London, England

London, England
Population of Metro Area: 13,945,000Population of City Proper:7,556,900Year Founded: 43

London is obviously one of those cities I have dreamed of going for a very long time and remarkably, it did not dissapoint. For a person like myself who loves older architecture, particuraly 18th and 19th centuary, there is certainly plenty of it. While the central city is in many ways smaller than I expected, the city is built to a scale I haven't seen since Tokyo and as such I was able to visit mostly only the touristy parts of town. Unfortunately this means I have little useful information on how the city actually functions in terms of day to day city life.
I will say this though, the Underground system works amazingly, the city is very walkable and pedestrian friendly, and the street scapes are absolutely beautiful. The city is also cheaper than I expected. Especially coming from Dublin and considering the pound is stronger than the Euro, I was surprised to find that you can still get a double cheeseburger for around $1.50 USD and a beer in a pub runs about $4.50 USD. I was a little surprised to find all of the romanticised red telephone boxes plastered with numbers and photos of escort services and late night talk lines, but I guess everything is not to be as expected.
London is now the third place in a row I have visited the uses only double decker buses, and I will say that they make so much more sense than the double length trailer style buses you see in the states. The view up top is amazing, and they don't clog the road any more than a regular bus but still offer double the capacity. The only downside is that all of your photo's end up with the top half of a bus in them.
What I never realized about London is that it is actually divided into the city of Westminster and the city of London. The city of Westminster is the historical and cultural heart of the city while the city of London serves as the financial and business center of the city. I think this relationship and segregation of these two cities and functions is perhaps one of the most interesting planning schemes I have seen and it solves for a sense, in London at least, the inherent conflict in how old meets new. Here the solution is clear, the old stays with the old in Westminster, and the new is allowed to come out of the old as it pleases in the city of London. I think this solution works ok in this case as the city has the space more importantly, the population for it and it has the benefit of two millennia of cultural development to uphold and preserve.
It is clear though that this idea of old vs. new is very controversial and a constant argument with in the city. This morning I read an article in the Daily Mail title "How Modernist destroyed our cities." I was surprised to see this argument in a sense, usually I'm the only one who seems to think this way, but the article covered a dispute between Richard Rodgers and the Prince of Wales. Rodgers, the award winning architect of the pompidou in Paris and the wave formed airport in Madrid, is disputing the rejection of his plans for a development on the site of the historic barracks in Chelsea. His designs were approved but upon the influence of the Prince of Wales his designs were scrapped for a more historically sensitive design. Apparently his design was approved only by the developer and the community was appalled by the historically insensitive glass and steel proposal. Rodgers called the princes interference unconstitutional and vows to fight the decision. Where the article really begins to become interesting and perhaps loose credit is in the personal bias of the writer. He spends perhaps 4 paragraphs discrediting rodgers as rich and arrogant, then going on to describe how ugly modern architecture is. My favorite description was the comparison of "glass Detroit-like towers." Haha, while clearly this person has never been to Detroit, the city still carries an awful reputation even in England. Sorry Detroit. Then, hilariously, the author goes on to discredit modern architecture as being invented by the Nazi's and communists. Clearly, everything that is said is not to be taken seriously, but some really important observations I have, were voiced very strongly by the media. That observation is that the general public prefers the texture of stone and carved ornament to the clean and sleek modernist designs. As an architect I think it's easy to get lost in design ideals and theory and forget about what the people want. As designers we see our job as to design what people don't know they want, and convince them to our agenda. But maybe were doing them a disservice, maybe they already know what they want. Of course you would argue that profession wouldn't progress and you could design out of a catalog, but maybe that's not the worst thing, or maybe it is, I'm not sure yet. What I am sure of though, and the article noted this too, is that traditional carved ornament type buildings are extremely easy to copy and reproduce. In a way this is why they work so well. It is possible to have a whole block of the same exact building, but through paint, different stones or brick,and different windows or carved ornament it is possible to make every single building look different. Modernist architecture on the other hand, while undeniably powerful when perfected, leaves little room for error, and imperfections stand out like a sore thumb. Also the style leaves little room for interpretation or variation. Stark white and concrete walls make for a very dull city scape. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that only a very small percentage of buildings can actually have the time and care allocated to them to make well designed buildings. To have a good looking city, I believe a so called "style" (I know architects hate that word) needs to be in place to allow building that look decent to be built efficiently and cheaply. So in the end of this rambling my thought for the day is traditional buildings are easy to copy and make look good, modernist buildings are very difficult to copy and often look really bad.
Sorry guys that was a tangent, but I think it's in line with the challenges of not only London, but all European Cities. London though, while there is so much I did not get to see, of what I did see, the city is truly amazing. It functions at a very high level and has the cultural destinations of first class city. I think most anyone would want to live in London, I'm just not sure too many can pay the rent.

