In the time of globalization, expansion of technologies and explosion of information, society takes different shape. People and cultures mix and the city becomes an universal place. Global society demands the perfect city and the economy requires speed. Old cities preserve their history and their mysteries, while the new city emerges. Living space shrinks, and then “leaks“ to the other parts of our life. In time we refer to everything as “living space“. But, what if that is also compressed over the limit? Do then the whole cities, countries and continents become our personal? Does the city then dematerialise and becomes the very essence of a global, generic society?
The city becomes the information exchange system.
The project is about solving the problems of contemporary cities introducing new city typology which is supposed to serve the habits of the future civilization and instantly adjust tu changes. It’s a city made for entirely globalized society, in a time when every information is within our reach and the world with no more racial, national nor cultural differences. The project itself is an answer to the presumption of a globalized world, and not an idea of globalization itself.
Generic city spreads as a progressive grid originaly from overpopulated cities and eventually meets and becomes one. At it’s knots, large units / mini cities, are positioned. Depending of the climate and natural factors, units produce specific resources and collect different kinds of energy. Since different seasons bring different energy sources, transportation matrix enables units to transport surplus energy and resources between units. That way, every unit produces enough to serve it’s needs, but only when it plugs in the matrix it becomes completely sustainable. City becomes P2P (peer to peer) system.
General info:
Project developed by Milos Zivkovic
2,300 sqm matrix
Units of around 500m cube volume (different scenario = different size, as shown in one of the images)
32,500 people per unit
4,000 people per km2
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
-
- © Milos Zivkovic
I am young into architecture nevertheless this looks awesome!
Relax, it´s not architecture. Just another nice rendered copy of something which has been discussed over and over again…
Please stay young, and don´t think this is expecting you in the future.
Enjoy!
The idea might not be new, a grid that flows from city to city, continent to continent, is what Rem K made for his thesis or what Super Arch, but this is just a thesis and for my humble test it is nice presented and explained. Good work
Nice concept… But, it means, that never can buy plot of land with wild view…
try cyberspace
can find a mate there as well
Generic = boring. Is this really what we want? It’s a 1960′s throwback, it’s not progressive at all. We already have the possibility to distribute surplus energy and resources without ruining the dialog between city and countryside, and abandoning our current city typology, which has developed over several thousand years.
It’s only the lecorbusie’s plan obus city.
Towers, grids and green…
It make people become something no different from ants and bees. I will definitely suicide if living in such kind of place.
+1 warner
this kind of project still scare me a lot…
does the architecte who works on it really imagine living in ?
No, the architecte lives in the ivory tower overlooking the horrible reality he has created!
Globalisation, new energy resources, speed society. There is everything awaiting us in future in this project. And it doesn’t look so bad at all!
Is this how the future looked in the 20th century?
Think small… localisation, trades, skills.
Self sufficiency and typologies that will allow this.
Reduction of output… reduction in births…
sharing caring… spaces that provide both private
and social..and of course the in between…
back to nature… not so much consumption and consuming…
I dont want generic.. id rather have rustic in that sense…
xxx
Is there no reverence for natural space? Some of the best, most majestic spaces in the world are spaces that man has had zero impact. The notion of turning every natural space into some massive grid of “communication” just seems silly. If you wanna live in a huge grid. Move to the United States… We have plenty of them… and then decide if it’s something that’s successful in planning.
I think that this is just an exploration of one of the possible scenarios about what the world/cities might look like in the future, and its something to think about like the author obviously did.
Your renderings and animation are gorgeous, but it shows that you put more thought into the presentation than the actual concept. Generic as a term carries with it negative connotations. If I say something is generic, I’m usually pointing out a lack of thought. Individual typologies for specific places have developed over thousands of years. Our vernacular building traditions are in response to specific weather, climate, and culture, to make a place which in most cases are generally inhospitable for us habitable. You were headed in the right direction by identifying that different power sources would work for different climates, but your individual climatology shouldn’t have stopped there. The buildings themselves respond to our needs, which change drastically from place to place. Perhaps customizable would be a better direction than generic.
