Megaproject

Arch Daily Mixed

Air Rights Explained: Balancing Private Gain With Public GoodAir rights transactions have become essential in urban development, allowing cities to grow vertically while preserving limited land resources. Typically defined as the right to use or sell the space above a property, air rights enable property owners to transfer unused floor area ratio (FAR) to neighboring parcels, creating increased density and financial gain opportunities. As urban centers face mounting pressures from limited land supply and population growth, air rights continue to offer a creative solution that fosters architectural innovation and economic efficiency. + 9 Air rights transactions have produced numerous success stories, showcasing their potential to create mutually beneficial outcomes. For example, a more low-profile and minor-scale development case, Japan's Club Kansai, established in 1948 to promote interpersonal connections, needed funds to renovate, maintain, and invest in its historic premises. By selling air rights to a neighboring developer, the club financed its preservation while the developer gained the ability to build higher on adjacent land. This transaction exemplifies how air rights can often promise a win-win scenario, at least economically, to both parties. This occasionally, such as in Club Kansai's case, also helps safeguard heritage and spur vertical development. Similarly, Boston's Prudential Center (1965) and Copley Place (1983) demonstrated the transformative power of air rights deals. These projects utilized air rights to build above active highways, overcoming significant engineering, financial, and logistical challenges to redefine the city's urban fabric. Such developments highlight how air rights can maximize land use, preserve cultural landmarks, and enable innovative architectural solutions, positioning them as a valuable urban development strategy worldwide. In recent years, air rights development has resurged outside of New York City. Projects like the Fenway Center and Parcel 12 in Boston epitomize the renewed interest in leveraging air rights to activate dormant spaces. The Fenway Center, a planned development over an active rail yard, envisions a blend of residential, office, and laboratory spaces. Similarly, Parcel 12 aims to create a mixed-use hub above the Massachusetts Turnpike, incorporating residential, commercial, and public areas. These projects highlight the transformative potential of air rights in addressing urban challenges. By enabling large-scale developments in city centers, such initiatives may enhance connectivity, stimulate economic growth, and repurpose underutilized "air" into vibrant, multifunctional urban spaces. Globally, Japan provides another compelling example of air-rights innovation, with its plan to relocate the highway overshadowing the Nihonbashi River. This ambitious project echoes the success of Tokyo Station's renovation, which was financed through a ¥50 billion air-rights transaction. Such initiatives illustrate how air rights sales can fund infrastructure upgrades, revitalize historic landmarks, and reimagine urban spaces for modern needs. Despite their potential, air rights transactions are challenging. One primary concern is the risk of over-densifying urban areas. In traditional development scenarios, independent owners' financial and physical constraints naturally limit how much FAR is utilized. It is unlikely that every plot of land and their respective owners will always be able to develop 100% to the plot's maximum. However, air rights transfers disrupt this balance, allowing developers to exceed previously established density thresholds. This intensification can strain infrastructure, reduce access to natural light, and alter the character of neighborhoods. While air-rights deals often appear mutually beneficial—smaller entities monetize unused development potential while more prominent players gain FAR to expand—this dynamic can exacerbate urban inequities. With their extensive resources, large developers dominate the air rights market, using these transactions to consolidate control over cityscapes. Meanwhile, smaller entities, though enriched in the short term, often relinquish influence over their neighborhoods, becoming increasingly marginalized as the urban fabric evolves. This trend raises pressing questions about urban vitality. Does building to the legal maximum foster livable communities, or does it diminish them? High-rise clusters, as seen in parts of Tokyo and New York, can reduce street-level engagement, creating environments prioritizing verticality over human scale. Furthermore, regulatory frameworks often focus narrowly on the immediate impact of air-rights transfers on neighboring plots, neglecting broader implications for environmental health, the community's walkability perspective, and the aesthetic cohesion or skyline impact of entire districts. When thoughtfully managed, air rights transfers offer immense potential as a financial tool and a catalyst for visionary development. By unlocking unused FAR, air rights enable projects that transcend conventional constraints, allowing for unique architectural achievements and enhanced urban functionality. Notable examples include New York City's projects like Hudson Yards and One57, which demonstrate how air-rights deals can facilitate ambitious vertical developments that redefine skylines and urban experiences. Hong Kong's West Kowloon Corridor, where a highway seamlessly intersects with the Yau Ma Tei Car Park Building, also exemplifies the potential for architectural innovation inspired by the concept of air rights. Despite their controversies, these projects showcase the transformative possibilities of treating air as an "invisible land." Moreover, air rights encourage architectural experimentation, fostering visually striking and structurally ambitious designs. Herzog & de Meuron's 56 Leonard Street, made possible by a $150 million air-rights purchase from New York Law School, exemplifies how these transactions can enable groundbreaking creativity while generating financial returns. Air itself has been described as a commodity—air above a plot of land can be privately owned and sold, often without considering its broader implications for the public realm. This approach risks prioritizing short-term financial gains over long-term urban sustainability. To continue the discussion, greater transparency and inclusivity in the air-rights approval and transaction process may be helpful. Incorporating public dialogue and community input—similar to neighborhood planning board discussions—can ensure that air rights transactions serve collective urban needs rather than private interests. Should unbuilt air be regarded solely as a private commodity, or should it be recognized as a commodity carrying a broader responsibility to the community? The challenge lies in balancing innovation with equity. By embedding principles of social responsibility and urban inclusivity into air-rights agreements, cities can mitigate the risks associated with this mechanism while harnessing its benefits. To fully realize the benefits and potential of air rights transactions and developments, cities must incorporate social and urban responsibility into their planning frameworks. One effective strategy is to mandate development clauses prioritizing community engagement and emphasizing street-level connectivity. Such clauses are not without precedent; examples include the requirement for publicly accessible private spaces or New York's Gowanus Neighborhood redevelopment, where each plot owner is mandated to create a waterfront promenade. By implementing these measures, cities, and communities can mitigate the "mall-like" syndrome risk, where sprawling developments prioritize automobiles and inward-facing designs at the expense of dynamic and engaging public spaces. Such guidelines ensure that air-rights projects do not become oversized, overly gentrified, or disconnected from their surrounding communities. Instead, these developments can serve as models for equitable growth, preserving the economic incentives of air-rights transfers while fostering inclusive, human-centered urban environments.

