This year's Shenzhen Biennale focuses on "The City of Expiration and Regeneration." It takes the idea of emerging cities- like Dubai and Shenzhen and Kazahkastan- and flips the proverbial hourglass, by implying that cities that grow up too fast, also expire too fast.
Is it beneficial for us to assume that some cities emerge quickly, fulfill their purpose, and then vanish as fast as they appeared? Perhaps its better to seek methods of regeneration, instead of expiration, where cities look for ways of breathing life back into a dying urbanism?
i think that it depends...while dubai, shenzhen and kazahkstan are all growing quickly, their growth is based on different factors in a different context.
chinese cities in particular, already have an urbanity, ancient urban civilisation, and new wealth is purely expanding on this condition.
the middle east however, is a very different scenario...100 years ago there were no cities, and now they have emerged as the architectural equivelent of theme parks - driven my capitalism and underplanned. this is due to the lack of context...new cities, historically evolve over hundereds - even thousands - of year and dubai has sprung up in a few decades. i've been involved in a couple of projects in dubai, and it seems to me that all the motivations for the city are pretty superficial...they know the oil will run out and making the city the biggest and most extravagant place in the world is a contingency plan. which is all good and well now while dubai is popular with the rich and famous they aim to attract, but its a matter of fashion. what happens when dubai is not fashionable for this clientele?
i feel that all of the situations are quite economically and socially short-sight, but the middle east is prehaps the most worrying, not only in economical, social and environmental terms, but also for the reputations of the architects involved.
where is khazahkstan are you talking about? astana? or the whole country?
what about american cities that have astounding growth rates? do they count? i guess las vegas would be the most recent (it's kind of like the corporate, entertainment focused version of astana) - will it expire, or will it turn into a permanent city? even the biggest american cities like new york and los angeles were at one time characterized by rapid, chaotic growth, but have since managed to attain what seems like permanence.
i think the key differnce between the examples of new york, for instance, and the aforemention cities is that while new yorks initial growth was rapid, its society and program eveloved from chaos (due in part to the lack of conectivity of the time) into a working city.
dubai is not intended as a working city, it is jumping straight into the final stage of urban evolution (the stage before, typically, shrinkage) to create a tourist attraction.
to compare an american city, or even a european city to the growth models of the middle east, china, et al; demonstrates the key differnces...its not purely an issue of speed, its also about the, its the idea of creating an instant metropolis.
i just find it astonishing, with so many architects working there, there there is no urban language, no background architecture, no fabric...whats is instead generated is random specticle without any binding substance. look at a city like new york, or london, paris, even tokyo. their urban success is due to the fact they aged progressively with a solid mix of urban conditions. not only does this create the components necessary for a city to work but also creates a genuine urbanism, with function and specticle combined.
what is a "solid mix of urban conditions?" Perhaps developers/architects should make a kind of binary checklist for each city to help achieve this balanced urbanism? (Naturally site-specific, globally sensitive)
The Shenzhen Biennale is presenting these binary forums to discuss conditions that must be balanced in a City of Expiration and Regeneration:
1. Shenzhen/Hong Kong (Shenzhen's relationship to it's neighbors)
2. Urbanite/Farmer (on urban agriculture integration)
3. Eco/Eco: (the balance act between economy and ecology)
4. Digitopia/Geospace (the digital world versus actual earth space, unbuilt vs. built)
5. politics/ finance (the 2 big "powers that be")
6. celebrities/ audience (the fame factor for a city, how to be recognized, as well as how to recognize other emerging cities)
7. magazine/ machine (how to get press, but also on constantly recording, cataloguing, archiving the city's activity and progress)
8. Great Leap Forward/ Looking Back - The GSD "Project on the City" team is re-uniting to see what has happened in the last 10 years.
What is missing? What else do emerging cities need to consider to sustain life?
Aug 29, 07 11:47 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The City of Expiration and Regeneration
This year's Shenzhen Biennale focuses on "The City of Expiration and Regeneration." It takes the idea of emerging cities- like Dubai and Shenzhen and Kazahkastan- and flips the proverbial hourglass, by implying that cities that grow up too fast, also expire too fast.
Is it beneficial for us to assume that some cities emerge quickly, fulfill their purpose, and then vanish as fast as they appeared? Perhaps its better to seek methods of regeneration, instead of expiration, where cities look for ways of breathing life back into a dying urbanism?
i think that it depends...while dubai, shenzhen and kazahkstan are all growing quickly, their growth is based on different factors in a different context.
chinese cities in particular, already have an urbanity, ancient urban civilisation, and new wealth is purely expanding on this condition.
the middle east however, is a very different scenario...100 years ago there were no cities, and now they have emerged as the architectural equivelent of theme parks - driven my capitalism and underplanned. this is due to the lack of context...new cities, historically evolve over hundereds - even thousands - of year and dubai has sprung up in a few decades. i've been involved in a couple of projects in dubai, and it seems to me that all the motivations for the city are pretty superficial...they know the oil will run out and making the city the biggest and most extravagant place in the world is a contingency plan. which is all good and well now while dubai is popular with the rich and famous they aim to attract, but its a matter of fashion. what happens when dubai is not fashionable for this clientele?
i feel that all of the situations are quite economically and socially short-sight, but the middle east is prehaps the most worrying, not only in economical, social and environmental terms, but also for the reputations of the architects involved.
where is khazahkstan are you talking about? astana? or the whole country?
what about american cities that have astounding growth rates? do they count? i guess las vegas would be the most recent (it's kind of like the corporate, entertainment focused version of astana) - will it expire, or will it turn into a permanent city? even the biggest american cities like new york and los angeles were at one time characterized by rapid, chaotic growth, but have since managed to attain what seems like permanence.
i think the key differnce between the examples of new york, for instance, and the aforemention cities is that while new yorks initial growth was rapid, its society and program eveloved from chaos (due in part to the lack of conectivity of the time) into a working city.
dubai is not intended as a working city, it is jumping straight into the final stage of urban evolution (the stage before, typically, shrinkage) to create a tourist attraction.
to compare an american city, or even a european city to the growth models of the middle east, china, et al; demonstrates the key differnces...its not purely an issue of speed, its also about the, its the idea of creating an instant metropolis.
i just find it astonishing, with so many architects working there, there there is no urban language, no background architecture, no fabric...whats is instead generated is random specticle without any binding substance. look at a city like new york, or london, paris, even tokyo. their urban success is due to the fact they aged progressively with a solid mix of urban conditions. not only does this create the components necessary for a city to work but also creates a genuine urbanism, with function and specticle combined.
what is a "solid mix of urban conditions?" Perhaps developers/architects should make a kind of binary checklist for each city to help achieve this balanced urbanism? (Naturally site-specific, globally sensitive)
The Shenzhen Biennale is presenting these binary forums to discuss conditions that must be balanced in a City of Expiration and Regeneration:
1. Shenzhen/Hong Kong (Shenzhen's relationship to it's neighbors)
2. Urbanite/Farmer (on urban agriculture integration)
3. Eco/Eco: (the balance act between economy and ecology)
4. Digitopia/Geospace (the digital world versus actual earth space, unbuilt vs. built)
5. politics/ finance (the 2 big "powers that be")
6. celebrities/ audience (the fame factor for a city, how to be recognized, as well as how to recognize other emerging cities)
7. magazine/ machine (how to get press, but also on constantly recording, cataloguing, archiving the city's activity and progress)
8. Great Leap Forward/ Looking Back - The GSD "Project on the City" team is re-uniting to see what has happened in the last 10 years.
What is missing? What else do emerging cities need to consider to sustain life?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.