Architecture & the City

Our Vision for the Future: The Agronomic Metropolis

“The more boundless your vision, the more real you are.”
Deepak Chopra

On the 23rd of May, 2017, we asked our friends to tell us what their vision of the future is (link to our Facebook post here) … this article discuses ours.

Before I get into any specifics regarding our ideas, I wanted to discuss what I meant by “vision”. Many have perceived our question to be that of trying to predict the future – which can often be grim with the alarming reports of climate change. However, we have taken this opportunity to actually suggest ideas for the built environment in the future. Granted, these ideas may not be too detailed and there may be a lot of logistics that need to be figured out before implementation, but our vision for the future here is something that we hope provides food for thought for our readers, and for us as designers as well. We like to create such visions and statements in order to keep ourselves in check with every design project we do – it allows us to compare what we hope to design and what we actually design.

Back in early 2013, we entered a competition to design “a skyscraper for the future”. This competition was organized by “Evolo” magazine, and it is an ideas based competition that seeks to discuss the future of the architectural practice in terms of design rather than produce anything that is necessarily feasible in early 21st century terms. The entrants are free to bend the laws of physics and structural design as we know it to image what life could be like centuries from now (obviously trying to push for a more optimistic view of the future). Past entries have suggested flying skyscrapers, towers in space, buildings floating on the water like ships…etc. The third generation of RiadArchitecture had just started at that point, so I thought it would be a good competition to sink our teeth in and hoped to produce a controversial project to get the practice some international publicity within the design circles.

I did not want to just come up with a cool looking form and create awesome visuals, I wanted whatever we designed to stem from an important issue the world is facing today. One of the issues that Egypt faces today is that most of its urban fabric is built upon fertile soil. The country is mostly made up of desert terrain, save for a small sliver surrounding both banks of the Nile, which has become extremely fertile as it has been drinking water for thousands of years, making it ideal for farming. The City’s earliest urban fragment, El Fustat, was established by the Arabs in the 7th century, and was erected on the Eastern bank of the Nile, on fertilized soil. However, El Fustat and the subsequent neighborhoods that were established after it (until they were all grouped by Salah el Din in the 12th century to form greater Cairo) covered a small percentage of the fertile land that it seemed to be inconsequential at the time. As time progressed, the speed of urbanization and city expansion accelerated, especially in the 20th century. In the last 50 years, Cairo, and other major cities that all were established to have a connection with the Nile (their reason for being), extended along the river to connect to the neighboring cities in the other governorates, as well as exploding outwards with its suburbs. These suburbs were planned as gated pockets with the hope that would exist around fields of green, but reality allowed for the space between all these pockets to be filled with slums, which connect the city proper to its suburbs. All this urbanization occurred on fertile soil, which has been rapidly decreasing in both quality and size. Egypt, which had previously been known as a farming economy, is now looking to turn the desert terrain into fertile terrain to combat this problem, and we can debate how successful it has been in that endeavor.

But what could have been done instead? Mass urbanization to cater to our ever expanding population growth is something that we as designers and urbanists must accept as reality … but we could perhaps approach it with a better overall plan in mind and strive to build cities that retains the fertile nature of the soil. This would be the platform on which we would base the design of our utopia or vision for the future – which we aptly named “The Agronomic Metropolis”.

Throughout the history of the built environment, architects and philosophers alike have pondered on ideas of the Ideal City or Architectural Utopia. The renaissance ideal “centralized” city was planned to encompass the spiritual and juridical notion of space and social hierarchy; the church square is located in the nucleus of the urban configuration, which often replicates a geometric pattern. The nineteenth century Garden City Movement, initiated by Sir Ebenezer Howard, was planned as a reaction to the polluted industrial cities of the century before, as these cities were intended to be small-scale satellite towns that are self-contained communities surrounded by a green belt, and connected to a larger industrious parent city. LeCorbusier’s urban planning endeavors reflected a social commentary in which the architect aspired to create cities that promote equality among humanity; allowing the ground plane to be utilized by the public, while the residential units are erected in towers that act as objects in a field of greenery.

