Whilst flicking through television channels the other night I found what turned out to be a fascinating, if at times very irritating, programme on the pros and cons of skyscrapers. I know this sounds completely irrelevant to tunnelling, but bear with me for a moment.
At one point an extraordinarily egotistical architecture journalist, from one of the UK’s highbrow daily papers, described a city that resorted to high-rise construction as showing ‘a sign of weakness’. He then went on to wax lyrical about how he couldn’t bear the thought of having anything so monstrous and offensive anywhere near his home.
In a world where space is running out at an alarming rate, this unbelievably short-sighted view of a construction method that maximises land use seems archaic in the extreme. Modern-day cities are functional and by their very nature organic developments that grow from necessity more than will. Are we to spread outwards until the world becomes a sea of low-rise concrete and wood? Or do we go upwards with inspired architecture, design and construction creating cities with mixed use buildings serving the complete urban experience of living, shopping, socialising and working?
What did this journalist suggest as an alternative? Well, nothing actually. But it got me thinking. Consider, for example, London – a city where land may as well be gold plated. From anaerial perspective it is incredible to see the amount of space taken up by roads. These arteries are already becoming blocked as car ownership increases, and a city wide congestion charge would probably spark a riot. How much construction space could be made available by placing some of these more major roads underground?
After all, the footprint for a tall building can be relatively small. The planners and developers of prospective tall buildings could help fund the replacing of these roads underground, in effect paying for the section of tunnel that passes under their footprint. Their bonus is the acquisition of land that they would never have previously been able to use.
We get two for the price of one; more city development, and less surface traffic!
OK, this all sounds a bit pie in the sky, but consider the future 20-50 years from now with the current rates of city expansion. Something will inevitably have to be done, and its not a great idea to pretend it won’t. The world’s population is going to grow and we all need to find an
appropriate way to grow our infrastructure alongside it.
Maybe our friend the journalist should remember the mantra of modern architecture “form follows function” and then take a long hard look at what is required for the future development of the world’s cities.
Tris Thomas
