alone in the night.
How much bigger is this than the Haussmann style buildings in Paris and Barcelona?
About twice as high but incredibly larger. Hausmannian buildings have at most six stories which, IMO, is already one or two too many. But really Hausmann's style is elaborated, not brutalist.
Another complete afterthought is the gigantic shadow these monsters do cast. In some cities they brought entire neighbourhoods into shadow during the day.
Such buildings are just sad and reflect the minds of their creators (and of those who rooted/root for them).
Another complete afterthought is the gigantic shadow these monsters do cast. In some cities they brought entire neighbourhoods into shadow during the day.
Such buildings are just sad and reflect the minds of their creators (and of those who rooted/root for them).
This already reminded me of Pruitt-Igoe BEFORE I read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
You can find it here on google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/00148+Corviale+Metropolita...
As a firefighter, I can’t imagine trying to get ladders or an aerial into those middle sections, should it be needed.
I hope a diff angle would show easier access.
I hope a diff angle would show easier access.
Can you not just park a truck in the road? How is it different from a normal ten (?) story building?
Do you need 360 degree access?
Do you need 360 degree access?
Sort of. Your “max” vertical reach eventually puts your ladder / tower truck too close to the building. Either for collapse or other reasons.
Re 360 - no and yes. Someone will always do a full building walkaround. But I was thinking more of the interior corridor.
Re 360 - no and yes. Someone will always do a full building walkaround. But I was thinking more of the interior corridor.
There are interior courtyards that presumably cannot be accessed by truck.
the building is literally right beside a road, just park your truck where you need to put up the ladder...
not that anyone in Rome would want you to put out a fire there, I'm sure they are all praying an earthquake will relieve them of this brutalist masterpiece
not that anyone in Rome would want you to put out a fire there, I'm sure they are all praying an earthquake will relieve them of this brutalist masterpiece
I'd hazard a guess that a professional fire fighter is better at judging the challenges here than rando hnews posters... so perhaps you could ask for what you're missing instead of being so dismissive?
Thank you. I was speaking to the interior corridor(s), when fire is blowing from the “road side” - going to the corridor will be attempted next.
The building on the photo reminds me of the "lying skyscraper" in Moscow (0.7 km): https://9gag.com/gag/a8MQwNp
Reminds me of the "Unité d'habitation"
A few years ago, we visited (the fields of) Verdun and stayed in Briey. A medium size (~5000p) village in the middle between Metz and Verdun. While driving we overlooked the fields and saw this huge out of place futuristic building. That's how I learned of the "Unité d'habitation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%C3%A9_d%27habitation
A few years ago, we visited (the fields of) Verdun and stayed in Briey. A medium size (~5000p) village in the middle between Metz and Verdun. While driving we overlooked the fields and saw this huge out of place futuristic building. That's how I learned of the "Unité d'habitation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%C3%A9_d%27habitation
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falowiec in Poland.
And we have our own version of this in Croatia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamutica
Compared to the Soviet approach to housing this is not entirely impressive.
Take, for example, more than one "round houses" with around 200m diameter of one building.
https://yandex.ru/maps/org/krugly_dom_na_nezhinskoy/70861302...
Take, for example, more than one "round houses" with around 200m diameter of one building.
https://yandex.ru/maps/org/krugly_dom_na_nezhinskoy/70861302...
Reminds me of the Apple Spaceship campus.
Only several decades earlier. This one is surrounded by six school buildings and three kindergardens (of course there are some other apartment buildings there as well).
Like a CPU that is surrounded by a troop of supporting chips.
I wonder which schools do kids of Corviale attend. Around it I can see all kind of stuff but only one school. Do they all fit?
Despite being a huge apartment complex, it seems very car-centric.
Like a CPU that is surrounded by a troop of supporting chips.
I wonder which schools do kids of Corviale attend. Around it I can see all kind of stuff but only one school. Do they all fit?
