Social housing is urgently needed in many countries. But how can we provide affordable housing in low-income environments? 3D printing offers a potential solution for housing inequality.
[tcl-gallery id = „1“]
In March 2021, Germany’s first 3D printed house in Beckum is set to be completed. In China, Russia and many other countries, first trial neighbourhoods consisting exclusively of 3D printed houses are starting to mushroom. In Mexico’s federal state of Tabasco, a non-profit organisation has built several complete homes using 3D printing. This works with a combination of cement and advanced additives. The mixture is printed from a huge printer that layers the material. Within days, a whole house can be printed.
„Within days, a whole house can be printed.“
Advantages of 3D printing houses seem convincing: the material is very resistant, withstands even extreme climatic conditions and can be manufactured anywhere in the world. Completion of a 3D printed house is possible faster and at a much lower price than a traditional house. Furthermore, the impact on the environment is much lower when 3D printing a home (up to 50 per cent less CO2 emissions compared to a traditional construction process), since construction is quick, almost silent and less resource-intensive. This reduces costs and waste. But perhaps most importantly, printing homes is hailed by some as a solution to housing inequality.
„Printing homes is hailed by some as a solution to housing inequality.“
The hope and expectation is that modern printers will be able to provide affordable, decent housing in poor communities, help the homeless, and enable rapid responses after environmental disasters. In Tabasco, about 50 families with an income of less than 3 USD a day now live in 3D printed houses that are earthquake-proof. The beneficiaries were able to upgrade from the makeshift huts they resided in before, and now have two bedrooms, a living room, and a bathroom in each house. Is this a real possibility also for larger-scale products? Social housing by definition means affordable housing. It is usually rationed in order to award it only to those with a housing need. Typically, it is state or non-profit organisations that provide social housing.
„Technology cannot solve every problem.“
So far, 3D printed homes have mostly been built by private housing developers. The relatively new technology is not yet accessible to the state or to non-profit organisations with low financial strength, which mostly seems due to lacking funds and experiences in this area. At the same time, the built environment alone is not a solution for the quality or liveability of a city. Even if printing social housing for the masses were technically feasible today, the technology cannot solve every problem. For example, factors such as successful public spaces, eco-friendly and people-friendly mobility, short routes, safety and reduced waste in the urban environment are crucial to improving our cities.
„Manufacturing of 3D houses in the hands of local communities.“
Therefore, a successful integration of 3D printing technologies into social housing efforts requires an innovative and holistic approach. The cooperation between local authorities, non-profit organisations and the potential recipients is key in order to work out how the provision of affordable, stable, eco-friendly and adequate housing solutions could work. Grants for entire neighbourhoods that allocate space for public space design are desirable. An interesting approach is that of the fabricationcity that places the manufacturing of 3D houses in the hands of local communities. This kind of a project was launched in 2011 by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms, the Fab Foundation and the Barcelona City Council. The fabrication city starts off by giving local makers access to fabrication labs, where they learn how to 3D print houses.
„We need to foster acceptance for 3D printing.“
In these “incubators”, future entrepreneurs are trained. In addition to their new skills, they also learn how to design for a neighbourhood and are invited to use participatory processes in order to include other residents in the planning process. Ideally, this results in a truly participatory co-creation of housing. To make the fabrication city a reality, we need to foster acceptance for 3D printing. This requires more analysis of the experience of houses and structures that have already been printed. The ambitious dream of printing social housing also requires community education, funding and planning permissions, integrated plans for upgrading urban environments around the social housing projects, and of course the necessary technology and materials at affordable prices. Until it ispossible to make all of these ingredients available, 3D printed social housing on a large scale will be stuck in the printer queue.
LAURA VON PUTTKAMER is an urban development specialist from Germany. She has a Master’s degree in Global Urban Development and Planning from The University of Manchester and currently lives in Mexico City. She blogs for parcitypatory.org.
/
This opinion piece is from topos 114. Read more from that issue on the topic of fringes.
In today’s post-digital age, our economy and society are extremely unstable and small disturbances can lead to serious problems that ultimately endanger the entire system. The coronavirus – defined as a disturbance – is currently showing us how quickly a local epidemic can turn into a pandemic that threatens the future of both the economy and society, and thus our ability to live together. What comes next, and when will it happen? Perhaps a new perspective of the city and the countryside will emerge.
