Low Density Errors, is There an Answer?

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by larven

I would love to see a contemporary reinterpretetaion of the classic London 'Mansion Block' that follows similar principles with all the associated public spaces, steet life and rooftop terraces and gardens. The richness and vitality a successful project like this could add to the urban landscape cannot be understated.

Thanks for the link. This is exactly what Ive been talking about. Yet some simply insist that this sort of thing is horrible and point to Athens' architecture or Barcelonas tree-lessness (even though theres loads of trees and parks) as an example of an unworkability and indeed almost contempt for humanity such places display. But as we can see tall, urban and dense neighbourhoods can and are incredibly fine places to live as long as - 1. they are large enough for families, 2. well planned and 3. affordable. Roof terraces and gardens are also fantastic ideas which should be promoted as much as possible. They should not be seen as some kind of luxury but a common thing where people can hang out (roof terraces are wide-spread in the Mediterranean where they often are utilised as dining rooms) or grow something.

[Langur]

^ Athens is hideous. Stop using it as a model. Barcelona's Eixample is much better. My only criticism is that it's somewhat monotonous. I also think urban life is less than ideal for families. Suburbs are better, especially when the children are young. My sister visited from San Francisco recently with her two young children. Getting the kids and pushchairs around on the hot busy Tube was a total nightmare. I don't think she would have even attempted it unless I'd been there to help.

Given that London's demographic growth is driven by young and single adults, I see no problem with building flats for them. At the moment there are too many young singles and couples living in suburban housing that's better suited to families.

To go back to Bricks's discussion, here is a panorama from the Golden Gallery at the top of St Paul's. You're in the heart of the City of London, which is the densest urban district in Europe by some margin. Yet which part of the view shows the greatest density?

In terms of visual complexity, the view west along Ludgate Hill/Fleet Street (ie towards the left of the image) is the best. The narrow streets are lined with imposing old buildings, and the view is rammed full of spires, domes, turrets, chimneys, and other architectural details. It's "visually denser", if that makes any sense. However the view west probably shows the lowest urban density in terms of floor space per hectare. The modern buildings in the other directions may be duller, but they're undeniably taller and more efficient. They're not full of interior walls or small courtyards, they offer large plates of unbroken floor space covering entire blocks. It's not just the skyscrapers or high-rises. Indeed the ground scrapers are just as efficient given that lift cores account for less of their volume. Many have vast floors the size of football pitches stacked up one on top of the other.

[Octoman]

I like both the schemes just posted. The 'layering' approach in the one posted by Larven is superb. I prefer the style of the second but either would work well in London.

When someone talks about wanting density I tend to picture in my mind the endless rows of back to back slums like in the picture posted by Mr Bricks or somewhere like Athens.

On the other hand, places like Vienna and Prague manage to achieve quality, highly dense living (although only in the centre in the case of Prague - the outer areas are uncompromisingly soulless and ugly). But these are historic styles that will never be replicated en masse again.

[El_Greco]

Im not going to argue with you, Monkey, but please understand one thing will you - I never used Athens or Barcelona per se as a model, I explained this over and over again to you but you still keep repeating the same thing -"Athens is hideous", "Barcelona is monotonous". My model is tall, dense and urban neighbourhoods made up of mansion blocks or Haussmannian buildings, call them what you like, not architectural styles of a given city or its particular pros and cons.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by Langur

If we're talking of density, then floor space per hectare is what counts. Dubai isn't especially dense. Cities like New York or Hong Kong are dense.

There's a lot of floor space in Dubai though. Exactly what you are after.

Originally Posted by Langur

How much slum housing is left in Spitalfields? None. Spitalfields is either new buildings or old ones that never were slums.

Yes there are. Much of the old East End was slummish. Many of the Georgian/Victorian town houses and terraces in the area today used to be slums. Now they are sought-after apartments.

Originally Posted by Langur

London's suburban expansion was well under way before the war. Outer London suburbia was overwhelmingly built in the 1930s. London has never been denser in terms of buildings than it is today.

What? I'm not talking about suburbia. In terms of building density south and east London were a lot denser. Central London was also denser, but probably had much less floor space.

As long as I am talking building density and you are talking floor space this discussion will go nowhere.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

There's a lot of floor space in Dubai though. Exactly what you are after.

Not per hectare there isn't. Dubai's dense concentrations are spread miles apart from one another. In general it's not a very dense city. London is denser, and cities like New York or Hong Kong are far denser.

