SkyscraperCity banner

Segregate or Mix?

  • Segregate 100%

    Votes: 8 14.0%
  • Mix

    Votes: 32 56.1%
  • Segregate 80%. Allow a little bit of mixing.

    Votes: 17 29.8%
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Joined
·
3,271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Should modern architecture/skyscrapers be built in special zones or should modern and old be mixed together?


La Defense or New York?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
It really depends on each individual city and its laylout, and how old the "old" architecture is. Mixing skyscrapers with 19th century industrial revolution architecture is not the same as mixing them with a mediaeval town centre.

For European cities personally I prefer to see skyscrapers in a dedicated CBD on the periphery of the city, or at least on the periphery of the city centre.
 

·
on the road
Joined
·
34,465 Posts
Segregate, unless you are willing to allow new buildings without picky-freaky hassles like "it must fit the surrounding lines". In any case, you can always have more creative freedom and a free hand in layout if you are building out of scratch. So build new districts near a major transportation infrastructure (or multiple, like near a big highway interchange with some rail station nearby also).

More important, however, is to segregate individual function of buildings. On a residential building there shall be no commercial/office activity and vice-versa. Nowadays the idea of putting a steel mill in the middle of downtown sounds quite strange and unacceptable, some decades in the future the idea of living in front of your office place will be deemed abhorrent.
 

·
on the road
Joined
·
34,465 Posts
^^ Steel mills and offices are quite fantastically different places you know...
They are different, up to a certain extent. Both attract people that don't live in the area in a daily basis (commute to work). Both represents a dysfunctionality in the idea of an all-residential area that, though open to anyone, really doesn't draw much visitors (=quiet & private).
 

·
Free Cake
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
They are different, up to a certain extent. Both attract people that don't live in the area in a daily basis (commute to work). Both represents a dysfunctionality in the idea of an all-residential area that, though open to anyone, really doesn't draw much visitors (=quiet & private).
I'll give you that, but refuse to believe that attraction of visitors is a bad thing. Entirely segregated neighbourhoods are for the most part doomed to either complete failure or stagnation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
They are different, up to a certain extent. Both attract people that don't live in the area in a daily basis (commute to work). Both represents a dysfunctionality in the idea of an all-residential area that, though open to anyone, really doesn't draw much visitors (=quiet & private).
There are different kinds of residential areas though. Such total separation effectively means everyone lives in a suburb. While that will result in the residential areas being quiet, it will also result in them being incredibly dull.

I grew up in a new town in England, designed exactly on the lines you suggest. While not anywhere near as terrible as people from traditional towns tend to suggest, you to have to search long and hard for any part of town that's got life in it. When you have areas that only have houses, and other areas that only have offices, you don't tend to get any of the shops, bars, cafes etc in those areas that make a town a pleasant place. Towns need that organic development from people staying in areas, and you don't get that when people drive from point to point.


Also, in the most industrial age, factories often weren't "placed" in the middle of towns. The factories were there first, and they built the houses for the workers to live in. In the days before cars or even trains and trams, all the workers had to live within walking distance.
 

·
The Punk With the Camera
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
It depends on the architecture, really. Paris tried it with Tour Montparnasse, and that really did go over well. However, London's been doing it recently, and they've been quite successful at blending things in nicely.

Also, Suburbanist, I really would like to hear more about completely segregated neighborhoods of commercial and residential. My city once had a booming, bustling downtown, almost right up there with San Francisco. Then they got rid of all the homes and apartments and replaced it with stores and offices. Now, the heart and soul of my city is deader than dead, like so many other American cities who resorted to wrecking ball and bulldozer. I mean, if your theory is correct, shouldn't my city, a metro area of over three million people (2.5 million of that suburban, I might add), have a booming, prospering business district since of the 500,000 people who actually live in the city, there are only about 9,000 residents IN downtown?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Suburbanist, what you fail to take into account - each time - is that many people actually want to have access to their place of residence, their place of work, entertainment venues and commerces within a small area - which is why these kind of areas are being built (look up the Euroméditéranée project in Marseille for a good example. Incidentally it's where I work).

