Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 184

After the fire at Paris’ Notre-Dame in 2019 and the destruction of the cathedral’s wooden spire, President Macron came forward with an idea: France would host an international design competition and look to replace the lost spire with a “contemporary architectural gesture.”

This precipitated a bunch of bold and “out there” proposals, but ultimately the public wasn’t down with this idea. Polls showed that the majority were in favor of just restoring the 19th century spire designed by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. And so the idea was dropped .

This, of course, is not surprising. For better or for worse, I bet that if you asked a random sampling of people whether they prefer old-looking architecture (technical industry term) or something modern, the majority would likely say they prefer the former.

Of course, in this case, we’re not just talking about any old-looking building. Notre-Dame dates back to the 12th century and is one of the country’s most recognizable symbols. People are naturally going to feel strongly.

But what is perhaps more interesting is that is an instance of history repeating itself. Viollet-le-Duc’s 19th century spire was obviously not Notre-Dame’s original medieval spire. It had replaced a previous one that had, for whatever reason, become unstable over the course of a cool five centuries.

And interestingly enough, the idea of doing something different was also rigorously discussed in the 19th century and the answer, then, was also no :

Viollet-le-Duc himself turned down a proposal to add two new spires atop the towers, arguing that such a monument "would be remarkable but would not be Notre-Dame de Paris”. Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.

Striking the right balance between preservation and progress is always a tricky one. But it’s maybe comforting to know that this struggle has been going on for as long as we’ve been designing structures. And in the case of Notre-Dame de Paris, there’s a long history to look to: just stick to the past.

I'll let all of you be the judge as to whether this was and is the right approach.

Cover photo by Fabio Rogerio Sant Ana on Unsplash

Hong Kong is one of the last cities in the world that still uses bamboo scaffolding for construction. Why? Well, for one thing, it grows very tall, and quickly ( source ):

Bamboo is one of the fastest-growing plants in the world, and in some cases can grow 60cm a day, and eventually 40 metres tall. Bamboo has thick underground roots called rhizomes, which can grow quickly, creating new shoots metres away.

And it's cell-like structure performs very well under compression:

Compared to steel, bamboo is much lighter, six times faster to erect and 12 times faster to dismantle. It’s also a fraction of the cost. Bamboo scaffolding doesn’t require sophisticated machinery or complex tools to erect, just skilled workers with nylon ties. If properly erected, bamboo scaffolding can be stronger than steel and far more flexible. The resulting structure is also easy to modify, if necessary. Bamboo scaffolding can be used for entire structures, or part of them. In Hong Kong it is common to see “bamboo balconies” jutting from the sides of buildings where renovations are being carried out on individual units, many floors up. A bamboo pole can also be cut to fit an awkward space, which is ideal for Hong Kong, where construction spaces can be tight amid the densely packed maze of buildings.

But it's unclear how long this will remain true. Young people aren't learning the trade at the same rate as previous generations. And today, there are only 2,479 registered bamboo scaffolders left in Hong Kong. Assuming you have the nerves, the hardest part of the job is apparently the knot. It can take years to master.

If you're interested in this topic, I recommend you read this article . I found it fascinating.

Images: South China Morning Post

Past research has shown that as cities get larger, people tend to walk faster. The probable explanation for this is that as cities get bigger, they also tend to get wealthier, and so the opportunity cost of not walking fast increases. In other words, people's time is worth more.

Of course, there's something naturally unsettling about this. But it appears to be demonstrably true. Here's another , more recent, study that compares pedestrian behavior in 1979-1980 to 2008-2010 for four urban public spaces in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

What the researchers did was use William Whyte's famous observational work from 1980 and then use computer vision to compare it to 2008-2010. And what they found was that, on average, walking speeds had increased by about 15% and that time spent lingering in these public spaces had basically halved across all locations.

These are pretty dramatic changes that speak to a different, or at least, evolving, urban life. Increasingly, we're all just atoms racing around and trying to get to our next engagement.

Now, part of this can likely be attributed to the greater opportunity cost thing. But another possible explanation might be the advent of the internet and smartphones. Could this be a symptom of our social lives moving away from our streets and being replaced by online platforms?