Dublin, Ireland

Dublin
Population: City: 505,739 Metro: 1,661,185
Founded: 841

Dublin as expected was quite a change from Hong Kong. As my first European city it was sort of both exactly as I expected and yet somewhat suprising. One thing I was suprised about is how small the city actually is. It's possible to walk from one side to the other in about 30 minutes. Being my first European city I have a feeling some of my initial observations will become reocurring themes, but it will be interesting to see how each city responds to these issues.

I guess before I get to the issues I ought to say that Dublin is an amazing city. It's vibrant, the buildings are all well maintained, the entire city is walkable, and infact not only would it be difficult to drive, many streets are pedestrian friendly which I think is a great idea. The city is beautiful, streets lined with ornate stone buildings and authentic pubs and restaurants. There is also a number of public parks and it is very obvious that this is a city built for the human scale.

However dispite this it doesn't feel like a city to me, but more of a neighborhood. It's funny because I have come to realize that I like urban neighborhoods better than downtown areas, however it does seem strange to me to not have much of a cbd, in the sense that I am used to. This to me sort of creates the problem that tokyo has on a much smaller scale and that is that there is no obvious city center. \i guess there is no reason why you need one, I just feel like somethings missing when it's not there. Dublin has tried to solve this problem by putting a tall thin metal spire in its central square. I actually like this alot for a variety of reasons. First I think it does help to sort of place a mark on where the city center really is. Also its modern and interesting, but it doesn't detract from the cities historic qualities or stand out too much. The reason I like it the most though is as a landmark for way finding. In a city of constant cornice heights, no street signs, and a mideval street network, it's hard to really have much sense of direction. The spire does however, provide some point of refernece, so atleast you can always find your way back to the city center.

One part of the city that really bothered me was trinity college. The long room of the library that you always see was amazing, but they wouldnt let you take pictures. I feel like after you pay to see something, you should be able to take pictures.. but what really got me about the college was that it had pristine grass lawns and quads, but they were fenced off and had signs not to use them. Whats the point in green space if it can't be used. The college was also walled off from the rest of the city, which i imagine is more historical than anything, but I really just felf like the college was turning its back on the city.

Dublin does have a light rail system, but it seems fairly limited. The buses are efficient and run often, but are confusing to use.

What I found most interesting about the city, perhaps because it was one of the themes of my immersion library, but never the less I think it's a question with out an answer and that is how does old meet new. With all of these amazing old buildings, how do you incorporate growth and development. I think its clear that the city has zoning laws in place to keep skyscrapers out and also to make new buildings use similar materials. A number of new buildings were clearly modern representations of the neighboring historic facades. While I love the way the older buildings form a streetscape, I have begun to realize that you cannot simply hold on to the past in fear of screwing it up. The world is changing and a viable city needs to be able to as well. The question is though, how will european cities respond to their rich traditions. This is one of those questions with no answer, but personally I think it lies in the massine. If a building is massed the same as those around it, atleast it contributes to the streetscape. A problem though might arise when a form is flawed or no longer viable. This issue will be one which I watch very closely as I travel europe and hopefully I will find some good solutions.

In closing, dublin is an amazing city, but its not very big. Also all of the parts are very similar, so I wonder how long it would be able to hold your interest. At any rate it's hard too find too much fault in much more than the rediculous prices and the city is well worth the visit.

Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Population: 7,008,000
Founded: 1842

hong kong was the city I had looked forward to visiting the most. Perhaps I had expectations that were impossible to fulfill, but my first impression of the city has been hard to shake. However the more time I spent in the city I began to see past my preconceptions to find a city that is full of character and charm. Hong Kong is built on probably the most beautiful natural landscape I have ever seen. As such the scenery complements the cities amazing skyline perfectly and is without a doubt, one of the most impressive skylines in the world. However while the city is a beautiful sight to see from afar, its a much different city up close. Behind the glamor of designer stores like louis vutton and prada lies a city struggleing to survive. This seems to be a theme amoung developing asian cities but there is a very real distinction here between those who have and those who have not. The residential areas of the city seem to be comprised of 10 - 15 story 1950's and 60's era concrete housing projects. These buildings are seemingly all in disrepair and covered in grime. The hostel I am staying in is in a building like this. But to my suprise I began to realize that not only was the building completely safe, the buildings residents seemed to be middle class and definately not impoverished.

What is perhaps most interesting to me is how abruptly sections of the city change. These run down residential areas give way to top design mega malls, or else abruptly stop in favor of highway developments. It's also amazing to consider how polluted and overcrowded the city feels in contrast to the fact that some absurd percentage of the city is undeveloped and natural. I really wonder what kind of zoning laws are present in the city and how they are enforced. Not only is the surrounding countryside preserved but a density is maintained, even in the suburbs, by having high-rise housing complexes almost exclusively.