[tttgallery id=“908″]
Our society today is characterised by the fact that it is highly differentiated and specialised at all levels, i.e. the economy, infrastructure, our way of life and leisure. At the same time, a great many activities are broken down into their individual parts, which are often scattered around the globe. These parts have to be held together day after day by a huge movement of goods and people and a vast exchange of data and information. The very high efficiency of this system, which leads to low costs for both producers and consumers but puts a great burden on the environment and the general public, is inextricably linked to fundamental instability. This instability is especially evident in four main areas:
1.) The extreme spatial divisions of labour, combined with just-in-time production (no warehousing), mean that a problem occurring anywhere in the world that disrupts production, traffic and/or the flow of data immediately affects the entire global economy as well as personal leisure time behaviour – problems in a remote region can easily have a global impact.
2.) Our lives and economy are completely dependent on electricity due to technological development and digitalisation – without electricity there is no transfer of information, no jobs and no transport. Small disturbances in the power supply or targeted hacker attacks can quickly paralyse our lives.
3.) In order to increase the efficiency of economic activity and the use of infrastructure, and to minimise costs, numerous reserves (capacity reserves in hospitals and factories, and personnel reserves for emergencies and breakdowns of all kinds) have been done away with in the last 20 years in accordance with neoliberal thinking. As a result, the economy and society are very poorly prepared for any exceptional situations.
4.) The financial sector lives entirely from positive expectations for the future, because the repayment of existing loans depends on the continuation of future economic activity in a positive direction. If this is called into question, however, the loans very quickly become “bad loans” and the financial collapse that accompanies this can easily affect the entire economy.
Small disturbances in any of these areas can quickly lead to serious problems, which in the end can even endanger the entire system. Triggers can be natural disasters, accidents, wars, terrorist attacks, social conflicts, environmental problems, economic crises or pandemics. With the coronavirus, we are currently seeing how quickly a local epidemic can turn into a pandemic that threatens the future of our economy and society.
„It will become necessary to review and modify the four factors of instability.“
It is not yet possible to predict how long this will last. However, everything indicates that it will continue to preoccupy us beyond 2020 and that living together as before corona will not be possible for some time to come. In the long term, this crisis may lead to central elements of our current economic activity and life – extreme specialisations, global divisions of labour, great distances between home and work, mobile recreation – being called into question. In such a situation, it would be reckless to concentrate solely on fighting the coronavirus and then to want to return to “life as usual”. Instead, it will become necessary to review and modify the four factors of instability mentioned above precisely because of their pronounced instability.
„We should rethink the relationship between urban and rural areas.“
What we should also rethink is the relationship between urban and rural areas: In light of the coronavirus, the “progressiveness” of cities, which are very highly specialised and globally networked, is being called into question to some extent, while at the same time the countryside’s previous “backwardness” suddenly appears to be quite positive in a new way. And a rural area that does not function as an extension of the city, but is decentralised and characterised by strong regional economic structures, could become an important factor of stability for cities in times of crisis.
„Perhaps the corona crisis will help put an end to the current lack of appreciation of rural life.“
However, this reassessment of urban and rural must not be allowed to lead to a situation in which the countryside is only seen as positive and cities only as negative – such complete shifts from one extreme to the other have occurred time and again in the past, especially during times of crisis. They do no justice to the reality of the city and the countryside as two different but equally valuable forms of life that complement each other, however. Perhaps the corona crisis will help put an end to the current lack of appreciation of rural life and to ensure that our society also develops a new urban-rural relationship in the search for more stable forms of life.
This opinion piece can be found in topos 111. Get your own copy here.
Climate targets? That was something we were trying to address, wasn’t it? It’s been five years since the world community in Paris committed itself to the 2°C, or better still 1.5°C, target. And yet we are emitting CO2 as if there were no tomorrow. And the carbon clock is ticking louder and louder. Natalie Sauer, a French-British environmental journalist, takes a look at Great Britain, where the next UN climate conference will take place in November 2020 in Glasgow, Scotland. And what is Boris Johnson doing? He shows no sign of embarking on the green revolution that’s needed to show any sort of climate leadership.
[tttgallery id=“823″]
Would you board a plane if the captain told you there was only a 50 per cent chance of surviving?
By the time I submit this article to the editor we will be a mere 7 years, 11 months, 3 days, 23 hours and 9 minutes away from using up the carbon budget to limit global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. That is only around 0.4° more than where we currently find ourselves, a temperature at which a sea of fire has engulfed Australia and killed an estimated one billion animals. Save for the advent of risky, carbondrawing technologies, the greenhouse gases we inject into the atmosphere will linger there and alter the climate for at least 10,000 years. Does any previous crisis in human history compare to the present moment? It’s a rhetorical question, because there are none. And yet the scale of the threat is simply not being addressed by the few people who have the power to force major change.