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Yes there are. Much of the old East End was slummish. Many of the Georgian/Victorian town houses and terraces in the area today used to be slums. Now they are sought-after apartments.

I'm very skeptical indeed. Show me some examples. I don't think the remaining Georgian housing was ever slums. The slums have been cleared.

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

What? I'm not talking about suburbia. In terms of building density south and east London were a lot denser. Central London was also denser, but probably had much less floor space.

As long as I am talking building density and you are talking floor space this discussion will go nowhere.

But the only reliable measure of urban density is floorspace per hectare. It's reliable because it covers all uses, ie commercial and residential (unlike population density which only counts the latter). London has greater building density now than ever before in its history. That includes central, south, and east London.

This is a great example btw. The streets are tightly packed and the buildings rich with detail. There's little open space. Yet this area is denser now...

[london lad]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Never mind the history or function of these places. I'm focusin on how it looks today, not why or how it got there.

Lol - This point pretty much sums it up why people get irked with your posts. Any ignorant fool who thinks they are expert on matters when in reality know bugger all yet arrogantly thinks it is everyone else that is wrong is the reason others respond to your ill-informed posts. It makes you feel any better there are and a have been a fair few peculiar people on SSC over the years with the same attitudes and personalities and they are of all nationalities even British

How can you even attempt to think people should take you seriously when you think little things like historical, social, economic and cultural factors that make up a city and point to its past and future growth are irrelevant points is beyond most people. It’s not a big game of Sim City yet you seem to think because you can post an overhead image of a random city and compare it to another random city your argument is won and beyond reproach.

Your attempts at explaining why South London is how it is and pointing to a grainy old image to justify ignorant comments is rather insulting to those who do actually know the areas you look at on your computer screen. Its your arrogance that you seem beyond criticism when people point out you are spectacularly wrong is why people truly give you stick. Its clear you haven’t the foggiest about South London,East London or London in general so its no surprise people will respond to your ignorant posts.

What is the argument anyway? London isn’t quite as dense as certain other cities in certain parts as if that is some sort of be all and end all benchmark. There are reasons behind this, although you seem to think this has no relevance. London has evolved how it has for centuries and continues to evolve for better or worse, people see new developments going up every day and see huge plans being worked up. When some strange bloke who doesn’t see or has never seen these changes starts sprouting gobshite about them do you honestly think no one is going to comment on them?

[Galro]

Originally Posted by Langur

But the only reliable measure of urban density is floorspace per hectare. It's reliable because it covers all uses, ie commercial and residential (unlike population density which only counts the latter). London has greater building density now than ever before in its history. That includes central, south, and east London.

That surely depends on what you want to figure out. If you want to find which city that manages to push most floors into a given area then your figures are the best. If you however, like I think Mr Bricks do, are more concerned about the visual appearance, building placement and dimensions towards the streetscape then it is not.

To take an example: You have two buildings, one with four meters between each floor plate and the other with just two. You would argue that the last is double the density of the first all other measurements being equal. Mr Bricks, I believe, would argue that they are both equal as it's the outward appearance that matters when thinking about cities density.

[Octoman]

If it is purely the aesthetic of having the maximum number of buildings in one place then surely the ancient towns and cities are the leaders? Places like York, Winchester, Durham, Canterbury etc. Or how about the old fishing villages like St Ives in Cornwall or Whitby in Yorkshire. These are unbelievably dense pockets of dwellings huddled together where you can walk a labyrinth of streets toughing both sides of the road with outstretched arms almost. It is the closest we get to the density of the ancient Italian cities like Florence.

The urban grain of larger conurbations is always going to be a bit more fractured if only by the transport system routes. They may be denser in terms of people per square km but it seems like we are talking about areas that 'feel' really packed in?

[Langur]

Originally Posted by Octoman

If it is purely the aesthetic of having the maximum number of buildings in one place then surely the ancient towns and cities are the leaders? Places like York, Winchester, Durham, Canterbury etc. Or how about the old fishing villages like St Ives in Cornwall or Whitby in Yorkshire. These are unbelievably dense pockets of dwellings huddled together where you can walk a labyrinth of streets toughing both sides of the road with outstretched arms almost. It is the closest we get to the density of the ancient Italian cities like Florence.

The urban grain of larger conurbations is always going to be a bit more fractured if only by the transport system routes. They may be denser in terms of people per square km but it seems like we are talking about areas that 'feel' really packed in?

I agree. Medieval old towns probably have the greatest density of the kind that bricks admires.