The Agronomic Metropolis borrows ideas from Le Corubiser’s theories, pushing it forward to the 21st century and contextualizing it with some of the problems the planet may face in centuries to come. The concept of The Agronomic Metropolis is to minimize construction on fertile land that could be used to farming or vegetation. On a 10,000m2 square plot of land, the building footprint would become 10%(or less) instead of the usual 50%, allowing over 90% of the plot land to be open green space that would encourage biodiversity and allow different species to be involved in this new typology of urban ecology. Parks and green spaces will cease to become objects in a field of concrete blocks anymore – where city dwellers would go to escape the city – but would be integrated seamlessly into metropolitan life, in an attempt to blur the urban and linguistic boundaries of the terms “city” and “rural”.

diagram1

diagram2

The residential and office towers are laid out so that two 6 x 100m core towers are placed on each end of the block. This core tower would house all vertical transportation, circulation, egress, structural components and public facilities. The tower stands upright on the edge of one side of the block, while curves downwards to meet the ground on the other end, allowing the core tower to appear as if it is peeling off the ground. This type of form allows one side of the tower to have an elongated façade towards the sky, creating more surface area to place solar panels. With the taller core tower in the city, the tower bows down towards the street, to allow even more exposure to the southern sun (or northern for southern hemisphere cities).

diagram3

The residential and office units are laid out on a 10×10 module, and are placed on either side of the core tower. The number of the module units depends and correspond to the Floor to Area Ratio of the plot site, and each façade has a 50% porosity rate. This porosity rate allows for light and air circulation, as many of the units have exposure on two (or sometimes three) sides – while it also allows for terrace spaces for roof gardens and social spaces. The result becomes a rhythmically dynamic tower that blends into the landscape and embraces the law of randomness much akin to nature, as opposed to LeCorbusier’s pure and repetitive concrete objects that were criticized to be viewed in distortion with the natural surroundings. Take a look at the images we have posted below for what we envision our vision to be; two of the images show the towers in a low density area (hence the cows), while the other two are populated in a heavily dense area – which shows that even in areas with large population, these towers would provide for vast spaces that could foster agricultural activities.

perspective1
Towers in a Rural Community
perspective2
Towers in a Rural Community
perspective3
Towers in an Urban Community
perpsective4
Towers in an Urban Community

 

See you next week 😀

Mahmoud M M Riad

Director of RiadArchitecture

Advertisements
Artchitecture General

The Future Role of Architects? Pt1

“The ultimate goal of the architect…is to create a paradise. Every house, every product of architecture… should be a fruit of our endeavor to build an earthly paradise for people.” – Alvar Aalto

 

On the 18th of April, 2017, we asked a question to our followers on our Facebook page (link here): What do you think is the role of the architect in today’s market/culture? How do you think that has changed over time? And, most importantly, how do you think this will evolve in the future?

Right off the bat, I didn’t realize how difficult it was to respond to this question until someone dear to me asked me what my vision for the next 50 years was. I felt that I was always good at answering these type of “where do you see yourself…” questions (my classmates and I had once been tasked to write our own obituary for Architectural Business class to make sure that we lay out exactly what we would like our  contribution to society to be), but it seems that I have been too focused on the small details in front of me that I lost sight of the bigger picture. If I can’t articulately (or at let somewhat articulately) define my vision for my own future, how am I propose a vision towards the evolution of the role or architects in the future? What I found that was interested is that many of my friends that I asked to engage with this week’s question was equally stumped – many of these friends were architects and designers. It seems that many of us architects get too bogged down in what we do we lost sight of what we believe we can do. Too many of us are focused on how to make ends meet and generate more income until it becomes a habit (even when are doing well financially) that we lose sight of why we dreamed of becoming architects in the first place. I believe that this is a question that we will need to revisit periodically (every 6 months or so) because it will be interesting to see how both our friends views and our own views have changed – which is why this is part 1 of the series.

Now, there is a very pragmatic and run of the mill textbook answer to the question , especially in response to what is our role in today’s market. What laymen don’t realize is how much managerial work the architect is actually engaged and preoccupied with – be it design management in the early stages of the process, client relations, resource management, coordination, consultant management, project management, up to construction and site management. Actually, come to think of it, if we take the 80/20 rule, I spend 80% of my time managing work flow of others and 20% actually sitting down and designing. This is definitely NOT what I expected during my time in architecture school. Depending on how architecture firms are structured, you may find that most brand name design firms delegate most of the design and research work to the younger architects and those that climb up the practice’s hierarchy ladder get to do less and less of the designing (project leaders role are more synonymous to design critics as opposed to actual designers).  In some of the more corporate structures, the design is done by a senior designer with a team of young architects to do all the grunt work, and that often makes up of a small percentage of a firm which is mostly occupied by architects turned project and/or construction managers.