In November in my own British backyard, Boris Johnson’s newly elected government will host the most important climate summit since Paris. Countries will be expected to hike their national climate targets, as we are currently heading for an increase in warming of 3.4°C by the end of the century. And yet, Johnson shows no sign of embarking on the green revolution that is needed to show climate leadership. Much of the government’s climate boasts are empty talk. Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg remind us that the 2050 net-zero target enshrined into law by the UK provides us with at least a 50 per cent chance of capping warming to 1.5°C – should all state signatories stick to it. As the argument goes, would you board a plane if the captain told you there was only a 50 per cent chance of surviving? Sadly, this government doesn’t appear likely to hit the underwhelming targets it has set itself. It is persisting with the ecocidal project of expanding Heathrow airport and has come under fire from its own climate watchdog, the Committee on Climate Change, for failing to advance any meaningful proposals on home insulation or energy efficiency. Worse, new legislation seeks to water down energy performance standards in building regulations by scrapping what is known as the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard, a move Joe Giddings, the co-founder of the Architects Climate Action Network (ACAN), has called a “massive disappointment”. It’s not as if the Brits hadn’t seen this coming. An investigation by the Desmog blog showed the Conservative Party received £5 million from supporters of climate science denial, with Boris Johnson receiving most of these donations. Along with UKIP, Johnson was the only leader to ignore the country’s preelection climate debate in December. As the Prime Minister now cosies up to Donald Trump in a bid to secure a trade deal, the state looks like it is part of the problem, rather than the solution. So, where does this leave citizens seeking a safe future?
To begin with, we must abandon any illusions that electoral politics, abetted by media conglomerates who are overtly hostile to structural change, will provide the action we need on time. While continuing to pressure central government, it falls to ordinary citizens to bring about a cultural shift in climate consciousness and action at the local level. State and town initiatives in Trump’s America go some way in showing how it can be done, with both California and Hawaii pledging carbon neutrality by 2045. But community alternatives, as Extinction Rebellion has rightly pointed out, must go beyond the illusions of green growth capitalism. The idea that we can consume and produce more than ever before while decreasing our use of resources and decarbonizing through efficiency gains is all but a myth. Architects around the globe have a duty to push for more down-to-earth alternatives. Aside from the imperative of spearheading affordable, low-carbon and climate-resilient homes, I see two other battles for the architects’ community to fight. One is to oppose the rush towards “smart”, automated cities, whose voracious consumption of mineral resources is paving the way to horrors like deep-sea mining. The second battle involves questioning the very concept of urbanisation. By 2050, 75 per cent of the world’s population will be living in cities – up from 50 per cent today, according to research by University College London. Both urban construction and dwelling is associated with carbon emissions, however, with the urban half of the world’s population accounting for 75 per cent of emissions. That trend is increasingly driving global supply chains that are highly exposed to climate shocks. Both of these moves would also begin to adapt communities to climate disasters – or in the case of the UK, floods and food insecurity. The carbon clock is ticking.
NATALIE SAUER is a French-British environmental journalist with an interest in climate politics and environmental health. A former reporter at Climate Home News, her work has also been published in Le Monde Diplomatique, Politico, AFP and The Ecologist. She lives down and out in London and Paris.
The „Opinion“ and other articles can be found in topos 110 – as print version or as e-paper.
How do cities solve critical issues – from security to inclusivity, from urban growth to health, from mobility to climate change? It is the ambition of mayors, influencers, public figures, forward-thinking businessmen and activists that matters. The ambition to drive change and to shape cities for the better. We need city changers on all levels and in all aspects of urban life who really dare to be inconvenient.
40 years ago, scientists started seriously warning about climate change. However, nobody listened, nobody cared and pretty much nothing was done to combat it. So, it seems quite astonishing that it was a passionate 16-year-old Swedish girl who ultimately provided the straw that broke the camel’s back to make this global challenge one of the top priorities of our times. Suddenly it seems obvious not only to millions of teenagers around the globe that we have to make changes. Cities in particular take center stage when it comes to this change: they need to massively reduce emissions, become greener, more inclusive, healthier, and more livable. The only question that remains is how on earth do we get there?
[tttgallery id=“788″]
Do we need stricter regulations, carbon taxes, car-bans, a new economic paradigm? Are we waiting for the convenient salvation through the holy grail – new technological solutions? Or will communities miraculously organize themselves in a different way and suddenly act responsibly towards our planet – just like that? I think the answer is “yes” and “no”.