Despite being a huge apartment complex, it seems very car-centric.
I think this is amazing. Not every attempt to solve housing problems will be a hit but we have to try or else we’ll never succeed. Hopefully the next round of solutions will learn from these attempts.
I will say that it might seem contradictory but really high density housing with adequate services (grocery,medical,school) is actually lower impact than huge sprawl. Sure the impact on that one kilometer is dramatic but in a suburban sprawl situation the land use for the same number of residences/units is going to be orders of magnitude higher. Even the transport links might use more land than the the land used. I’m thinking large city streets and freeways, that’s a lot of real estate.
I will say that it might seem contradictory but really high density housing with adequate services (grocery,medical,school) is actually lower impact than huge sprawl. Sure the impact on that one kilometer is dramatic but in a suburban sprawl situation the land use for the same number of residences/units is going to be orders of magnitude higher. Even the transport links might use more land than the the land used. I’m thinking large city streets and freeways, that’s a lot of real estate.
An old saying goes that it is better to be a doctor than an architect. A doctor buries their mistakes, but all an architect can do is recommend their client plant ivy.
This might be a fine application for immersive IT on the grandest scale. Provide the fully complete 24-hour sensory experience of actually living in, or next to, one of these monuments to oversized municipal egos before the first shovel touches the dirt. Use IT to determine if the benefits match the (simulated) lived reality…before the City has an ugly, dysfunctional 50+ year problem on its hands.
And have the members of the current Community themselves provide an evaluation of whether the project as simulated meets their wants and needs, and not just the needs and wants of the City Council, builders or architects. There would have been a lot fewer Brutalist buildings and high-rise urban renewal housing projects built, if such an accurate immersive simulation had been available in the 50s-60s.
Such a simulation is probably beyond the capabilities of this generation of IT professionals. It would be a very hard job to model the diversity of residents, situations, environments, future economic scenarios, etc. over the lifetime of the proposed large building. Validating the QoL of the simulated environment would be even harder. (Maybe start with known failures and see if the simulation predicts the observed issues.) But if the QoL impact of large projects can’t be properly assessed, maybe smaller, more human-scaled projects are the responsible approach. Sprawl or no.
This might be a fine application for immersive IT on the grandest scale. Provide the fully complete 24-hour sensory experience of actually living in, or next to, one of these monuments to oversized municipal egos before the first shovel touches the dirt. Use IT to determine if the benefits match the (simulated) lived reality…before the City has an ugly, dysfunctional 50+ year problem on its hands.
And have the members of the current Community themselves provide an evaluation of whether the project as simulated meets their wants and needs, and not just the needs and wants of the City Council, builders or architects. There would have been a lot fewer Brutalist buildings and high-rise urban renewal housing projects built, if such an accurate immersive simulation had been available in the 50s-60s.
Such a simulation is probably beyond the capabilities of this generation of IT professionals. It would be a very hard job to model the diversity of residents, situations, environments, future economic scenarios, etc. over the lifetime of the proposed large building. Validating the QoL of the simulated environment would be even harder. (Maybe start with known failures and see if the simulation predicts the observed issues.) But if the QoL impact of large projects can’t be properly assessed, maybe smaller, more human-scaled projects are the responsible approach. Sprawl or no.
Similarly, there is the "Karl Marx Hof"; a social housing complex in Vienna that was completed in 1930 and spans 1.1km, with a huge park in its midst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof
https://goo.gl/maps/E1PvcZahSPVjk4RY9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof
https://goo.gl/maps/E1PvcZahSPVjk4RY9
Great video on it: https://youtu.be/vzGnyqpvwG8
Don't do to other what you don't want done to you. I wonder how many architects actually live in those monstruosities.
This was featured in Warrior of the Lost World, a very bad Mad Max style Italian film. One of my favorite MST3K episodes.
Oh I’ve got to go find that episode. I haven’t seen that one!
Reminds me of The Line, the city Saudis claim to be building.
