Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

blog.duncangeere.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#21

Post by alwa »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

> Unfortunately, there was still a problem–the city couldn’t overlook the building codes. But Casagrande found a loophole: He declared that since the houses had been handmade, they were a form of art. “The city commissioned me to make a public artwork, and Treasure Hill is the artwork. That’s where [people] live now,” he said. “That’s how they rationalized it.” That ignores the purpose of the building codes even arti…

Sounds like it’s all masonry construction, isn’t that fireproof?

Not to be flip: I too wouldn’t want to live in a society where improvisation were the construction norm. But it’s not clear to me that all code requirements are life- or safety-critical.

It sounds like Treasure Hill was in fact emptied and “renovated” in the course of this “artist village” process [0]. One imagines that such a process may have addressed the life-critical deficiencies even if it couldn’t meet the more nitpicky code requirements that might apply to normal development.

[0] https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/treasure-hill-taipei

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#22

Post by alwa »

akomtu wrote: post #15
abenga wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is the alternative? More sprawl? All global billions living in idyllic farms? On what land?

I think it will be small multi-generational houses. Outside of a few overpopulated cities, most of the land, even in NY, is farmlands or just undeveloped. Living in hives isn't really in human nature.

It sure seems that humans have tried to build and live in such hives for an awfully long time—Wikipedia calls it 7000 BCE [0]. Sure, a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time—but neither is it purely a skyscraper-era phenomenon.

Even to this day, all that undeveloped farmland is dirt cheap compared to the hive life, and yet people vote with their feet and their money for the hive. For a substantial proportion of them, the first step is to exchange the countryside life specifically for this informal/improvised condition of dwelling, just to be close to the hive.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throu...

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#23

Post by bruce511 »

alwa wrote: post #21
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

> Unfortunately, there was still a problem–the city couldn’t overlook the building codes. But Casagrande found a loophole: He declared that since the houses had been handmade, they were a form of art. “The city commissioned me to make a public artwork, and Treasure Hill is the artwork. That’s where [people] live now,” he said. “That’s how they rationalized it.” That ignores the purpose of the building codes even arti…

Sounds like it’s all masonry construction, isn’t that fireproof? Not to be flip: I too wouldn’t want to live in a society where improvisation were the construction norm. But it’s not clear to me that all code requirements are life- or safety-critical. It sounds like Treasure Hill was in fact emptied and “renovated” in the course of this “artist village” process [0]. One imagines that such a process may have addressed…

>> But it’s not clear to me that all code requirements are life- or safety-critical.

It depends somewhat on your definition of "critical. The 50s didn't have seat belts, and clearly most people survived. So "few" died in cars that there was opposition to year introduction.

I was recently in a country where smoke alarms are not "a thing". As is no-one had one, they simply don't exist. Sure there's the odd residential fire , but they're rare - single digits per year. Ladders kill more people than fire, but we sell a ladder to anyone, and you don't need a degree to climb one.

Building regulations are an important way of keeping people safe. They're a stamp of quality to buyers. Unfortunately they also seem to want to cover 100% of all cases all the time. And that final 0.01% is expensive, and time consuming. Which delays, or denies projects. Which results in fewer places to live. Which, dare I suggest, leads to homeless deaths.

Safety standards -are- important. Buildings falling down, or going up in flames, is obviously really bad. But equally not-building-at-all is dangerous. And regulators seem to give very little weight to that when adding another regulation.

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#24

Post by makeitshine »

Taipei has an ugly beauty to it. Individually, the typical concrete, tiled covered buildings, are ugly, but cram them together, throw up some neon lights, a tiny park with a Daoist temple crammed in the mix, add a few street vendors and the bustle of people and its downright charming.

Cities in Japan are much better put together, but I prefer the chaotic, gritty feeling of Taipei, and Treasure Hill is an interesting segment of that.

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#25

Post by lostlogin »

bruce511 wrote: post #23
alwa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it’s all masonry construction, isn’t that fireproof? Not to be flip: I too wouldn’t want to live in a society where improvisation were the construction norm. But it’s not clear to me that all code requirements are life- or safety-critical. It sounds like Treasure Hill was in fact emptied and “renovated” in the course of this “artist village” process [0]. One imagines that such a process may have addressed…

>> But it’s not clear to me that all code requirements are life- or safety-critical. It depends somewhat on your definition of "critical. The 50s didn't have seat belts, and clearly most people survived. So "few" died in cars that there was opposition to year introduction. I was recently in a country where smoke alarms are not "a thing". As is no-one had one, they simply don't exist. Sure there's the odd residential…

Your view is a common one, but the flip side of that is cost.