Let’s face it: We fucked it up. So, it will have to be us – every single human on this planet – who fix it. That means we’ll have to do (many) things differently – and we’ll feel it, especially because we humans are not really too fond of changing our behavior. Because of this, I am convinced that what we need above all is bold and uniting leadership on all levels and in all aspects of (urban) life. We’ll need leadership from mayors as much as we need leadership from businesses, public figures, influencers and from the general public. These will be crucial in both developing a positive vision for our future as well as being role models for how to drive the change.
Dare to enter into inconvenient conversations
It is embarrassing that so many political leaders focus more on their re-election than on critical topics: many fear inconvenient conversations. But without actively starting them, how can cities and societies solve any critical issues like health care, pensions, education or climate change? Leaders must have the courage to enter into such conversations and also reframe the discussions around it. Let’s put it this way: reducing private car use in city centres is not a question for or against cars, but rather about clean air, a higher quality of life and public safety.
Ken Livingston, former Mayor of London, is a great example of a brave leader. He was the driving force behind the well-known congestion charge that affected driving in London. This was implemented mainly as a tool for controlling the growth of traffic in the city’s most congested and most substantially polluted area. Ken was a leader who believed it was the right thing to do for the long-term success of London and its citizens. That’s why he did not get tired of entering such difficult discussions: with citizens, the logistics lobby, taxi drivers, the media, etc. The results were impressive: 30 per cent less cars that entered the zone, fewer traffic jams, 15 per cent lower travelling times with only a minimal effect (-0.5 per cent) on the shops within the zone.
Don’t expect to be loved by everyone
Did you know that in Vienna it’s possible to use public transport for only 1 EUR a day with an annual ticket? Since the municipality reduced prices in 2012 – an initiative led by Maria Vassilakou; Vice Mayor of the Green party – the number of travellers with an annual ticket has almost doubled – from 350,000 to 650,000. That is the bright side of the story – an astonishing success. However, most of the Viennese people won’t remember her for this achievement, but rather for another project: “Mariahilferstrasse”, where she made Europe’s largest shopping street more or less car-free. From then on, she felt like “Vienna’s most hated woman” (quoting her at UFGC18). That must have been difficult to swallow. But Maria had a vision. And she was right in following it, proven by pictures, neighbours and now even by shop owners of Mariahilferstraße.
Start with some easy wins
Erion Veliaj, Mayor of Tirana, knows that his city is probably not one known for the fight for greener and healthier cities. But Erion is on a mission – a mission to make his city a better place to live in. This mission includes a very unusual form of ambassadors – children! He started his revolution with a straightforward but effective method: planting trees for the children’s birthdays. This is a measure that can easily be copied elsewhere by anyone who wants to start making change happen.
Think bigger than your term of office
With his #greenlegacy campaign, Abiy Ahmed, Prime Minister of Ethiopia and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, leads by example when it comes to implementing bold actions for climate change. He has invited the whole country to be a part of it: Planting 350 million trees in 12 hours required massive efforts. For a country that’s stricken by poverty, wars and a long list of other problems, this initiative, involving all citizen groups, public employees, politicians and the police, had a very positive effect on its communities.
Thanks to my work with Europe’s largest event for sustainable cities, I’ve met a large number of urban leaders and change makers. What has struck me the most, however, is that the secret ingredient that sets apart the most visionary, passionate and effective leaders from the rest appear to be not so secret after all, and are certainly no rocket science. That being said, I want to stress that it might seem easier than it probably is. I am extremely thankful to be able to meet all these passionate people who take responsibility for their communities, particularly those who take their people on a journey into a brighter future. Go City Changers!
_
Gerald Babel-Sutter is a passionate changemaker. As the founder and CEO of the URBAN FUTURE global conference (UFGC), he brings together the world’s most passionate mayors, city planners and urban decision-makers. That is how he has gained comprehensive insights into sustainable urbanism, leadership and urban mobility issues. Babel-Sutter completed his studies at Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Montclair State University, NYU, Columbia University and Harvard Business School in the USA.
The UFGC is Europe’s largest event for sustainable cities. In 2020 it will take place in Lisbon from April 1-3. More information here.
_
Two landmarks in the Belgian City of Liege offer a cautionary tale about the superficial nature of future-focused urban development.
Arriving by train to the Belgian city of Liege brings visitors into contact with a remarkable central station, whose steel and glass canopy makes for a truly exciting entry into the city.
[tttgallery id=“574″]
Designed by architect Santiago Calatrava and complete in 2009, the station has been widely praised for its impressive fusion of cutting-edge engineering and sculptural finesse, with no walls and a generally effortless flow from the platform to the station square. It’s a fitting contemporary (high-speed) counterpart to the monumental 19th century stations that defined the first great age of rail, giving the visitor that same sense of awe at the possibilities offered by inter-city train travel.
