Urban architecture is commonly divided into brownfields, land with previous (industrial) constructions, and greenfields with none, where there are no constraints except the ones the regulators and clients come up with. The former tend to end up better than the later. I have seen some try to introduce bluefields for water reclamation projects, but after the reclamation is done it is basically greenfield. Bjørvika in Oslo and Eko Atlantic in Lagos (above) are examples of that.
Most Chinese development is greenfield, if there are any previous buildings they are torn down, turning the plot into a greenfield. The same goes for much African and Asian development. Cities in rapid growth are mostly greenfield, where tilled fields are turned into urban areas, while cities in slow growth are mostly brownfield, as buildings slowly accumulate and become more urban. European cities had their greenfield phase by the late industrial revolution (second half of 19th century mostly), while now the brownfield projects predominate.
Nydalen (the New Valley), a light industrial area outside my window, has had both. This had late 19th century industry clustered along the river for energy, turning into much larger plants and steel mills, which when they lost in competition with the districts, were sold to a developer who repackaged it and turned it into a massive profit for himself (about 10,000 years' worth of wages) and a rejuvenation of the district from warehousing to tech, education, and media. Opera Software moved their new HQ there. Me, I cannot complain as this redevelopment has led to my flat being worth at least 1 years more of wages. Anyway, I like the way the 19th century factories have been turned in offices, residential, schools, and entertainment. By Frenzie's first example I guess he thinks likewise.
I couldn't find any good sample of the 19th/21st century architecture I was looking for, from the above angle it might as well be 1899. |
|