The primary drivers behind the starkly different urban landscapes of China and the United States are not rooted in "deep" cultural preferences, but rather in technical regulations, building codes, and zoning laws,,. While observers often assume architectural styles reflect the heritage or desires of consumers, the sources indicate that the built form of a neighborhood can often be predicted with "algorithmic accuracy" based on the specific regulations governing it,.
Below are the primary drivers identified in the sources that distinguish Chinese high-rise towers from American mid-rise blocks.
1. Direct Sunlight Requirements (China)
The single most significant driver for Chinese residential design is the national building code’s direct sunlight requirement.
- Mandated Hours: Regulations specify that all residential units must receive a certain amount of direct sunlight (usually two hours on the coldest day of the year),.
- Layout Impact: This forces buildings to be south-facing and creates significant gaps between structures to prevent shadows from blocking sunlight for neighbors,.
- Density Limit: Ironically, even though China builds tall, these sunlight laws put an upper limit on density. To go taller, buildings must be spaced further apart, which limits the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to between 2.0 and 4.0,.
2. Building Codes and Staircase Requirements (USA)
In the United States, the prevalence of the "5-over-1" mid-rise block is driven by the International Building Code (IBC),.
- The Two-Staircase Rule: The IBC requires two staircases for any apartment building with more than three floors or four units per floor. This makes small, thin buildings economically impractical, forcing developers to build large, wide blocks to justify the space lost to multiple stairwells,.
- Material Constraints: US codes allow for "Type V" light wood-frame construction, which is 20% to 30% cheaper than the concrete or steel required for high-rises,. This financial incentive drives developers toward five-story wood structures atop a concrete podium,.
3. Land Use and Farmland Preservation (China)
China’s vertical growth is a direct result of the 1987 Land Utilization Plan, which was designed to preserve farmland from urban sprawl.
- Building Up, Not Out: By setting limits on how much farmland can be converted for urban use, the central government effectively made US-style suburban sprawl impossible for anyone but the very wealthy,.
- Fiscal Incentives: Additionally, because Chinese local governments own all the land and rely on selling long-term land leases for 30% to 70% of their annual revenue, they are incentivized to promote high-density developments to balance their budgets.
4. Historical Stigma and New Urbanism (USA)
The American preference for mid-rise blocks is partly a reaction against the failed "tower-in-the-park" experiments of the mid-twentieth century,,.
- Public Housing Failures: High-rise towers (like Cabrini-Green) became associated with poverty, poor maintenance, and security challenges, leading to many being demolished by the 1990s,.
- The New Urbanist Movement: Modern developers use mid-rise designs to escape these negative associations, often styling buildings to look like 19th-century housing to reduce local opposition to density,.
5. Parking and Infrastructure (Both)
The physical footprint of these developments is also dictated by how they accommodate vehicles.
- Texas Doughnuts: In the US, high parking requirements led to the "Texas Doughnut" design, where apartments are wrapped around a central multi-level garage.
- Xiaoqu Parking: In China, while the space between towers was originally designed for sunlight, it is increasingly used to accommodate rising car ownership, with 50 cars now existing for every 100 urban households.
To understand this regulatory influence, think of urban development like a game of Tetris where the rules of the game are different in each country. In the US version, the rules make it cheap to use wooden blocks, but every piece must have two exit paths, forcing players to build wide, sturdy shapes. In the Chinese version, the rules dictate that every block must have a clear "view" of the top of the screen to catch the light, forcing players to build tall, thin towers with plenty of empty space in between.
In the comparison between Chinese and American urban landscapes, the sources describe US urban form as being defined by squat mid-rise blocks rather than the high-rise towers seen in China,. While both styles can achieve similar population densities through a comparable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of roughly 4.0, the physical manifestation of this density in the United States is the result of specific technical regulations and historical reactions rather than a "deep" cultural preference,,.
The following factors define the current state and evolution of US urban form:
1. The Dominance of the "5-over-1"
The quintessential modern American urban building is the 5-over-1, also known as a mid-rise block or a "Texas Doughnut".
- Construction Style: This design typically consists of five floors of light wood-frame construction (Type V) built over a concrete podium (Type I) used for retail or parking.
- Economic Drivers: Wood-frame construction is a major driver because it is 20% to 30% cheaper than the brick or concrete required for taller or more traditional structures.
- The "Texas Doughnut" Variant: In areas with high parking requirements, developers often wrap the apartments around a multi-level central parking garage, creating a "doughnut" shape that hides the garage from the street,.
2. Regulatory Constraints on Shape and Safety
The internal layout of American blocks is dictated largely by the International Building Code (IBC),.
- The Two-Staircase Rule: The IBC mandates two staircases for any apartment building with more than three floors or four units per floor. This requirement makes small, thin buildings economically unfeasible because stairs would consume too much usable space; consequently, US buildings must be large and wide to remain profitable.
- Corridor Design: To maximize space, these buildings use "double-loaded corridors" (apartments on both sides of a central hallway). This often results in units that face only one direction and makes it difficult to design three-bedroom apartments except at the building's corners.
