vertical city, venezula by desitecture all images courtesy desitecture
‘vertical city’ by british architecture collective desitecture is a proposal situated on 23 de enero caracas, venezuela – which was originally designed to become a mass housing block for residents to live and work in.
on january 23rd, 1958, when the dictator president jimenez was ousted following a military coup, masses of homeless and lower class citizens flooded into the tower and it has since become known as 23 de enero.
to cope with the threat of eviction, the residents became more organised and networks of exchange and communication formed within the towers which became self contained micro communities.
rooftop gardens
as the area on which the tower is constructed is that of slums, this gives value to previously worthless land. the stakeholders now have the option of either relocating altogether, though this would break up the established sense of community, or to move out of the slums and into the emerging micro economic community of the tower while deriving an income from their share in the land development.
the 180-storey tower appears to be a twisting cantilever, but is in fact a simple structure with only the top cup containing a cantilevered element.
the main support is the vertical and diagonal structural frame containing circulation and services. this system runs through all three cups and within the first forty five storeys, supports the palette shaped overlapping gardens and city farms.
beneath the tower are four levels of vehicular access and parking that covers an expansive area. it incorporates the piled structural legs and the diagonal main composite core, acting as a stabilizing counterweight to the tower. the inner structure of the cups is a diagonal grid into which the wheat sheaf pattern of woven individual units are embedded.
the three cup structure
the three cups are meant to define distinct user groups and activities while remaining connected. they could contain: retail, hotel, apartments; or social housing, local administration and offices etc. the tower encompasses elements of work, leisure, home and a sense of place. access to and from the tower takes many forms such as cable car, helicopter, water taxi car or metro.
bars, cafes and restaurants will flourish in such a climate, taking their cue from the many roof top spaces. the hope is that the tower will become a destination in its own right with 24hr zones of activity.
the diagonal structural frame
the external skin elements of the tower are made of a lightweight composite. precast units contain a hollow structure which has embedded micro turbines. this transforms the skin into a wind energy, generating surface, providing power to augment photovoltaic panel solar collection. within the inner skin, the effect is enhanced as natural convection assists the production of energy.
interior
night view
photos of the present site of 23 de enero
section view
VERTICAL CITIES(2)
Jun 07, 2010PRODUCT LIBRARY
Nov 23, 2020
Nov 22, 2020
Nov 20, 2020
Nov 19, 2020
CD Aug 10, 2010 CD Aug 10, 2010 Guso Aug 09, 2010 Caraqueño Aug 09, 2010 LM Aug 06, 2010 hair_piece Aug 05, 2010 T. Mena Aug 05, 2010 CarlosRaulVillanueva Aug 05, 2010
more commentsEl Parque Central, ubicado en el centro de Caracas es el vivo ejemplo de lo fallido de este concepto. Es abominable realmente, ajeno y foraneo.
Las mismas torres de 23 de enero son otro ejemplo de fallidos inentos de horizontalizar la ciudad, una cuidad con monumentales problemas sociales y de infraestructura
Gentrification, neo-fascist architecture. Out of place and scale. Nothing to do with the contex at all.
I think your 200 pages of research lack a key factor: Chavez is not investing a single dollar in infrastructure projects, and I mean not-a-single-dollar not even for the maintenance of the existing. He’s just giving away the money to poor people via grants and subsidies for food. Venezuela is importing 85% of the food and 95% of other goods it’s consuming. It’s the country with the biggest income in the area -for all the oil exports- and the biggest foreign debt plus the second inflation rate globally. As for a private real state developer, it is not a safe bet, for once constructed the goverment can just expropriate it with low or no compensation at all as it has happened to shopping malls, landowners and other big residential buildings. Ever read about Cuba? just rise a couple notches and you may have an idea, or just come down and take a look for yourself; travel through their cratered roads, falling bridges, collapsing subways and nonexistent railroads. But avoid 23 de Enero, I doubt any foreigner survives the experience. I recommend february to may for this are the months in which power outages and water rationing reach their peak.
Bold concept, tho. Try Dubai next time.
La primera imagen es MENTIRA, vivo en Caracas y no existe un sitio así en esta ciudad señor… esto es un pésimo montaje
Hi Hair_piece
Firstly I think most of your points are valid, and I’m definetly very pleased you’ve taken the time to consider the project and write very accurate and intelligent remarks. I’ll do my best to respond as best that I can!
6 designers/architects worked part time, in our spare time after work, overlapping on the project for a short period of maybe 4 – 6 weeks. Two fully qualfied architects and 3 supporting interior/graphic designers and 1 researcher. I don’t quite know how the project made it to being listed online! And as such there is a huge amount of issues we needed to resolve. For us its been a side project, its not perfect, but its purpose is to generate debate and stimulate thought.