In that region, a large connected complex makes a lot of sense due to the climatic conditions. You can have one large cooled complex where you can travel without leaving the air conditioned area. Also, transport alternatives to cars become more attractive.
They don't claim it, they started building it.
Anyway looking Arab countries is like looking at everything that's wrong with modern world.
Imagine being so rich you can build any kind of city and you choose to build Dubais, Dohas and this line.
You could literally build fascinating Arabian-style fascinating cities that would make a Disney movie look bad...and they decide to create such non sense monsters like palm islands (not practical, doomed to be sunk by raising oceans moreover) or lines in the desert, pointless skyscrapers in places where there's no lack of horizontal space, this ain't Manhattan ffs.
Anyway looking Arab countries is like looking at everything that's wrong with modern world.
Imagine being so rich you can build any kind of city and you choose to build Dubais, Dohas and this line.
You could literally build fascinating Arabian-style fascinating cities that would make a Disney movie look bad...and they decide to create such non sense monsters like palm islands (not practical, doomed to be sunk by raising oceans moreover) or lines in the desert, pointless skyscrapers in places where there's no lack of horizontal space, this ain't Manhattan ffs.
It's amazing how much influence Le Corbusier had on his contemporaries, and how that can live on to impact so many people.
... and, given the acid test of history, how terrible designs really were. Thus exacerbating the very thing they were trying to improve. *
*my subjective take
... and, given the acid test of history, how terrible designs really were. Thus exacerbating the very thing they were trying to improve. *
*my subjective take
Another one in the same theme (850m) in Gdansk, Poland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falowiec
Geneva has Le Lignon. 1.1km, 6,000+ residents. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Lignon
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Lignon
First thing I thought of was how much of a nightmare this would be for food delivery and general navigation for anyone, who isn't familiar with the building. Otherwise, kind of a curious idea, though I don't think I'd want to live in one. Always preferred more compact buildings.
Can't imagine being there in lockdown for months
> Can't imagine being there in lockdown for months
We are friends with two separate Italian families who struggled with Covid lockdowns.
The first family live in Florence and were stuck in a tiny apartment with two young girls and weren't even allowed to use their building's communal (but private) garden. Fresh air was to be found only on their balcony.
The second family live in central Milan, and on the announcement of the first lockdown, fled to an extended family member's house in the countryside, far from the city. The parents described it to the (young) kids as "the unexpected holiday". They ended up ordering toys and bicycles online once it turned out the lockdown wasn't just going to be a couple of weeks.
My primary concern about our overall response to Covid is that next time around - and there will definitely be a next time - there will be substantially more suspicion (and hence less compliance), and that doesn't end well.
We are friends with two separate Italian families who struggled with Covid lockdowns.
The first family live in Florence and were stuck in a tiny apartment with two young girls and weren't even allowed to use their building's communal (but private) garden. Fresh air was to be found only on their balcony.
The second family live in central Milan, and on the announcement of the first lockdown, fled to an extended family member's house in the countryside, far from the city. The parents described it to the (young) kids as "the unexpected holiday". They ended up ordering toys and bicycles online once it turned out the lockdown wasn't just going to be a couple of weeks.
My primary concern about our overall response to Covid is that next time around - and there will definitely be a next time - there will be substantially more suspicion (and hence less compliance), and that doesn't end well.
If anything it's much easier.
Singapore has one, about 300m, with residents in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlS-sRorMCU
Odd that it's so euphemistic about the people living there. Seems like there should be interviews?
That would be a research project in the architectural world, archdaily is more content-from-a-distance type publication.
[deleted]
What I've never understood with these projects is, what's the supposed benefit of a single stupidly large building over a large number of reasonably sized ones? It doesn't feel like this would bring any meaningful economies of scale to the building process. It seems unlikely to actually use land more efficiently.
Like, is it really just some kind of an authoritarian fetish for giant projects, or was there at least some attempt at justifying it?