Innovation in Constructions-Case study-Jayadeva de Silva

Case study for Innovation in Construction

?

Read the case given below?and list the main ideas and lessons that could be derived

2023 already has a flourishing conspiracy theory involving a covert plan to close citizens off in their districts and take away their freedoms. There are, as always, believers and skeptics. The latest controversy revolves around the “15-minute cities” debate, and it’s spreading across social networks and in the media. Still, experts point out that the idea itself is not an entirely new one. Similar projects have been explored by urbanists from different countries during the 20th century, and the concept was used by Soviet architects as well.

15-minute cities scare

The theory itself is actually not scary at all. It was proposed by Carlos Moreno, a professor at Sorbonne University, in 2016. According to Moreno, the large distances of modern cities take too much of people’s time. So, it would be very useful if everyone could obtain everything they need within a 15-minute walk or bike ride.

When officials in England's Oxford decided to implement their version of the concept, things got out of hand. The idea?was ?to install traffic filters – cameras that can read car license plate numbers – to monitor traffic. Those without resident permits or a certain exemption would be fined. The reason behind the initiative, according to authorities, was to facilitate the functioning of the bus network and reduce traffic jams. However, residents didn’t welcome the idea. Some even imagined that the filters would become physical barriers and that locals?would be confined to their districts. The debate became so heated that, according to Oxford City Council, “staff and councillors… have been subjected to abuse.”

Reports about the Oxford plan went viral. The story even reached Canadian author and psychologist Jordan Peterson, who wrote on Twitter,?“The idea that neighborhoods should be walkable is lovely.”?But he added,?“The idea that idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you’re ‘allowed’ to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea.”?Closer to home, British Conservative MP Nick Fletcher, meanwhile,?asked ?the House of Commons to address the “international socialist concept” designed to?“take away personal freedoms.”

For Kirill Puzanov, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Urban and Regional Development in Mosow’s Higher School of Economics University, the outrage of Oxford citizens seems very logical.?“If you take away a car from a driver, they would be protesting, and it would be a typical reaction for any city,”?he told RT.?“There’s nothing new in the 15-minute concept. Something similar always existed, together with the concept of ‘monofunctional districts’ – here we live, there we work, and another one serves for leisure.”

?

A city inside Moscow

In the Soviet Union, such a place for living, including all possible infrastructure, was constructed for the government elites in the center of Moscow. It was an outstanding project of its time, and the plan itself looks astonishing even today. The fate of the project was terrible though – due to political reasons.

In 1918, the Bolshevik government decided to move the capital from Petrograd (currently St. Petersburg) to Moscow. The latter seemed a safer place for the new authorities. So, not only the top officials, but scores of state servicemen had to find a place to live. It is believed that the number of officials in Moscow increased to 281,000 people.

The new capital had been devastated by the revolution. There were not enough available places to house such a huge apparatus. Initially, the government officials lived in the Kremlin itself, as well as in several major Moscow hotels, palaces and mansions. However, it was obvious that people needed apartments to live in permanently. At the same time, the capital needed its hotels for tourists.

In 1927, Soviet authorities decided to construct a special house for the government not far from the Kremlin. The project was developed by Boris Iofan, an Odessa-born architect who had studied in Rome. The construction started in 1928 and though planned for two years it actually lasted four. It also cost four times more money than was initially allocated.

Iofan’s creation was not just an apartment block, it was an autonomous complex featuring a maximum level of comfort. Inhabitants had nothing to care about. All 505 luxury apartments had hot water, central heating and a telephone. They had wooden floors with painted ceilings, and the apartments were already furnished. The complex included a cafe, a grocery store, a laundry, a kindergarten, a barbershop, a sports gym, a library, a medical facility, a hall for concerts and a cinema. By 1932, over 2,700 people inhabited the incredible building. The apartments were designated for top officials, military chiefs, scientists, writers and famous figures.

?

The House of Preliminary Detention

The complex had several official names, but commonly, it’s known as the “House on the Embankment”. Its name is attributed to a book by Soviet writer Yuri Trifonov, who lived there. His father Valentin Trifonov was a Red Army veteran, who played a significant role in the revolution. In 1938, Valentin Trifonov was arrested and executed. His grim fate was shared by hundreds of inhabitants of the House on the Embankment. Some 800 of them became victims of Joseph Stalin’s repressions. The sense of horror surrounding the complex was so strong that locals called it the “House of Preliminary Detention”.

There was a vast number of staff working for the House, including security guards and porters. Agents of the NKVD (the country’s internal security service at the time) utilized these staff members to easily access the apartments and make arrests. The stories of the witnesses have since merged with city legends. The apartments had a special cargo elevator connected directly to the kitchen and it is said that the agents used the elevator to enter apartments and take their victims by surprise. Sometimes it was used to prevent a person from commiting suicide. There’s also a legend about a woman, who refused to open the door to the agents and promised to shoot anyone who would try to break in. It is said that she was permanently walled up inside.

?