As for being hit quite hard, no not so much. Everyones entitled to an opinion and most opinions expressed herein are very valuable to us. It’s a conceptual project with a controversial outcome and debatable design and structure. If anything I’m glad its sparked debate, and the criticism we’ve received has certainly been very helpful.
The research document gave us a clearer picture of the site, its history, its inhabitants, its reasons for being, and the greater perspective on the political shift in Venezuela with Chavez wishing (either honestly or manipulatively) to invest more in the lower classes. This was mostly applied to the masterplan that proposed improving the condition of the surrounding existing 23 de Enero tower blocks through structural amendments and reconfiguring spatial layouts of each apartment, gentrifiying the barrios through providing economic means for self betterment, and also proposing some areas for urban farming. We looked into previous attempts at clearing the barrios, and why they failed. The politics of Bolivarianism, the history of the site, and cultural aspects of general influenced the masterplan and elements of the tower. I’m reticent to write more about it here when the work not shown communicates it better, but I hope that makes sense.
I think your very correct with the graphical communication side. I think your absolutely right regarding the rendering. But as I said before unfortunately all the diagram and infographics haven’t been uploaded to the site. If we had a chance to re-configure the article I’m sure it would read far better.
The same can be said regarding your comments on the structure. We’ll do our best in the mean time to find a way relay the information via alternative means. I cant answer the question directly myself because I was only involved with the preliminery stage. And I dont wish to masquerade as a structural engineer!
Finally to be absolutely honest, from my personal viewpoint, the comments are far from discouraging. I’m glad to have the chance to defend the project, and most intelligent criticism has been good, we’re not so arrogant as to completely ignore or dismiss the criticism – we appreciate the time and energy invested in reviewing the project (as much as shown in the article) and all feedback will be considered if we have the time to refine the project.
(The assumptions about us as authors of the project being unemployed, or having too much leisure time, are really far from the truth! So we don’t take them very seriously I’m afraid. I wouldn’t object to spending more time gardening however, but only once the incessant tide of negativity begins to slow here. On that note I have a lot of work to get back to!)
Any more questions please let us know!
LM,
I guess you are getting hit pretty hard about this. Perhaps you don’t know why. So, I offer my opinion. I think the big issue here is that you don’t seem to be very particular about the things you state, and the words you use. You are eager to justify a bold design, but don’t seem to have the backup to do so.
For instance I doubt “6 Architects” worked on this. Are they really Architects with licenses? Or are they eager students? I know it’s easy to get a UK licenses, but with this type of naivete and inexperience? That worries me, if it’s true.
You say that you have “200 pages of research”. Good for you, but so what? What was the end result? How has the effort in this research actually helped you? If this was the focus of the project, then why make a building at all? Why not publish a book and infographics instead? To put this out in the world is both an insult to architects/engineers, and possibly an insult to the work you put into the research.
You say that the structure is based on “new emergent structural methods”. What are they? Anyone with a basic knowledge of structures should look at “Section AA” and know that there is a problem. No material known to man could make this happen. A lake bed is too soft, even if the building were made to be stiff enough to resist collapsing, the whole thing would just tip over into the lake. This is not to say that you have a responsibility to solve this thing finitely. But if this is a conceptual project, with a theoretical structure, what was learned? How will this design ever influence the development of future structures? What’s the point if it doesn’t?
And finally, perhaps the types of rendering used are part of the problem. You seem to have made an effort to make them “realistic”…but this is a conceptual project. Do the images convey a feeling of “hey what about this crazy idea”, or “this building could be real”. I think the latter, and that’s a problem. It’s confusing your intent. The graphics Architects produce are as important (and some would say “more”) than the ideas themselves. What good is it to have a great idea if you can’t communicate it to anyone?
Anyway, I’m glad to see you engaging the criticism. There is a lot to be learned here, and I hope that this doesn’t discourage you from doing more work.
Una versión mas “estilizada”, de estética influenciada por la arquitectura revistera de las ultimas décadas. Un concepto viejo, ya implementado en los 70 en la propia caracas, pero a escalas de “la globalización”.
Sin duda que este vistoso proyecto de ambiciones irresponsables, no representa ni en el mas mínimo rincón conceptual, las necesidades urgentes que una ciudad como caracas, desesperadamente, ruega que sean satisfechas.
El sentido común es el menos común de los sentidos.
Six architects took to do this abomination….I wander what can they do on their own?
Please use you unemployment time in much usefull ways…gardening perhaps