[alphaxion]

it certainly seems that Mr bricks is arguing density based on the number of buildings, tightly packed in an unbroken continuum.

if there is a certain plot of land and you have 5 x 6 floor buildings in a continuous row across it and compare it to 2 x 20 floor buildings with a noticeable gap between them then it seems he believes the 5 x 6 street to be denser because it is more contiguous and feels more built up than the obviously denser 2 x 20 street.

its this sense of density which gives him the greater opinion of urbanity too, rather than the bustle of human activity and enterprise because it is happening in an environment with contiguous buildings of a certain size rather than more people in an area which is a bit more open in its streetscape.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by Galro

That surely depends on what you want to figure out. If you want to find which city that manages to push most floors into a given area then your figures are the best. If you however, like I think Mr Bricks do, are more concerned about the visual appearance, building placement and dimensions towards the streetscape then it is not.

I'm perfectly happy if he wants to discuss aesthetic factors. I have never, for instance, claimed that SE1 is as pretty or integrated as Paris's Left Bank, or has a similar character in general. Indeed I've said precisely the opposite. However I think the only fail safe measure of density is total building floor space per hectare of land.

Originally Posted by Galro

To take an example: You have two buildings, one with four meters between each floor plate and the other with just two. You would argue that the last is double the density of the first all other measurements being equal. Mr Bricks, I believe, would argue that they are both equal as it's the outward appearance that matters when thinking about cities density.

In theory that's a fair point. You're saying that building volume rather than floor space is the better measure. But does it make a material differnce in our comparison? I doubt it. The modern office buildings in SE1 have huge floor-to-ceiling heights. On the other hand, council estates have low ceilings compared to prestige Georgian or Victorian buildings. On balance, I doubt that going for volume instead of floor space will make much difference to our comparison, though of course it may have a bearing on aesthetics.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by alphaxion

it certainly seems that Mr bricks is arguing density based on the number of buildings, tightly packed in an unbroken continuum.

if there is a certain plot of land and you have 5 x 6 floor buildings in a continuous row across it and compare it to 2 x 20 floor buildings with a noticeable gap between them then it seems he believes the 5 x 6 street to be denser because it is more contiguous and feels more built up than the obviously denser 2 x 20 street.

its this sense of density which gives him the greater opinion of urbanity too, rather than the bustle of human activity and enterprise because it is happening in an environment with contiguous buildings of a certain size rather than more people in an area which is a bit more open in its streetscape.

Visual complexity was greater then. Actual density is considerably greater now...

[alphaxion]

Cannon St Station sure has changed!

[Galro]

Originally Posted by Octoman

If it is purely the aesthetic of having the maximum number of buildings in one place then surely the ancient towns and cities are the leaders? Places like York, Winchester, Durham, Canterbury etc. Or how about the old fishing villages like St Ives in Cornwall or Whitby in Yorkshire. These are unbelievably dense pockets of dwellings huddled together where you can walk a labyrinth of streets toughing both sides of the road with outstretched arms almost. It is the closest we get to the density of the ancient Italian cities like Florence.

The urban grain of larger conurbations is always going to be a bit more fractured if only by the transport system routes. They may be denser in terms of people per square km but it seems like we are talking about areas that 'feel' really packed in?

Not necessarily. Many ancient cities got narrow streets but lack great height. Perceived density is a combination of the height of the building and the width of the street. The place I've been that I have thought felt densest is Hong Kong followed by Venice. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hong ...7.73,,0,-23.89

Originally Posted by Langur

I'm perfectly happy if he wants to discuss aesthetic factors. I have never, for instance, claimed that SE1 is as pretty or integrated as Paris's Left Bank, or has a similar character in general. Indeed I've said precisely the opposite. However I think the only fail safe measure of density is total building floor space per hectare of land.In theory that's a fair point. You're saying that building volume rather than floor space is the better measure. But does it make a material differnce in our comparison? I doubt it. The modern office buildings in SE1 have huge floor-to-ceiling heights. On the other hand, council estates have low ceilings compared to prestige Georgian or Victorian buildings. On balance, I doubt that going for volume instead of floor space will make much difference to our comparison, though of course it may have a bearing on aesthetics.

I'm not trying to make a point besides that you and Mr Bricks seems to be arguing about two different subjects. He is talking about the perception when walking down a random street in each city whereas you are talking about the objective and factual density of the population and square meters.

[mouldss@hotmail.co.u]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Yes there are. Much of the old East End was slummish. Many of the Georgian/Victorian town houses and terraces in the area today used to be slums. Now they are sought-after apartments.

