METACITY - DATATOWN
MVRDV in 1999 published a proposal for the future city, describing the city based on Dutch statistics for the existing situation and the forecast for the future. MVRDV used Dutch statistics as they claim that The Netherlands seems as a dream land for economy, culture, production, etc.
Thus, based on these statistics, MVRDV, claims that there will be no individual urban space but more or less a continues urban fields where the urban space as well as the space in between are treated equally. This according tp MVRDV leads to the description of the world as a ‘global village’, a continues, endless urban spaces, an urban space that need to colonize all the possible urban and antiurban space due to its increased population. The whole nature is crowed.
This is the Metacity, a global village. MVRDV tried to moved a step foreward. They tried to explain and describe the future city by numbers or data, using as it is mentioned above the Dutch statistcs.
So, according to MVRDV the usable space on earth is limited. Only a certain amount, a certain percentage, of the earth’s total surface is available and it can be used for living, industry, agriculture and other human activities. If the seas, oceans, mountains, jungles, deserts, polar etc are excluded of the total surface, the remaining usable space for the future Metacity is not enough to inhabit the increased population. The whole moon is needed to be colonized to cover the appropriate space. Even more the boundaries seems difficult to be defined, as the city is described by information and there is no topography, context, representation or priscribed ideology to set any form of boundary. MVRDV trying to define them set the total diameter of the city equal with the distance that the inhabitants can travel within an hour. So, analysing the data starting from the past in the Mid Age’s the size of the city was 4Km walking distance. In 1920’s the Garden cities size was 20Km bicycle distance. In 1980’s the mass use of cars extent the lenght of the city to 80Km. Today, the bullet trains covers 400Km per hour. So, the size of the future town can be 400 x 400Km, 160.000.000m2.
The city that is described above now can be named Datatown, a town that is always in progress and change as it is based on a series of assumptions, upon an analysis of data for each one of the city’s sectors.
MVRDV described individualy every sector of the future city. However the most important seems the living sector. According to MVRDV the living sector is composed by a tapestry of plots 20 x 10 meters, 5 to 10 meters street wide and an average height of 28 meters or 10 stories. Its urban space must be dense, however, need to have a suburban quarity, using natural light, having clean air, and green areas. Due to the height density and the limited urban space, Datatown in order to have suburban quality, according to MVRDV must be expanded verticaly.
Even more MVRDV used the vertical expansion to other sectors such as agricaltural or industrial. They also ‘designed’ the Datatown as a eco friendly city using renewable and sustainable energy.
Metacity - Datatown two names for the future city using data and information to be described.
Reference:
Winy Mass, MVRDV(1999), ’Metacity - Datatown’, 010 publishers
Monday 6 July 2009
Comparison
Borneo and Hammarby are both real urban planning project and they have both been constructed. Metacity Datatown is not a real project, it is more a assumption for the future urban space.
Thus, similarities and differnces can be found only at Borneo and Hammarby and cannot be compared with Metacity.
Borneo and Hammarby have a significant impact at national as well as worldwide planning future.
They are planning projects which dealt with the real issues and opportunities of their area. They both dealt with the regeneration of an existing, abandoned or where only ex-dockyards landfields or boatyards exist. Issues, that needed to be solved are ownership and other legal issues before and after the construction.
Then, issues like density, whose will inhabit the urban space, how much will be the public space, public facilities that are needed to be provided or the character that the urban space, are needed to be decided during the design progress.
For all these issues, local and international architects are invited to propose a solution. However, the local goverment had a significant role during the planning, checking, planning and dealing with parts where more than two sides was needed to be involved.
In order to create an attractive urban space, after the main masterplan design, both project were divided into sections and shared among different architects who needed to provide a design for each section.
They are totaly designed into the very last detail, designing apart from the building types, zones, access, parking areas, street wide, the street furniture, lighting etc.
Borneo and Hammarby designed as urban spaces, bringing the urban layout, the urban measurements of street lenght and width into the regenerated area. They also tried to be inspired by elements of the local area, combining the urban with the suburban character.
The housing sector is essential at both projects. The invited architects or the architectural teams needed to provide different design, giving to the urban space the sence of the individuality and also making the area easily orientated. However. the public spaces and the facilities are not in the same level at both projects. Borneo seems that failed to provide the appropriate facilities , local market, and green spaces, where on Hammarby open areas that provide public realm and facilities are designed more carefully.
As it is obvious nothing is mentioned about Metacity. Metacity is only a theoretical piece of work for the future, It is however a very good example of how data can be treated in the urban design and how this can lead into physical urban design.
Borneo and Hammarby are both real urban planning project and they have both been constructed. Metacity Datatown is not a real project, it is more a assumption for the future urban space.
Thus, similarities and differnces can be found only at Borneo and Hammarby and cannot be compared with Metacity.
Borneo and Hammarby have a significant impact at national as well as worldwide planning future.
They are planning projects which dealt with the real issues and opportunities of their area. They both dealt with the regeneration of an existing, abandoned or where only ex-dockyards landfields or boatyards exist. Issues, that needed to be solved are ownership and other legal issues before and after the construction.
Then, issues like density, whose will inhabit the urban space, how much will be the public space, public facilities that are needed to be provided or the character that the urban space, are needed to be decided during the design progress.
For all these issues, local and international architects are invited to propose a solution. However, the local goverment had a significant role during the planning, checking, planning and dealing with parts where more than two sides was needed to be involved.
In order to create an attractive urban space, after the main masterplan design, both project were divided into sections and shared among different architects who needed to provide a design for each section.
They are totaly designed into the very last detail, designing apart from the building types, zones, access, parking areas, street wide, the street furniture, lighting etc.
Borneo and Hammarby designed as urban spaces, bringing the urban layout, the urban measurements of street lenght and width into the regenerated area. They also tried to be inspired by elements of the local area, combining the urban with the suburban character.
The housing sector is essential at both projects. The invited architects or the architectural teams needed to provide different design, giving to the urban space the sence of the individuality and also making the area easily orientated. However. the public spaces and the facilities are not in the same level at both projects. Borneo seems that failed to provide the appropriate facilities , local market, and green spaces, where on Hammarby open areas that provide public realm and facilities are designed more carefully.
As it is obvious nothing is mentioned about Metacity. Metacity is only a theoretical piece of work for the future, It is however a very good example of how data can be treated in the urban design and how this can lead into physical urban design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)