Housing typology - the row house is rather popular, it's very much a British tradition to build row house - terrace houses, they call them. This is from Edinburgh and is a very classical row house development - terrace houses, as they say - most of them are owner-occupied but most were, back in history, built as cooperatives for works. This is London, also a terrace housing and London. Another case in London, smaller, very dense, small units and many of these ones are undergoing gentrification, so the original workers, as they were, 20-25, thirty years ago are being pushed out by middle-class people, upper middle-class people. Very high land prices, housing prices and they're being pushed out and new people are moving in. Then, another typology is a block. You develop a block. In the case of Copenhagen, it was typically four to six stories. It was done in the outskirts of Copenhagen. Actually, this is, as my text say, this is where I was born, up here and I was raised, I lived here until I was 10 years old and this is the typical very early suburban areas of Copenhagen. Very early and it looks the same still. If you go to another part of the world - this is Warsaw, in Poland, this is a rather new development, where they're trying to mix the architecture that had been mixed, but also the heights and then the open spaces. This is not necessarily a block development but more buildings along the roads. Also Warsaw here after the communism left, in the 90s, explosive development took place and this is the center of Warsaw, where offices for multinational companies are rising at enormous pace, absolutely enormous. Urban transformation... unbelievable. This is what we're used to seeing. This Montreal, in North America, Canada. Very typical downtown, with office blocks. And the major problem in such a development is that it's 90% offices. So, at 5-6 o'clock, people leave and it becomes idle and it becomes open for criminality and it is unsafe and it is not very pleasant to walk in here at 22 hours. Montreal is the same as many cities, built by the river, in this case, by the water, for transport, in the old days. It's not in use anymore, so the waterfront here, the riverfronts are undergoing development. Also, still Montreal, we have the downtown here and then here, in the front, we have low-rise and medium-rise block development, which I think it's quite fascinating and rather tense, but not too high. You can still identify yourself and this. Also sporting facilities here, three or four stories high, rather tense but not as dense as somewhere else. This is San Francisco, another city built by the sea, as most of these were, back in history. The harbor front doesn't work anymore, it's not an option anymore. They harborfront is all cafes now, it's only cafes And then you see the kite surfers and the surfers and the sailing ships. You don't see any big ships anymore. But, areas of San Francisco are built in medium rise, 2-4 stories. Historically, they were all in wood. They're not in wood anymore, but creating a quite vibrant and pleasant urban environment. Back in London, there's a huge pressure on central London. London is a hub of the world. I think you can say, there are 3-4 cities in the world, London, New York, Paris maybe, Tokyo and that's it maybe. In Brazil, I'd say Rio, of course, but very few cities are top-top and London is one of them. And then there's a huge pressure and it's only, more or less, what you call, in that language, the listed buildings, that have surviving. Everything else in central London is being demolished. Everything. And this is coming. It's only the listed buildings that are, for heritage, leased. Central London is undergoing major transformations, but you see it all over. This is Santiago, Chile, somehow, the same. You see the mountains here with snow. But somehow, multinationals... Very high rise buildings are coming up. If we go to the Middle East again, This is Iraq and this is somehow - on the image, it may even look like a model - but it's the reality, seen from above. This is a new development. It's very much a long planning paradigm for North America, where we have motorways, there's no public transport here, it's all car dependent, housing here in a kind of gated communities and then high-rise here, also housing and then shopping centers here. This is another shopping center that will come here. Very much North American planning paradigms. If you take another part of the Middle East, this is Palestine. This is traditional low-rise housing, very dense. All user built. No architect involved, no engineers involved. But, what is happening now is that exiled Palestinians that have money, they are investing in Palestine and lots of high-rise buildings are coming. Maybe we can learn a little bit from this. This is actually again, Dagestan. But here, it's somehow a mixture between high-rise developments and medium-rise and low-rise buildings. Of course, you cannot... Socially, this is a totally different situation, but from a planning point of view, I think maybe this is more the way to go forwards. Also, this is maybe a much better example. This is Santiago, Chile, where somehow there's a mixture of development. This is from North Africa, Casablanca. This is an example where modernist buildings, that you could say, they didn't understand the idea of the architecture or they didn't think that it support their way of living - they closed all the balconies