Ask someone to make a flood, earthquake and fireproof building and they can price it up and decide if they want to proceed.

One maimed human from an accident/incident/event that could have been prevented, and the cost can dwarf the expense of building better.

The Pacific rim is somewhere that is fairly prone to natural disasters. Here in NZ, an earthquake in Christchurch [1] killed 185 people, 115 of them in a single building that didn’t meet the building code. If that building’s defects were known, and it had been classed a work of art, that makes the situation worse in my view.

As others have noted, you can make old buildings safer. Can’t they do that?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Christchurch_earthquake

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#26

Post by bruce511 »

lostlogin wrote: post #25
bruce511 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But it’s not clear to me that all code requirements are life- or safety-critical. It depends somewhat on your definition of "critical. The 50s didn't have seat belts, and clearly most people survived. So "few" died in cars that there was opposition to year introduction. I was recently in a country where smoke alarms are not "a thing". As is no-one had one, they simply don't exist. Sure there's the odd residential…

Your view is a common one, but the flip side of that is cost. Ask someone to make a flood, earthquake and fireproof building and they can price it up and decide if they want to proceed. One maimed human from an accident/incident/event that could have been prevented, and the cost can dwarf the expense of building better. The Pacific rim is somewhere that is fairly prone to natural disasters. Here in NZ, an earthquake…

I suspect we're both arguing the same thing - that some level of regulation is important.

Clearly if you are in an earthquake zone then earthquake protection are high on the list. If you are on a flood plain, then flooding needs to be managed send so on.

Now for my next part, I run the risk of being flippant. That's not my goal. Clearly the building code failed those 115 people, and their loss is 115 families in mourning. But, and I say this with all due contrition, that "only" 185 people died is a measure of regulation success, not failure. One building collapsed, but most survived (at least enough for people to get out safely.)

No doubt that building will be learned from, and there will be efforts to make every building perfectly safe. As you point out some building may be too expensive to rehabilitate.

Should those buildings be demolished? It's easy to count the dead from one gat fell down. It's harder to count the deaths from no-building, or a demolished building.

Obviously in an earthquake zone, earthquake regs are critical. No argument there.

But what about a million small regs that add up to real cost, but offer minimal gains? Each seems, in isolation, to be Important, but their collective protection seems marginal.

Again, it can seem cavalier to say "good enough", when "perfect" saves lives. Its easy to count lives cost with "good enough". It's harder to count lives lost to "perfect".

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#28

Post by maxglute »

makeitshine wrote: post #24

Taipei has an ugly beauty to it. Individually, the typical concrete, tiled covered buildings, are ugly, but cram them together, throw up some neon lights, a tiny park with a Daoist temple crammed in the mix, add a few street vendors and the bustle of people and its downright charming. Cities in Japan are much better put together, but I prefer the chaotic, gritty feeling of Taipei, and Treasure Hill is an interesting…

Taipei a little too grimy more often than not for my taste, takes time for the charm to shine through compared to JP. But it's certainly there. Wouldn't hurt to have their conscripts do a few days of pressure washing if water wasn't so scarce.

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#29

Post by itronitron »

abenga wrote: post #10
akomtu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go even further and say the heresy that "urban living" is not the future, so making it sustainable is like scaling horse-riding to 10 billion riders.

What do you think is the alternative? More sprawl? All global billions living in idyllic farms? On what land?

work from home towns

Re: The city of the future looks like a former military bunker in Taipei (2016)

#30

Post by mantas »

bruce511 wrote: post #26
lostlogin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your view is a common one, but the flip side of that is cost. Ask someone to make a flood, earthquake and fireproof building and they can price it up and decide if they want to proceed. One maimed human from an accident/incident/event that could have been prevented, and the cost can dwarf the expense of building better. The Pacific rim is somewhere that is fairly prone to natural disasters. Here in NZ, an earthquake…

I suspect we're both arguing the same thing - that some level of regulation is important. Clearly if you are in an earthquake zone then earthquake protection are high on the list. If you are on a flood plain, then flooding needs to be managed send so on. Now for my next part, I run the risk of being flippant. That's not my goal. Clearly the building code failed those 115 people, and their loss is 115 families in mour…

If we know the building was not up to code, we already learned those lessons. Didn’t we? The only lesson left is to, maybe, enforce the code?
Post reply on HN