DUMB.
old idea, new images. does not work. would love to see someone try to predict the future of teh built world without resorting to numbers, grids and towers in fields…
WOW! This is an old concept, but approach like this is something I really, really appreciate! Remember that this is not a final project, but just a vision supported by research. With further explorations (including people demands etc.) this could be the only possibility for mankind in the future! So I say go on with this! Earth needs people who think this way!
P.S. really like presentation and design!
Urban entropy…
CREEPY!!
Reminds me of Constant’s New Babylon.
http://www.classic.archined.nl/news/9812/Babylon_e.html
“La cite radieuse” strikes again…
Paolo Soleri anyone?
a couple of famous quotes in support of the author:
“The Generic City is the city liberated from the captivity of center, from straitjacket of identity. The Generic City breaks with this destructive cycle of dependency: it is nothing but reflection of present need and present ability. If the city is too small it just expands. If it gets old, it just self-destructs and renews. It is equally exciting – or unexciting – everywhere.”
Rem Koolhaas, SMLXL
“Large centralization of energy or scattered energy. So which is better? This is a very important question. But architect don’t want to answer this question.”
Hiroshi Hara, KM3
“Identity concieved as this form of sharing the past is a loosing proposition: -not only is there- in a a stable model of continuous population expansion – proportionally less and less to share, but history also has an individuos half-life – as it is more abused, it becomes less significant – to the point where it’s diminishing handouts become insulting.”
Rem Koolhaas, SMLXL
“Can an urbanism be developed that enters the third dimension in a time when urbanism is still dominated by zoning – a very two-dimensional approach? Can a city be made that literally creates more public levels, enlarging the capacity of the existing city floor plate?”
Winy Maas, KM3
A great idea- IF plants and animals do not need light to exist!!! Take a closer look at the city-cube design- the residential units have no light, the “forests” are hidden under slabs. Most of the residential and habitated spaces are well inside the deepest, darkest portions of the cube! Imagine a whole city with no fresh air or light! This is just simplistic, absurd nonsense. Sorry to be a hater!
Not sure if I love it or hate it. It’s wonderful but hideous at the same time… Well, I would give it a thumbs up.
superficial green.
Dun tell me the wind turbine and solar panel could be generically applied to the world.
How do you address the issue of locality.
I believe that the proportion of everything was a little off. These cities would probably be very far from each other to the point of not being visible. They cities themselves also seemed a bit shrunken in proportion to the people outside and the trains. I would think the word “generic” would mean that all the cities have to respond to the same problems like natural forces which will have to have some effect on local culture. So different natural forces and different cultures are going to produce different cities.
I like the idea of (intelligently) planned development areas and I think what you produced was a great diagrammatic way to start the conversation of “where are we going to build?” Great presentation style as well! Thanks for sharing this.
To brate SVAKA TI ČAST
SMLXL+km3=Generic City … dont u think? :)
nothing new, but excellent student visual work!
Scott’s got it right. the proportion is way off. that said, interesting visualization of the idea. I’d say less of a grid and more of a web with hierarchy and a more sympathetic response to specific contextual conditions. Uniform distribution is not a great idea, nor is the uniformity of form. The potential of this is in the idea of compact/complete communities with more direct access to the land and resources connected by a super transportation/commuication grid. A great and I would say pereferable alternative to ever-enlarging super cities.
this is already here! Think about Randstad, in NL, Tokaido in JP, think about Switzerland and the extensive and ultimately complex rail system. So i don’t think it is a problem of concept, we had already the idea and it works at a national level, but how we implement it. How can you implement this at a larger, cross border scale – is however another issue.
Sorry, can somebody explain me the main concept of Generic city and examples from Real, from Public Life?
It´s like humans have chained the planet. Literally in straightjacket. I would not be a member of this society.