For people such as yourself who do not want to live remotely close to anything other than purely residential zones, then believe it or not there are also such areas (some nice, others less so: some of the French banlieues are nothing but an endless stretch of commie blocks and hardly anything else).

From an architectural point of view I would rather see skyscrapers built away from older (and thus lower) buildings, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a mix of activities within that area of skyscrapers.
 

·
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
I'm not an expert, but here are the thoughts I have had:

I think there are cons to having large, single-purpose central business districts.

Could it be that it is not as efficient use of transportation infrastructure to have elaborate transit or wide freeways full inbound and empty outbound, thus only being used to half of their capacity? If some people also lived downtown and reverse commuted out to suburban job centers, then we wouldn't be wasting as much money and energy.

Now its the 21st century and we will have widespread telecommuting eventually. The reasons for having a physical office may be different in the future. Will cubicle farms in a big box matter so much, and who will want to come to work somewhere that is boring and has no good places to go out and eat lunch?

Also visitors, hotel guests who are business travelers might want to be around the action but also close to their office destination.
 

·
Premium member
Joined
·
9,950 Posts
The segregation concept is outdated already. Nowadays its to goal to create lively city quarters with residential, offices and local shopping infrastrucutre. Most office workers prefer such places over pure office parks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
Well from an architectural standpoint for cities with tons of well preserved old architecture (and potential to rehab) I don't think there should be any mixing if something has to be torn down 1st. If there just so happens to be a vacant lot available (parking lot, fire, collapse, etc.) then mixing would be permissible as long as it creates the same amount of density or more. Ideas to tear down a piece of a city's history for a park or an extremely simple blue glass box imo is absolutely absurd...

Mixing residential with retail and office use is 100% efficient. I know I would never want to drive 20-30 miles to the CBD just so I can pick up a gallon of milk or go to work...
 

·
Ölm
Joined
·
3,026 Posts
The segregation concept is outdated already. Nowadays its to goal to create lively city quarters with residential, offices and local shopping infrastrucutre. Most office workers prefer such places over pure office parks.
I thought the OP asked about mixing of style and architecture not of function.

I definitely don't want to see skyscrapers in our old towns.
 

·
on the road
Joined
·
34,465 Posts
^^ Then, one thing must lead to another: build one-function only skyscrapers in the outskirts, near the next highway exit/train station.
 

·
Liberal Minded
Joined
·
2,153 Posts
Definitely mixed! The perfect example of this is in the city of London as mentioned above. The amazing old architecture blended with new towers works well. When you separate a cluster of new architectural towers from the old CBD they become like ghost towns-busy during the day-dead at night. If you build new towers for businesses to move into in the old town you get that busy daytime commercial feeling and at night time the pubs and clubs are full and buzzing. Mix retail, commercial and residential together! From an Architectural point of view, preserve any old buildings as best as they can before even thinking of building a new tower or building. If an old building is falling down-restore it, don't knock it!, a city's history is so important to the people living there and also tourists visiting, so look after you old building's before building new ones!. When apartments or condos are built in the city centre, it also helps to keep the city alive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
For people such as yourself who do not want to live remotely close to anything other than purely residential zones, then believe it or not there are also such areas (some nice, others less so: some of the French banlieues are nothing but an endless stretch of commie blocks and hardly anything else).
He's full of shit because he lives in a city with mostly mixed areas/old neighbourhoods and already admitted he doesn't live in the one suburban area of this city. Really he should do us all a favour and **** off to suburban Indianapolis or Colombus, Ohio or something...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,689 Posts
As long as the scale is appropriate then mixing old and new styles can look very pleasing imo, obviously a giant modern office building next to a small old house is different though.

As for mixed use then it is important that central commercial, retail and office areas also have people living there if they are not to become dead once the office day is over.

Of course not everybody wants to live that way so quiet suburbs which are pretty much residential only are also required.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top