The point I am trying to make is the image of the master builder architect who is in control of the entire design & construction process from A to Z is mostly non-existent. The visionary individual that poetically seeks to empower society through the built environment (I am reminded of the Winston Churchill quote ” We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us”) while blending their craft within the confines of their surroundings are now characters you may only meet in literature (or perhaps in a corner cafe in Piazza della Signoria in Florence marveling at the elegance of the Uffizi). You may find the remaining remnants of this dying breed in smaller practices or offices, usually run in a one man show fashion and often struggling to make ends meet. There seems to be an impending fear within the young design community that our role as architects will soon become irrelevant, but I am afraid that the definition of “Architect” that we have romanticized about in the 20th century  is now obsolete. No longer do you have the masters like Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn, Hassan Fathy, Alvaar Aalto, Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe … etc – and their starchitect replacements like Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, Bjarke Ingels…etc, are essentially brand ambassadors of their own design ideologies.

The above paragraph is not an attempt to anyway negate the work, talent or genius of these starchitects or other equally esteemed designers/architects that exist today, nor am I trying to make the case that the master builders of the 20th century were in any way superior – what I am trying to do is be clear (at least with myself and through my own bias, experience and understanding) on how and why the profession has evolved today in order to best predict how it may evolve in the future; as perhaps by being aware of such a trajectory we may, as individuals in the industry, be able to influence it. I believe when it comes down to it, this evolution from Master Builder to brand ambassador is a result of scale and is akin to the notion of Franchising in business. The only different is between Franchising in business and my analogy to it in respect to today’s starchitects is that these brand ambassadors are franchising their design technique, philosophy and ideology to the rest of their design team, while they come in from time to time to ensure that their vision is followed through. The speed, size and number of projects these practices deal with everyday make it impossible for one individual to oversee the entire process as was the case earlier in the 20th century, so gradually in order to compete against the large architectural corporations and offices, the design oriented architects had to follow suit and create more of a pyramid hierarchy based organization. The two tier system of Master and Apprentice(s) has been, as our friend and colleague Architect Ahmed Sarwat Aguib so eloquently puts it, diversified into many various roles with many different hierarchy structures. Junior Architects coming out of school and into the industry will soon find themselves compartmentalized and type cast into one of the many roles that make up our industry: designers, project managers, construction managers, client relations (a role often undertaken by the higher ups), office managers, quality controllers, procurement specialists, visualization / graphics specialists, project & consultant coordinators, draftsmen … etc.

This diversified conveyor belt approach to the industry is best suited for the mass production of architectural products, and the organization evolves into a well oiled machine. This removes power from the one Master Builder role and transforms it into a collective entity that seeks to create more business opportunities in order to generate income to pay their employees. While removing power from one singular voice and distributing it to a collective is often a more just political system, in the creative industry one could argue that it artistically dilutes the vision and is more inclined to become business and financially goal oriented as opposed to socially inclined. The Master Builders often had their vision of Utopia that they were striving to attain (whether or not they worked or responded well to the community they attempted to serve is a different story), whereas the more corporate structure of architectural practices often seek to provide services to the highest bidder. Architecture has evolved from a practice that seeks to build societies to an industry that provides services … and this is what I believe many young architects tend to become disillusioned by and some attempt to rebel against.

In this vain, I believe that architecture in the next 50 years or so will strive to evolve to engage with society once again. Some are already trying to grab the seat of power from the real estate developer in becoming design/finance/build firms – ShoP Architects – come to mind, where they essentially are becoming their own client and find a creative way to mitigate the artistic vision and financial feasibility under one roof – but this would still create a strategy that is financially based; which is fair – people need to make money – but in an ideal society, I believe that finances should come second to social responsibility, and the ShoP model is inherently a financial one. One the other hand, there are many architectural practices that have gone towards the other end of the spectrum and working to be engaged in more social activities by creating more community outreach programs that allow people of low economic prospect to build their own dwellings; hitting two birds with one stone by establishing their own housing as well as arming them with a craft/tool that would help them boost their own economic well being … but then how are these firms to survive in the financial market today and be able to compensate their employees?

This is a tough question that I personally do not have the answer to, but I predict that within the next few decades (given the economic , climatic and resource realities) we will be forced to reconcile with these two ends of the spectrum.

 

Until next week 🙂

Mahmoud M M Riad

Director of RiadArchitecture