Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Ken Yeang

Expand Messages
  • Randall Hunt
    Mr. Yeang s vision of the green skyscraper seems interesting and useful...for skyscrapers. Personally, I do not champion skyscrapers (as we know them) as a
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 1 7:34 AM
      Mr. Yeang's vision of "the green skyscraper" seems interesting and
      useful...for skyscrapers. Personally, I do not champion skyscrapers (as we
      know them) as a form for arcology. A goal of urban design, it seems to me,
      should be to integrate "countryside" experiences with one's daily urban
      experiences. To the extent that Mr. Yeang can accomplish this, I
      congratulate him. But I favor squater, more volumetric, more "hill-like"
      models for an effective arcology. A city dweller should be able to
      conveniently touch the earth instead of merely having a view of it. Using
      vegetation on the exterior of a building to augment mechanical systems of
      hvac is fine, but it doesn't address many more significant problems of
      urban life.
    • leifericssen@earthlink.net
      ... useful...for skyscrapers. Personally, I do not champion skyscrapers (as we know them) as a form for arcology. A goal of urban design, it seems to me,
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 3 9:10 PM
        --- In arcology@egroups.com, Randall Hunt <randhunt@w...> wrote:
        > Mr. Yeang's vision of "the green skyscraper" seems interesting and
        useful...for skyscrapers. Personally, I do not champion skyscrapers
        (as we know them) as a form for arcology. A goal of urban design, it
        seems to me, should be to integrate "countryside" experiences with
        one's daily urban experiences. To the extent that Mr. Yeang can
        accomplish this, I congratulate him. But I favor squater, more
        volumetric, more "hill-like" models for an effective arcology. A city
        dweller should be able to conveniently touch the earth instead of
        merely having a view of it. Using vegetation on the exterior of a
        building to augment mechanical systems of hvac is fine, but it
        doesn't address many more significant problems of urban life.

        I agree with you Randall, I consider Yeang's bioclimatic skyscraper
        concepts an arcological one, but not a concept for an arcology. I
        think what he is trying to do is a stop-gap response for existing
        centre cities -especially the 3rd world cities in high-growth Asian
        economies where he's based. That's great and is worthwhile and I
        really wish him all the best, but I think of such stop-gaps and
        modifications as (information systems analogy) legacy system front-
        end work and not a true solution which requires a new system.

        Developing arcos is a new system alternative with the advantage of
        being free of such limits and so best able to benefit from such
        things as interrelated systems with feedback (agri and waste removal
        and energy and air/water being cross-functional), Net-based
        teleworking and economic activity, and such things as solar power
        satelite systems (energy transmitted down) and PRT (personal rapid
        transit systems.

        My view is that people certainly could/should work in their existing
        neighbourhoods on ecological things from city gardens to carpooling
        and such, and it would go a very long way really, and I don't ever
        want to discourage anyone wanting to make their area a better place.
        But they are not the same as arcology, and the effects of the earlier
        un-coordinated and wasteful car dependant system are still there and
        that's a basic real limit that's built in.

        Jan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.