I believe georgian houses where classed as slums, in fact any poorly maintain unmodernised properly with vpoor multi occupation families.

Could even make buckingham palace into a slum.

[Langur]

^ Lol! Well there you go. Not every Georgian house was considered a slum. West London's Georgian terraces remained grand throughout the Victorian era. Indeed much of the slum housing was older than Georgian in any case. The slum clearances took place in the late C19th, and the last slums in central London were cleared by 1904. It extended beyond central London through the 20s and 30s, and any scraps that were left were destroyed after WWII. Every old building left in Spitalfields was at least a couple of notches above the level of slums.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by london lad

Lol - This point pretty much sums it up why people get irked with your posts. Any ignorant fool who thinks they are expert on matters when in reality know bugger all yet arrogantly thinks it is everyone else that is wrong is the reason others respond to your ill-informed posts. It makes you feel any better there are and a have been a fair few peculiar people on SSC over the years with the same attitudes and personalities and they are of all nationalities even British

How can you even attempt to think people should take you seriously when you think little things like historical, social, economic and cultural factors that make up a city and point to its past and future growth are irrelevant points is beyond most people. It’s not a big game of Sim City yet you seem to think because you can post an overhead image of a random city and compare it to another random city your argument is won and beyond reproach.

Your attempts at explaining why South London is how it is and pointing to a grainy old image to justify ignorant comments is rather insulting to those who do actually know the areas you look at on your computer screen. Its your arrogance that you seem beyond criticism when people point out you are spectacularly wrong is why people truly give you stick. Its clear you haven’t the foggiest about South London,East London or London in general so its no surprise people will respond to your ignorant posts.

What is the argument anyway? London isn’t quite as dense as certain other cities in certain parts as if that is some sort of be all and end all benchmark. There are reasons behind this, although you seem to think this has no relevance. London has evolved how it has for centuries and continues to evolve for better or worse, people see new developments going up every day and see huge plans being worked up. When some strange bloke who doesn’t see or has never seen these changes starts sprouting gobshite about them do you honestly think no one is going to comment on them?

Can you fucking read? I provided a historical background to all I wrote (I study history), and I know a fair bit more than you do I'm sorry to say. I just pointed out how certain rather central parts of London are suburban compared to Paris. Anyone who has visited these two cities knows that. If you're going to be a Monkey and deny that then fine.

You haven't made any contribution to this thread nor have you provided us with any facts so just shut it.

Originally Posted by Monkey

Visual complexity was greater then

So now you get it? I am not talking floor space, nor people/km2. I', talking about a dense, tightly packed urban environment where buildings stand close to each other in an urban fashion. As you say this is what London used to be before suburbanisation and large-scale demolition started. Denying this is just showing your ignorance about British history.

Originally Posted by Galro

I'm not trying to make a point besides that you and Mr Bricks seems to be arguing about two different subjects. He is talking about the perception when walking down a random street in each city whereas you are talking about the objective and factual density of the population and square meters.

Correct. This simple fact he fails to grasp. Or atleast pretends he does not understand.

Originally Posted by Galro

I believe georgian houses where classed as slums, in fact any poorly maintain unmodernised properly with vpoor multi occupation families.

Could even make buckingham palace into a slum.

What an ignorant and stupid thing to say. I'm not surprised Langur agrees with you.

This would have been the case post war, not before that. Indeed slums like Flower & Dean Street, Old Nichol Street, Jacobs Island etc were being pulled down as early as the 1850s, however these areas were no more than poorly built shanty towns which in a way were small communities within the city itself. They were the worst places in a winder urban area that was itself slum-like. Indeed there were middle-class families living along the main thoroughfares. The rest of Whitechapel and Spitalfields was very much considered a slum.

Westenders would even go on tourist trips to the East End where they would see poverty and squalor beyond their imagination. The East End was among the most slummish areas in the whole of the British Empire. Considering many of these buildings and streets survive to this day you can call them ex-slums.

http://casebook.org/victorian_london/autumnev.html

Charles Booth's poverty map published in 1889 might also be of some help.

[Langur]

I studied history, and I've lived in both London and Paris. I've forgotten more about those cities than you'll ever know. Suburbanisation has never reduced the building density of London's core. London is more densely built up now than ever before in its history. Calling visual complexity "density" is simply a mis-use of the word.

[larven]

Has surburbanisation reduced the residential population of London's core?