Amidst all this spectacle, it’s easy to think you’re entering a city that’s fully in the throes of future-focused urban development. Yet beyond the boundaries of the station square another landmark rather obscures this picture: the Église du Sacré-Coeur de Cointe.
You can easily make out the church’s green copper-clad dome from the station square: stood looming on top of the hills that rise steeply above the station’s rear exit, it accompanies a tower that forms part of the city’s Inter-Allied memorial to the First World War.
[tttgallery id=“575″ template=“content-slider“]
„It is derelict“
From this vantage point, the church looks like a proper landmark. So, it comes as a surprise to find that it’s nowhere to be found on the lists of places to see. As you get closer it becomes increasingly clear why: the monument is derelict. On top of that, covering one whole side of the building is a massive mural, painted by Bonom (the Belgian Banksy) featuring dozens of giant doves. For the unprepared, seeing the mural for the first time is quite a shock, a remarkably audacious desecration that invariably prompts questions as to how on earth someone was able to get away with such a daring piece of graffiti.
„The whole sorry saga“
Building of the church began in the late 1920s, but lack of funds meant construction ceased in the mid-1930s before it could be completed. While enough of it was finished for it to be consecrated in 1937, it was still not complete before the Second World War began. Continued lack of funds meant that it was never fully completed. A quick scan of the news articles on the church convey a recent history of successive abortive attempts to find funds to properly complete the building, or at least achieve some closure on the whole sorry saga.
„The fate of Église du Sacré-Coeur de Cointe says something about how superficial urban development can be.“
This is where the mural comes in. In 2014, with the centenary of the beginning of the First World War fast approaching, the church’s concrete cladding began to fall off, exposing the red bricks beneath. Since celebrations were set to occur at the nearby Inter-Allied memorial, the government hastily enlisted Bonom to paint exactly 100 doves on the church, in paint that can be washed off at any time. The temporary fix has now remained there for almost five years.
The fate of Église du Sacré-Coeur de Cointe says something about how superficial urban development can be. Sure, a city can gladly find €300m to build a beautiful, shiny new station, especially if it helps beat a new path toward hi-tech industry. But all the while, just down the road, it can also leave a monumental piece of cultural heritage to rot.
With its weathered, cracked and broken façade, this abandoned church reminds us that Liege, and the wider French-speaking region of Wallonia in which it is situated, have a history as well as a future. Like many other post-industrial towns, this is a history of industrial decline and disinvestment. No amount of development can obscure the deep wound this inflicts upon a city.
In every issue of topos, personalities from the fields of landscape architecture and urban design express their opinions on relevant topics. In topos 104, Kongjian Yu of the Peking University Graduate School of Landscape Architecture comments on the transformation of Chinatowns and calls for more authenticity:
[tttgallery id=“522″ template=“content-slider“]
For the last few centuries, millions of Chinese people have left their villages in costal rural China, having survived dangerous voyage and hardship to pursue better live abroad. Upon landing on their strange – and in many cases, hostile – new environment, they depend on their original family bond, sticking together in the same neighborhood, which helped them to overcome social and economic difficulties. Searching for better living, they were homesick; and so they created the urban village that depicted their home village back China: a gateway, a commons in front of the village, a tea house, etc.
This became a „Chinatown“ – according to the Oxford English Dictionary: „a district of any non-Chinese town, especially a city or seaport, in which the population is predominantly of Chinese origin.“ A stereotype image of a Chinatown is a gateway covered with glazed tiles, with a roofed pavilion in red. This image gave the uprooted Chinese comfort, a sense of belonging, hence – an identity. But this image needs to be changed.
(…)
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean: Destroy the heritage of Chinatown. Protection of historical heritage, and creation of new landscapes, are sides of the same coin. What’s wrong with today’s Chinatowns is that they mimic or distort authentic images of a culture and people who have evolved over time.
The newly built Hing Hay Park in Seattle’s International District, and the Boston Chinatown Park, are trials in creating new images for Chinatowns. In both cases, while traditional Chines gateways and structures are well preserved, the contemporary designs accommodate modern use of public space and address the changes in the district.
How the designs of these two chinatowns work, what needs to change and be preserved, you can read in the full article in topos 104.
Kongjian Yu is the founder of Turenscape (1998), one of the first and largest private architecture, landscape architecture, and urbanism practices in China, with a multi-disciplinary design team of over 500 professionals. He is professor and founder of the College of Architecture and Landscape at Peking University.