3. Historical Evolution: From Tenements to New Urbanism
The preference for mid-rise blocks is a direct reaction to past American urban experiments.
- The Failure of "Towers-in-the-Park": Between the 1950s and 1970s, the US built high-rise public housing projects like Cabrini-Green,. These were eventually demolished due to high maintenance costs (elevators and landscaping) and security challenges created by the open spaces between buildings,.
- New Urbanism: Modern developers use mid-rise designs to avoid the negative associations of those failed towers. They often use "traditional" styling—such as brick, sloped roofs, and classical columns—to reduce local opposition to density by making new buildings look like 19th-century housing.
4. Comparison with the Chinese "Xiaoqu"
In the larger context, US urban form contrasts sharply with the Chinese xiaoqu (microdistrict).
- Sunlight vs. Ventilation: While Chinese regulations mandate direct sunlight, forcing buildings to be tall, south-facing, and spaced far apart, US codes allow for mechanical ventilation,. This allows American buildings to have windowless bathrooms and kitchens, enabling the dense, blocky footprint that would be illegal under Chinese sunlight laws,.
- Density Limits: Paradoxically, the US mid-rise model can be as dense as the Chinese high-rise model. In China, sunlight requirements limit the FAR of high-rises to between 2.0 and 4.0; in the US, mid-rise blocks typically reach an FAR of 4.0,.
To visualize the difference, imagine two ways of packing a suitcase. The Chinese approach is like packing a few long, thin umbrellas—they take up the full height of the bag but leave large gaps around them. The American approach is like packing thick, folded sweaters—they are shorter and squatter, but they are packed tightly together to fill every available inch of the floor.
Chinese urban form is currently dominated by the xiaoqu (microdistrict), a "tower-in-the-park" model consisting of several high-rise residential buildings clustered on a 15- to 20-acre site. While visually the opposite of the "squat mid-rise blocks" found in the United States, these two forms often share a similar Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of roughly 4.0, meaning they provide comparable density through vastly different spatial configurations.
The following factors define Chinese urban form in the context of the towers-vs.-blocks comparison:
1. The "Xiaoqu" and Historical Evolution
The modern xiaoqu is an evolution of the collective-era danwei (work unit), which was itself based on the Soviet mikrorayon.
- Self-Contained Design: Like the Soviet model, xiaoqus are often gated communities that provide internal services like schools, convenience stores, and gardens.
- Vertical Shift: While earlier danwei neighborhoods were rows of mid-rise buildings, the 1990s saw a shift to high-rises to accommodate rapid urbanization—500 million people moved to Chinese cities between 1980 and 2020.
2. The Direct Sunlight Requirement
The primary determinant of the "tower" shape is the national building code’s direct sunlight requirement, which specifies that residential units must receive a set amount of direct sun (typically two hours on the coldest day of the year).
- Layout Impact: To meet this law, buildings must be south-facing and spaced far apart to prevent shadows from falling on neighboring units. This creates the characteristic "tower-in-the-park" look with significant gaps between structures.
- Density Paradox: Paradoxically, this law puts a ceiling on density. In China, going taller requires moving buildings further apart, which keeps the FAR between 2.0 and 4.0. In contrast, American blocks can be just as dense because they rely on mechanical ventilation and windowless kitchens, allowing buildings to be packed tightly together.
3. Land Use and Economic Drivers
Chinese urban form is heavily influenced by the central government's 1987 Land Utilization Plan, which sought to preserve farmland by mandating that cities "build up" rather than "build out".
- Fiscal Incentives: Because local governments own all land and rely on selling 70-year land leases for 30% to 70% of their annual revenue, they are incentivized to promote high-density high-rises to maximize the value of these leases.
- Infrastructure: Unlike the US, where "5-over-1" blocks often hide parking in central garages (the "Texas Doughnut"), the spaces between Chinese towers, originally intended for sunlight and gardens, are increasingly used for surface parking to accommodate rising car ownership.
4. Informal Exceptions: Urban Villages
A unique secondary form within Chinese cities is the urban village (chengzhongcun).
- Development Style: These occur when cities grow around existing farming villages. Unlike the planned xiaoqu, these are developed informally with "handshake buildings" that are so close together residents can reach across to their neighbors.
- Regulatory Defiance: These villages ignore sunlight laws and can reach an FAR of 8.0 or higher—making them much denser than the official high-rise towers.
5. Materiality and Environment
The sources note that material availability also dictates form. While the US uses wood-frame construction for mid-rises because it is 20-30% cheaper, wood is scarce and expensive in China. This necessitates the use of concrete and steel, which are better suited for the high-rise towers that define the Chinese skyline.
To understand the difference in urban form, imagine a sunflower garden versus a thick forest. The Chinese xiaoqu is like a garden of tall sunflowers: each flower must be spaced far apart and angled precisely toward the sun to survive, leaving gaps of open ground between them. The American urban block is like a dense, shady forest floor: the trees (buildings) are shorter and squatter, but they grow so close together that they form a solid canopy, relying on "artificial" means (mechanical systems) to survive in the shadows.