and made kitchens in the balconies. And the kitchens were then changed into bedrooms. So it's also a cultural issue. And even in Copenhagen we still somehow continue the modernist in an adapted manner but still the modernist way of thinking, with buildings, only buildings. Shops are not allowed here, small business are not allowed here. I'm not allowed to open my architectural office with two employees, here. It's very much this mono functional way of thinking. This is where you live. You work here. You go for recreation here. Very much the zoning of your life, which was a modernist way of thinking. And it was, of course, a reaction to the polluted cities, from the industrial, the start of the industrial era, two centuries ago. Somehow, we are learning a little bit, maybe, here. We have a local supermarket, supporting a new development here. So, it's not shopping mall all the time, because in principle here, this is a much better idea because actually you can walk down here and buy your two liters of milk, instead of you having to take your car to drive towards a mall. And this is what is being torn down, this is the former industries, that are now being turned into housing. And also here, mixed development. We have low-rises, row houses in here and we have medium-rise and we have high-rises. I think they're a quite nice mixture and on top of this, the metro is just her next door. So, transport is also provided for. In Japan, historically, you have, in my opinion, a very nice mixture of housing, small-scale businesses and shopping facilities. It's all full of small shops here and small-scale businesses. If you need to repair your bike here, you can find a bicycle repair workshop somewhere here and it's rather those scales, 2-3 stories high. However, of course, as development goes along - here you see a case here where all this is disappearing and in 10 years time this will, of course, not be here anymore, everything will go up. So, when land becomes pressured, pressure will build up and developers will come in. The row house in Copenhagen and the bicycle as a mode of transport here. Very new development here, very popular for young families. However, this is the most popular housing typology in Scandinavia: the single family house. This is what architects, normally don't like, but this is a reality. Most young families prefers this kind of housing. And why not? It has advantages in terms of the individual family, that they have a lot of privacy. They can influence their environment, they can plant a garden, they can build a little shed, they can change the interior of the house, they are the managers of their homes. However, the disadvantages: it is very low density, that means that it becomes ever longer to facilities and to provide this... This is what I was just saying, you can influence your environment, you can work your garden, you have your children...you have the power, my home is my castle. This kind of ideology is extremely strong. This is something going on now and this actually proves that this is not sustainable at all. This is the exactly opposite of anything that you would label sustainable urban development. Everything goes against it here, because it will create long distances to everything. But, for the individual family that will build such a house, they will be very happy. But they will not be very happy, because then, every morning, they'll sit in a queue, in the car and it will take them one and a half hour to get to work and it's very costly and the children have to be driven in their cars to the school because the school is very distant. So, there's really a clash here between some ideas on what a home should be like and what does it mean in terms of urbanization and what does it mean in terms of potential sustainable urban development. And this is exactly the same in the case of Maputo. I think the only difference is that plots are much smaller. Plots are only 300 square meters here - they're less than half. And then the final one and then this is it for me. This is another part of the world, this is the most dense city in the world this is Hong Kong city. Some of these blocks here, you may not believe it, but you can check and you can study that for yourself, some of these blocks here have 400,000 people per square kilometre. The most dense part of Copenhagen, it's Frederiksberg, it has 10,000 people per square kilometre. This has 400,000 per square kilometre, parts of it. The most dense parts. Is that desireable? Is that a good urban form? Would I like to live there? Would you like to live there? I don't know, you can discuss it, you can you can study more, you can see. This is another form of urban development, but I think that the range of options that cities can take - and and when you link that to the need to minimize the cost in terms of infrastructure provision then this is, of course, very cheap. It's expensive to build each and every block here, but the tradition per capita here, it's extremely cheap. And if we take the single family housing, it's hundreds of times more expensive. But I think one should balance and again, there's no simple answer to this. This is better than this and this is worse than this and this is even better and this is even worse. I think one has to balance also many cultural issues they're climatic issues, but I think a mixture of everything is maybe, of many different urban forms is maybe what one should try to pursue.
