The authors introduce the radical origin idea of social utopians of multilevel urbanism, and how it failed due to economic and political reasons. Specific and detailed examples of cities in the US is given for examining the failure of ‘mallification’, which mainly result from the car-centric culture, as well as its threat to the small-scale retail spaces downtown. A system of Manhattan’s access trees, public transit hubs and enclaves is introduced, with a generally successful experience of Hong Kong, where regarding developing the city as a process and responding to changing circumstances.
The master plan made by socialists seems always to fail. Victor Gruen envisioned his mall as a multi-functioned centre for local art and culture, yet who enacted his plans merely focused on the strategies for traffic management. A rational and compulsive urban planning does not help the people as the planners’ intention but destroy natural human relationships. This makes me feel a sense of loss. I agree with Jane Jacobs that human activities contain spontaneity, a kind of interconnection that automatically protect diversity and humanity. I strongly stand with the small-scale urban fabric, questioning the superblocks and megastructures. Chai Wan, where grade-separated pedestrian circulation is applied, remove the street-level retail with transportation hubs and supermalls contained in one megastructure. The place has limited walkability, making me uncomfortable go through those large-scale boxes on the only skyway.
Overall, I don’t really like the idea of the multilevel metropolis, especially when people are not allowed to walk on the ground-level street freely but restricted to the planned pedestrian system. Yet, as the author mentioned, a city’s development is a process, and refinement needs activities step by step.
Li Yueshan 3035663760
You have demonstrated a good understanding of Yoos and James’ text in the introductory summary. The car-centric multi-level approach to city planning can be traced back to the modernists – Hilberseimer’s High Rise City, Le Corbusier’s Radiant City, CIAM (Yoos and James 2016, 3). The statement of “the master plan made by socialists seems always to fail” is a very loaded one which needs a lot more elaboration to support depending on how you define “socialist”. It would not be fair to evaluate the impact of different ideas based on their outcomes of whether it was successful or not. Victor Gruen proposed his mall cities with the intention of having a civic centre where the commercial element was supposedly secondary. It “failed” because this model was later developed into a profitable formula for people to consume by developers. The comparison between Jane Jacobs and Victor Gruen is rather forced as Gruen’s proposal relied on the idea of highways to develop the suburban areas of the US (which is why traffic management is a big part of the scheme), whereas, Jane Jacobs’ argument is based on her observation of NYC, a developed city which is constantly transforming. Having said that, your Jacobs reference on the urban fabric vs. superblocks was very well utilised to emphasise your resentment towards podium-tower typology in Hong Kong. The discussion is very pertinent as the typology itself is very common as an incentive for development as well as a starting point for New Town planning. If you’re interested in the right to walk on the ground-level, I suggest reading Dr Zhu Tao’s article 在地面上行走的權力 which touches upon arguments that you have made in this response.