2009 SOM Prize for Architecture, Design, and Urban Design
Twelve Cities

The city as we know it is increasingly divided between two opposing ideals. On the one hand, we have the meandering expansion of the suburban enclave, forging new territory in search of cheap land and a new beginning. On the other exists a separate ideal: that of the close-knit urban, defined as equally by proximity as the first, though on the opposite end of the spectrum. The second ideal promotes density whereas the first denies it. Within many western countries, the ideal of the suburban has redefined cities dramatically, in direct concert with the automobile, leaving the other ideal by the wayside. Over time, an aversion for the dense, close-knit urban has developed within many western populations that have become accustomed to the suburban. But perhaps there is something to be learned from the second ideal. Through a different lens, we may find new ways to experience the city, changing our preconception of what it is and what it can be.

As such, this proposal is concerned with exploring that second ideal, but in its most evolved form to date: the hyperdense. The hyperdense represents cities that have embraced high¬-density solutions, either due to lack of available space, or cultural predisposition. The research focuses on multiple scales, from the single housing unit to the massive conglomeration of units within the superblock. How does the shrinking of domestic space and its rampant multiplication affect the experience of the city? And does the hyperdense represent a microcosm of the traditional city (with its various amenities) repeated ad infinitum? Or does the scalar shift preempt the traditional in favor of something new?

The research focuses on twelve megacities, exploring how each one deals with massive populations, housing, infrastructure, and public space. The intent is to develop an understanding of the hyperdense by exploring the housing typologies, transportation networks, and cultures that define it. The hyperdense is relative. Its definition shifts between cultures and cities. As such, each city is explored on its own terms, with analysis and mappings developed along the way.

The cities chosen represent huge populations and in most cases, extreme density. As density varies within urban agglomerations, focus was spent on high-density housing and support networks that allow these cities to continue growing.

The cities themselves are all over the globe, which provide for different cultural perspectives and solutions to their increasing populations and needs.

Epilogue

My original intentions for the trip were seemingly simple: visit some of the largest and most densely populated cities to gain an understanding of how people live in them. Over the course of the fellowship, I flew to cities all over the world, each distinctly different from the last, and each with a very different story to tell. I saw the myriad ways in which cities are dealing with their growing populations and in many cases, I was genuinely surprised by the ingenuity and temerity of the people living within these cities, often times in seemingly horrible conditions.

The cities varied dramatically, from climate to infrastructure to housing. The wealth of some cities was evident compared to those with little or no industry. In many cases, the most densely populated cities were also the poorest, sometimes lacking basic infrastructure such as water and electricity. In the poorest areas, the buildings were made from the cheapest materials: brick, concrete, and corrugated aluminum. Many places visited were informal settlements built on city land, routinely razed by the local authorities, and then rebuilt. In other cities, the population lived in high-rise towers enclosed within gates and fences.

Comparison of certain cities showed just how drastically different they were in supporting the needs of the population. Hong Kong and Dhaka were, in many ways, on opposite ends of the spectrum, with the other cities falling somewhere in between. In Hong Kong I found a thoroughly modernized city, from infrastructure to housing to public space. Dhaka, on the other hand, lacked any public transportation networks relying almost solely on automobiles and rickshaws. Housing was largely informal and without planning much like the favelas I found in Brazil. And the notion of public space was almost impossible to find, except around the National Congress.

I cannot claim to know what makes a vibrant city, but over the course of my travels, I visited cities of different means, some certainly more successful than others. The poorest cities I visited seem to represent less diverse ecosystems, and by that, I mean they exhibited less stratification in wealth, transportation, and housing options. In these, the majority of the populations were very poor, whereas a middle class was almost nonexistent. The wealthy were extremely so, especially by the standards of the rest of the country. There were clear distinctions between classes, and in turn, very few classes.

This was evident in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Mumbai, and Dhaka. On the other hand, cities such as Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo, and New York seemed to represent far more complex ecosystems, with wider variations in wealth, transportation, and housing options. In the latter (more complex), high population densities played a role in creating vibrant cities, versus the former (simpler), where high population densities were the effect of increasing poverty levels.

Over the course of my travels, I met many people who were striving to change their lives for the better, when often times it seemed their challenges were insurmountable. But they simply didn’t see it that way. In some of the worst living conditions I had seen on the trip, I found communities of people that remained hopeful because their conditions were constantly improving. This sort of optimism was hard for me to understand before I visited these places, but it remains something I will be hard-pressed to forget.

Thinking of the trip, I find the changes it has had on my thinking are far more personal and subtle than I would have imagined. Traveling alone for an extended period of time forced me to question basic assumptions about myself and my interaction with the world. This is one reason why I think traveling solo was so important to my fellowship. Traveling alone increased my awareness of every facet of what I was doing and thinking, allowing me time to reflect on what I was seeing. There was little choice regarding this, simply because there was no one else to color the experience. I found this to be extremely liberating and empowering. I think it opened my eyes to new ideas, cultures, and cities in a way that traveling with someone else never could. In addition to that, it built a certain comfort in the unexpected, as each day promised new people and new experiences. Some of my fondest memories are those I may have never encountered were it not for the open-ended nature of my travel plans. In this regard, very few things in my life can compare to the experience of this fellowship and how it will affect my life from this point on.