The sources indicate that while Chinese towers and American blocks may share a similar Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 4.0—meaning they achieve comparable population densities—their physical and functional characteristics are fundamentally different,. These differences are driven by technical codes rather than "deep" cultural preferences,.
1. External Orientation and Sunlight
The most visible difference is how the buildings interact with the sun.
- China (South-Facing Towers): National building codes mandate direct sunlight for every residential unit (typically two hours on a winter day),. This results in south-facing towers spaced far apart to prevent shadows, creating a "tower-in-the-park" landscape,.
- USA (All-Directional Blocks): US codes prioritize mechanical ventilation over natural sunlight,. This allows for "double-loaded corridors" where apartments face every direction, including north, and permits windowless bathrooms and kitchens, which are illegal under Chinese code,.
2. Internal Layout and Circulation
The internal "skeleton" of these buildings is dictated by fire and safety regulations.
- The Two-Staircase Rule (USA): The International Building Code (IBC) requires two staircases for most apartment buildings,. This makes small, thin buildings economically unfeasible, forcing developers to build wide, bulky blocks to spread the cost of the extra stairs across more units,.
- Single-Point Access (China): Chinese high-rises typically use single-point access blocks, where three to four apartments share a single stairwell and elevator,. This layout allows for thinner buildings where every unit can have south-facing rooms.
3. Construction Materials
The choice of material creates a distinct visual and economic profile for each country's urban form.
- Light Wood Frame (USA): Most new American apartments are 5-over-1s, featuring five floors of light wood-frame construction over a concrete podium,. Wood is used because it is 20% to 30% cheaper than concrete or brick,.
- Concrete and Steel (China): Because wood is scarce and expensive in China, developers use concrete and steel,. These materials are better suited for the high-rise towers required to meet the government’s goals of preserving farmland,.
4. Integration of Parking and Amenities
How these developments handle cars and community space defines the "shape" of the neighborhood.
- Texas Doughnuts (USA): To meet high parking requirements, American developers often create "Texas Doughnuts," where apartments are wrapped around a central multi-level parking garage,.
- Gated Microdistricts (China): Chinese towers are organized into xiaoqus (gated microdistricts) of 15 to 20 acres,. These must include 30% green space by law, and while they were originally designed for gardens, the spaces between towers are now increasingly used for surface parking,.
5. Historical Context and Public Perception
- Tower Stigma: In the US, high-rise "towers-in-the-park" are associated with the failed public housing projects of the mid-20th century, many of which were demolished due to high maintenance costs and security issues,.
- High-Rise Prestige: In contrast, Chinese residents often prefer higher floors because they offer better ventilation, privacy, and views, and are further removed from the smells of ground-floor trash bins,.
To visualize these differences, imagine two different styles of bookshelves. The American block is like a heavy, wide dresser: it's short and sturdy, but it's packed completely full from front to back, relying on internal lights to see what's inside. The Chinese tower is like a series of tall, thin ladders standing apart from one another: they reach much higher, but they must be spaced out so that the light from a single window can reach every rung.
The "tower-in-the-park" design—characterized by tall, freestanding residential structures surrounded by large windows and spacious yards—was abandoned in the United States due to a combination of prohibitive maintenance costs, security failures, and a shift in urban planning philosophy.
According to the sources, several specific factors led to the decline of this model:
- High Maintenance Costs: Unlike older tenements or row houses that filled an entire lot, towers required significant upkeep for their surrounding grounds, such as mowing grass in the summer and shoveling paths in the winter. Additionally, while low-rise buildings relied on stairs, towers required elevators, which introduced ongoing mechanical expenses.
- Chronic Underfunding: These maintenance demands were particularly problematic for government-funded public housing projects, which were the primary adopters of this design between the 1950s and 1970s. These projects were often underfunded, leading to the rapid deterioration of the buildings and their grounds.
- Security Challenges: The open, spacious yards that were a hallmark of the design became a liability because anyone could enter them from the street, making them difficult to secure and monitor.
- Social Stigma and Demolition: By the 1970s, the design had fallen out of favor. Many prominent examples, such as Cabrini-Green in Chicago, became associated with poverty and crime and were eventually demolished in the 1990s to be replaced with lower-rise structures.
- The Rise of New Urbanism: In the late 20th century, the "New Urbanist" movement sought to make cities desirable again by moving away from the "negative associations" of Modernist towers. This movement advocated for mid-rise housing (like the "5-over-1") that feels more traditional and integrates better with existing streetscapes.
- Regulatory Changes: Modern US building codes, such as the International Building Code (IBC), now mandate two staircases for buildings over a certain size, which makes the thin, single-point access towers common in the "tower-in-the-park" model economically impractical compared to large, wide mid-rise blocks.
To understand why this model failed in the US while thriving in China, think of the "tower-in-the-park" as a high-maintenance luxury car given to someone who cannot afford the oil changes. While the design offered "fresh air and light," the underlying costs of its specialized features—elevators and sprawling grounds—eventually caused the entire system to break down when the budget for "repairs" disappeared.
No comments:
Post a Comment