In Arabian Desert, a Sustainable City Rises, Walled and Lofty
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
And upgrading is handled well enough today by (a) knocking down old buildings and build new, bigger ones (except this doesn't sit well with planning) and (b) expanding the city to a different direction that can be developed according to market values and needs, which also undercuts planning (since these new areas won't at first have the infrastructure of an urban center).
Empty spaces degrade the city because it takes time to walk through an empty space just to get somewhere. And a city is meant to be walked around.
A traditional piazza or a square is fine because they occupy one city block, blocks are traditionally small, and they're surrounded by dense array of buildings: shops and apartments.
This is the land of SUVs with tinted windows, maids to do anything that remotely resembles domestic work, and wretchedly excessive bling. When asked about who would want to live in this experimental community (there ain't no hippies down here), the developer said that it would start with the employees of the companies who get the contracts to build out the town.
Now that's what I call synergy.
The old cracker houses here are substantially different. They are wood frame, 2-3 feet up on masonry pillars, with a shotgun floor layout. They have high ceilings with ceiling fans, large porches, roof of sheet metal roofing with large roof overhangs and high slopes, and are usually sited under the shade of live oaks.
The difference is dramatic.
Pamplona would get up to 100 degrees in the summer, but it was still cool and breezy in the streets. Everything's made of thick stone, which takes a lot to heat up. Streets are narrow and shady so they never get enough sunlight to heat the stone. Balconies have shutters to completely block out the sun for the few hours a day it's directly on you.
We didn't have AC, and it was pleasantly cool even in the heat of the summer.
Down here in New Mexico and Arizona, on the other hand, you can get really really far with passive design. In a desert shade and a stiff breeze will keep you nicely comfortable even when it hits 40 in the sun. Combined with good insulation and high thermal mass and a house can stay under 25 even in the dead of summer.
Of course in a desert even if you can't swing shade and a breeze you can use swamp coolers instead of ac which are so nice.
Other than that, fascinating.
He began with a meticulous study of old Arab settlements, including the ancient citadel of Aleppo in Syria and the mud-brick apartment towers of Shibam in Yemen, which date from the 16th century. “The point,” he said in an interview in New York, “was to go back and understand the fundamentals,” how these communities had been made livable in a region where the air can feel as hot as 150 degrees.
Among the findings his office made was that settlements were often built on high ground, not only for defensive reasons but also to take advantage of the stronger winds. Some also used tall, hollow “wind towers” to funnel air down to street level. And the narrowness of the streets — which were almost always at an angle to the sun’s east-west trajectory, to maximize shade — accelerated airflow through the city.
Second of all I'm waiting until someone counts how much inefficient energy resources will be used to build these 'green' cities in UAE or China.
Wind towers are part of Middle East heritage and I always wonder why they've gone into building all those a/c energy wasting offices, malls and homes, instead of simply adopting this technology from the start.
I didn't say anything about "shortcomings". When I used the word "short-sighted", I meant that Americans tend to have a short-term time frame in mind. For example, American companies tend to focus on the next quarter. In contrast, Japanese companies tend to have a 10 year plan. I've had foreign friends or American friends who lived for some years in an older country/culture. They think different than the typical American. They have a longer view than is the norm here.
Also, I don't see how remarking that there are good things and bad things about a particular approach is some kind of attack..or some such.
FWIW, foresight is not a Japanese only quality, and to be frank, Japanese culture has its own technology obsessions that would seem weird to anyone who chooses to see Japan strictly through the "robot wife" lens ;-)
I've had foreign friends or American friends who lived for some years in an older country/culture. They think different than the typical American. (For clarity's sake, I don't think Japan plays a big role in such personal experiences. Europe and the Middle East play much bigger roles.)
Again, I was replying to a remark/question by another member. I think the fact that American culture is highly influential globally is relevant (for example: the city is compared in the article to Disney's Magic Kingdom). I don't see how that observation is "parochial" or "off-putting".
Peace.
This is a commonly repeated trope, but I don't think it's true. The time frame a company targets is primarily a function of it's business model, not it's country of origin.
Many US companies have a long term (30+ year) focus; Pharma (long drug development cycles), some Big Tech (Oracle, IBM focus on relationships with big business), many financial companies (Berkshire and Lehman Brothers make long term bets in securities markets) and all oil companies (finding oil takes time).
Most companies with a short term focus primarily focus on rapidly changing markets. Apple is is focused on building a shiny version of whatever is hot right now (or about to be hot) and Goldman is focused on short term speculation/services. It's not hard to think of foreign companies with a short term focus - L'Oreal (next big thing in cosmetics) and Bandai (next big thing in toys) are two such examples.
Thanks. I know it is a commonly repeated trope, which is why I gave it as an example -- knowing that someone was likely to argue the specific example but hoping it would suffice as an example of the point I was making. Relying heavily on AC strikes me as a short-term view kind of solution. It is cheaper (in the long run) and more effective to rely more heavily on passive solar design.
I don't think there can be a trivial answer to this question of who has the money that, in practice, is just lying there for the taking
B) The money belongs to them. They don't even advertise their crack; people go out of their way to seek it, pay for it dearly, and sometimes even mount belligerent invasions to get it :-) Only thing worse than a dealer is an armed crackhead.
Anybody care to explain how is that possible?