Inhabited monument

Since 1997, the House on the Embankment has been considered a historical monument and is protected by the state. Despite the tragic pages in its history, the building remains a symbol of Soviet progress and industrial achievements.

Unfortunately, the history of the building has little to do with the original idea itself, which was to create a comfortable complex with infrastructure. Kirill Puzanov explains,?“Take, for example, the main building of the Moscow State University: It was designed according to the same idea of a comfortable territory equipped with all the possible infrastructure. You can stay inside for years without leaving.”

?

The Moscow State University building – one of the famous ‘Seven Sisters’, or ‘Stalin’s High-rises’ – was aimed to symbolize Soviet quality education with all its achievements. Designed by the aforementioned Boris Iofan and architect Lev Rudnev, it was finished in 1953. Inside, there was everything that a student or a lecturer might have needed: A concert hall, a dining room, lecture halls and scientific units, and a library. Student housing and apartments for academic staff were also built.

Another two of the Seven Sisters were also designed as luxury apartment blocks for scientists, athletes, actors and famous Soviet citizens, and had all the necessary infrastructure on the ground floor.

?

Actually, the idea was not about creating special conditions for the elites – it was about facilitating solutions for Soviet citizens’ everyday problems, who could then better contribute to the construction of a “bright future” for their country. For example, the concept of “scientific cities,” which emerged to support certain research institutions was developed. The city of Obninsk is among them. Launched in 1954, it is where a nuclear power plant was connected to a power grid for the first time in the world. The same idea lies behind Dubna, which was officially inaugurated in 1956 together with the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research.

However, it is important to mention that some of those cities functioned in secrecy. These “closed” cities needed independent infrastructure because it was difficult to move quickly in and out of the city's territory.

?

Several Soviet architects envisioned a future where everyone would live in a district which resembles the current 15-minute city concept. From 1975-1982, such an “experimental” complex emerged in the southern part of Moscow. All the residential buildings were connected with underground roads. The car parks were also underground, with car washes constructed at the entrances. It was intended that the yards would be traffic-free, providing unhindered access for emergency vehicles. Shops and services including a laundry were located on the ground floors, which were all connected. Children could walk to school via huge corridors without needing to go outside. The complex also had a vacuum waste management network.

It was planned that such districts would emerge in different parts of the Soviet capital. Unfortunately, the construction was too complicated, and the idea was scrapped.

?

It’s not a surprise that some ideas, which were completely forgotten in the past, occasionally resurface under different conditions. Recently, Covid-related lockdowns forced people to look around and evaluate the comfort of their living conditions. At the same time, the fear of unexpected movement restrictions is now deeply rooted in people’s minds.

?

The current online panic about 15-minute cities is related to a lack of awareness, says Associate Professor Ivan Mitin, from the HSE’s Faculty of Urban and Regional Development. In the modern world, contradictions are often used by politicians and the media for the sake of their own interests, while digital services are intensively surveilling citizens, he explains. So, people may be frightened by the initiatives, which affect their every-day life and which they don’t quite understand.?

“It’s important to explain that the 15-minute cities concept should not be taken literally,”?Mitin told RT.?“The experience of the cities in Europe and Asia shows that it’s more about an intention to create multifunctional and comfortable city districts. Modern people are always on the run, they hurry home from work and back. They have no time to look closely at the district they live in, they think that there’s nothing interesting there and that entertainment can be found only downtown. The example of modern Moscow is quite demonstrative. It’s important to make people feel the uniqueness of their districts, so it will become their own desire to make the surrounding area as comfortable as possible.”

?

According to his colleague Kirill Puzanov, the only possible danger of the 15-minute cities is that they would become too comfortable.?“In this case, people would prefer to always stay in their district, rarely getting outside,”?he explains.?“So, the big cities will lose their diversity, as they would split into plenty of small ones.”

By?Anastasia Safronova, RT editor

?

?

?

What is the '15-minute city' conspiracy theory?

There are two very different views of the "15-minute city"?idea.

To some, it's an urban planning concept that promotes sustainable and?healthy living.

To a small group of others, it's a plot by "tyrannical bureaucrats" to take our cars and control our lives, which could lead to a real-life Hunger Games scenario.

After outlandish claims about?5G and COVID-19 vaccines, conspiracy theorists are now targeting the world of urban planning, with protests against the 15-minute city concept springing up around the globe.

"I've been doing [urban planning] for a long time, but I've never seen something like this," urbanist and Vancouver's former chief planner Brent Toderian tells?ABC RN's Blueprint For Living .

What is it?

The 15-minute city is an urban planning concept where neighbourhoods provide residents with the basic things they need — shops, schools, parks, leisure options, health care — within a 15-minute radius by foot or bike.

"We used to have 15-minute cities as the norm. They were called good neighbourhoods — where you didn't have to get into a car for everything," Toderian says.

From mid-last century, cities have largely been planned around cars, at the expense of walking and biking, which has often resulted in car dependency and urban sprawl.