Hong Kong is not the most walkable city. Often sidewalks dissapear and many times the only way to cross a street is by using a skywalk or subway platform. In the financial district the skywalk system is so expansive that it is the preferred means of travel and in most cases it is actually impossible to walk on the street. In a way the system works because it forces people into buildings and malls past a constant barrage of stores. The subway stations do this as well, almost every mall is linked to the subway station so if you want to use public transportation, you have to enter the mall. However I think it's never a good idea to remove street life, it takes away the cities personal character and charm. Also a system of pedestrian access dependent upon skywalks is not only difficult to navigate, it is inflexible and expensive. The system is nice though when it rains, and by experience, it seems to rain alot in hong kong. Again though with the segrigation of different parts of the city, the skywalk seems to clearly direct visitors away from the living areas and local residents, to the office towers and shopping malls.

Hong Kong is the first city I have ever been to where smog and exhaust fumes are such a noticible problem. During the day the cities street smell of exhaust and garbage. In a number of ways its hard to catch your breath possibly. Also smog is such an issue during the day that it was difficult for me to take a picture of the cities skyline from across the harbor. The city looked like it was behind fog.

Hong Kong like most other asian cities feels very privatized. I think in part it is due to pace in which the city is being developed. I was amazed to see in a book the difference between the cities skyline in 1970 and today, almost none of the taller skyscrapers were built yet. It's absurd to see all of the development that has happened since the 70's and it really seems as if almost all of it until recently were private developments. Private developments are good in a sense because they get done quickly and efficiently, but the public doesn't have a whole lot of say in what is being built. Like Kuala Lumpur, most of the buisness districts of Hong Kong feel like they were built for the international buisness men as opposed the cities actual residents. However it does seem as if there is beginning to be some change. A massive waterfront park scheme is presently under construction and there was also a competition held to design an asthetically pleasing answer to highway sound dampening panels.

The topography of hong kong is more extreme than any city I have seen, even more extreme than san francisco. The city isn't built on a hill side, but rather a mountain side. The twisting turning roads that lead up the mountian away from the city are so steep that nearly everyside walk is instead a stair case. I walked, or hiked more acurately, up to the peak from the city and the pathways were so steep in places that i was actually afraid of sliping in places on my way down. I'm not sure what this city does if it snows, but I can't imagine that any of the hilly roads would be passible. Topography in my mind is one of the things that makes a city most interesting, and though I didn't find them until my last day, there are some amazing neighborhoods build seemingly on cliffs. Its also interesting to see some of the drainage systems built to accomidate such dramatic hardscape. I'm not sure if the systems work, but I'd be really impressed if they did, it doesn't just rain in Hong Kong, it poors.

Hong Kong like tokyo is definately a city that looks better after dark. The smog lifts and the city is bathed in dazeling lights. Every night a lazer light show takes place over victoria harbor and a number of the cities prominent buildings participate. In the residential areas the decrpit buildings escape your view as you are blinded by flashing neon advertisments and the streets are packed with people. Hong Kong is a city that seems like it gets a late start. Most stores don't open till after 11 and in the morning the city feels sort of dead and like it's still waking up. At night though all of the stores stay open and the streets are always packed.

Dispite the decrepit appearence of a number of the cities buildings, the streets all seem relatively safe. I think that because all of the buildings are fully occupied, there's always enough people that petty crime and stuff is kept to a minimum.

In the end, while at first I was dissapointed with the city, by the time I left it became one of my favorite places I have traveled too so far. To me, the sort of chaoticness juxtaposed against the very ordered and layered skyline make such an interesting city. The natural scenery is unlike any other and the cities topography creates amazing spaces and views. While Tokyo might seem to me to be a better city to be in, the fact that it has no view, no waterfront area where you can sort of take it all in at once, make it have less lasting appeal. I could sit and look at victoria harbor all day long, and for that Hong Kong has something thats hard to create, and creates a great lasting impression.

Angkor Wat, Siem Reap, Cambodia

Siem Reap, Cambodia
Population of Metropolitan Area: 139,458
Year Founded: 1907

I haven’t spent any time in the city yet other than the drive in from the airport but so far I have been really impressed with how nice the city is. The roads are well paved and new sidewalks and businesses line atleast the one street I’ve seen so far. Everything is well signed and the road to Angkor is wide and easy to navigate.

Angkor Wat:

Someday I’d like to put some of the history of the complex in here, that sounds like a lot to look up though. In the mean time just assume what ever you have learned from Tomb Raider, it seems to align pretty well with my experience here so far…. And here’s some pics.