Sunday, 5 January 2014

Are Skyscrapers ideal solution? - Date - 7/11/2007

Are Skyscrapers ideal solution?

It is a popular concept that to overcome paucity of land in big cities, you should go vertical – i.e. build multi-storied buildings called ‘skyscrapers’. But this is hardly a right solution. Why? Because suppose you build a 100-storeyed Tower. Who will be the occupants? Obviously, the wealthy and super-rich (in our Mumbai, you can site the example of ‘NCPA apartments’ at Nariman Point which are the most expensive residences in the city). And because they will be living in a mini-city within a city, their mindset, attitude and behaviour will be vastly different from other common people. They will be cut of from Nature, mother earth, sounds and smells, and street food. They will be snobbish and self-centered and will shun mixing-n-mingling with ordinary people. (I quote the words of an American tourist in support of the above tendency. Said he “Look my boy, In Boston, no one will talk to anyone unless he is from Boston!”

2. Thus the city’s residences will be compartmentalized in to posh, middle class and pauper zones (slums). The finer virtues of good neighbourliness, responding to call for help and feelings for the down-trodden will not be there. The cumulative effect will be disturbing – vertical buildings will destroy the social fabric of a city.
There should be more ‘greener areas’ to oxygenize the city, more tree cover , more playgrounds, cleaner lakes & rivers/sea and more open spaces (maidans) to serve as lungs of the city. We should make sure that we don’t lose the community spirit and diversity that is the soul of the city.

3. In Mexico city, the buildings are built without any plan with the result that they do not connect to the society or the people and are very unaesthetic. Architecturally, they are ‘lines of houses’ without any facility. You see luxury apartment blocks right next to slums – triggering class-conflicts due to close proximity, resulting in law and order problem.

4. In contrast, horizontal buildings are better. They have a traditional look, are more likely to withstand earthquake impact and offer more escape routes to occupants in case of sudden disaster, like fire, gas-leak, terrorism, etc.

5. Summing up: The ideal plan for a city is not to have super-wealthy and ultra-poor sectors but to have a modest middle-class as they are more likely to spend their money in the city, thereby keeping the city govt’s exchequer in the black (plus side). (Unlike the rich who prefer to fly to other big metros/foreign countries for their shopping spree and spend their money, thereby enriching the local economies, much to the disadvantage of their own city’s kitty.

7. Nov. 2007

No comments:

Post a Comment