The 15-minute city is presented as one possible remedy for this.

?

Traffic congestion has become a big problem in many cities around the world.(ABC News: Andrew O'Connor)

"There are so many public interest reasons to want to do this. It's kind of a no-brainer," Toderian says.

"Your carbon footprint is a lot lower, so it's a powerful climate change mitigation tool … It promotes urban health and thus promotes the actual reduction of public health costs … It promotes individual affordability and household affordability because you don't need to own the second car or maybe even the third car."

Many cities have taken up the idea — or a variation of the idea — in recent years.

"Melbourne was one of the world's originators of the idea of applying time to our neighbourhoods – the amount of time it takes for us to get to the thing that we need or want every day," Toderian points out,?something the city continues to embrace .

The idea has been called many things, like "complete communities", "mixed-use communities", "the city of short distances", the slightly different "20-minute neighbourhood"?or as Toderian, as chief planner of Vancouver, used to call it "the power of nearness".

But the 15-minute city really came to global prominence when Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo made it a big part of her 2020 re-election campaign. For her, pedestrian and cycle-centred design was the future. She was re-elected.

"Cities around the world — mayors, politicians — started talking about this very old, normal concept of why do we have to drive to everything? Why can't we have more choices and more freedom to choose rather than just having only one choice: The car," Toderian says.

?

Over recent years, many cities and towns have been investing in bike paths and improved pedestrian access.?(Reuters:?Gonzalo Fuentes)

So cities started to draw up plans and implement different versions of the 15-minute city concept, with increased bike lanes, pedestrianising areas, cutting down on where cars can go.

As NSW minister Rob Stokes?put it ?last year: "The pandemic has seen demand for walking and cycling infrastructure soar, and outdoor spaces valued more than ever. Our vision for 15-minute neighbourhoods will also improve health and wellbeing outcomes, and ensure local communities thrive."

But then the pushback started.

From 'small lies' to 'big lies'

Much of the?pushback against the 15-minute city concept?is rooted in?fiction rather than fact.

The claims start with the idea that?limiting car use is government overreach and an attack on individual freedom (even though, as Toderian says "ironically, it's providing more choice").

And from there, it gets, well, weird.

?

Anger at the 15-minute city concept has spilled from the internet to protests in several cities

Limiting cars and promoting pedestrian or bike access is framed as a slippery slope to government-run, open-air prisons.

One British TikToker says authorities are planning to "divide up towns, cities etc … and you're going to have to apply for a f**king permit to leave your zone".

Spoiler: Not true.

According to a tweet from controversial Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson: "The idea that neighbourhoods should be walkable is lovely. The idea that idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you're 'allowed' to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea — and, make no mistake, it's part of a well-documented plan."

What "plan"? The 15-minute city concept has also been promoted by the World Economic Forum, leading to claims that?it's part of a global scheme around?centralisation and control.

"The lies range from small lies — like 'they're going to not want you to drive [at all]' — to big lies — literally using terms like 'they want to turn your neighbourhood into a concentration camp' that 'your life is going to be like the Hunger Games, where there's different sectors that you'll be representing',"?Toderian says.

It's even made it into UK parliament, with one MP?calling the idea ?an "international socialist concept" that "will cost us our personal freedom".

Death threats and protests

These sentiments have led to real-life protests.

For example, Edmonton in Canada recently embraced 15-minute city?plans , which, according to the city, "moves us closer to our vision for a more connected, prosperous, healthy and climate-resilient city".

The plan has triggered protests, with organisers incorrectly claiming "you will spend 90 per cent of your life in this 15-minute area as they are monitoring your 'carbon footprint'".

The UK city of?Oxford ?is trying to curb car use ON some roads, enforced by traffic cameras and fines. This triggered protests against so-called "climate lockdowns" and councillors there have received?death threats .

?

A recent protest in Oxford, England against new measures to curb traffic.

One Oxford protest, which attracted?thousands of people , featured a speech by a 12-year-old girl who warned against the "dangers" of the plan.

"[They are] soon to become digital ID facial recognition zones … How dare you steal my childhood and my future, and the future of our children, by enslaving us in your crazy digital surveillance prison."

Planning our towns and cities

Toderian is one of many in the urban planning world who have been fighting back in recent months.

The more he talks about the ongoing reactions to the 15-minute city concept, the more exasperated he gets.

"They know that the more outrageous the lie, the more attention they get … A lie gets a lot more attention than the rational truth," he says.

The biggest casualty may be rational community discussion around the future of towns and cities.

?

?

"I'm not an anti-car guy. I'm an anti-car-dependency guy. We can't keep planning cities and regions where the car is the only choice, because that may seem like freedom to some but it's kind of the opposite. Dependency is never freedom," Toderian says.

"There's always going to be debate in city planning. Always. But there's good faith debate, based on disagreements, and then there's deliberate lies and misinformation.

"If we're going to have real debate, discussion and democracy, and good decision making, truth is a necessity — it's a necessary starting point to make good decisions."

Your Notes