mixed-use

Nov 25, 2024

Arch Daily Mixed

An Urban Living Machine For The Common Good: Municipal Services Buildings In Hong KongIn Delirious New York, Rem Koolhaas vividly discusses the Downtown Athletic Club, a striking example of how an unassuming building exterior can conceal a vibrant mix of distinct, self-contained programs. Inside the uniform facade of this skyscraper, a private athletic club hosts an eclectic range of facilities—boxing gyms next to oyster bars and interior golf ranges below swimming pools—all segregated yet highly accessible. The Downtown Athletic Club epitomized the dynamism of New York's skyscrapers at the time, showcasing the thrill of capitalism through a selective, inward-focused world of leisure and privilege for the selected. This "machine of programs" operated independently of the external city as an isolated ecosystem within its walls. Yet, one might ask: could a similar model, designed for public use, create a more inclusive, lively community and neighborhood experience? This will activate the building within, instead of only serving the selected elites, and influence and transform the urban fabric and shapes around the building. In Hong Kong, a distant parallel can be drawn with the Municipal Services Buildings (MSBs)—publicly-funded structures that serve the community by integrating diverse functions within a singular vast building mass, much like the Downtown Athletic Club. + 15 Designed as all-in-one hubs, these buildings offer essential services and experiences that cater to everyday needs, fostering local commerce and keeping neighborhoods vibrant. Over time, MSBs have evolved into more than just utilitarian buildings; they have become focal points for social activity and economic growth within a 20-minute walking radius of their location. While subway stations are the typical contemporary nodes within neighborhoods serving as transportation hubs, MSBs are unique buildings that become the hub of community engagement and leisure, driving interaction and commerce within their neighborhoods. Exploring a few key examples of these Municipal Services Buildings provides insight into their history and evolution, offering lessons on their successes and potential areas for improvement. These buildings are unique in their dual function, acting as public spaces and quasi-clubs for frequent visitors. They form a "public club"—accessible to all, but with a community and social network shaped by regular users. Unlike exclusive private clubs, they blur the lines of membership and inclusion, fostering a more organic, open-ended form of community - a building type that serves the common good. The Municipal Services Buildings (MSBs) of Hong Kong trace their origins back to the colonial period. In the 1960s, Hong Kong was rocked by riots, initially sparked by labor disputes, which soon escalated into anti-colonial protests. In response, Sir Murray MacLehose, the then-governor, sought to address public discontent by fast-tracking urban development projects planned for the common good. Early plans to integrate playgrounds atop market buildings were expanded, evolving into a more ambitious concept: multi-functional urban complexes designed to meet a wide range of daily needs for the city's residents. The Urban Council, responsible for creating these urban complexes—later renamed Municipal Services Buildings—oversaw the development of the first MSB in Aberdeen, which opened in 1983. Designed by Dennis Lau and Ng Chun Man Architects and Engineers (DLN), it was soon followed by another in Kowloon City, designed by Palmer and Turner. These initial MSBs were already ambitious in scope, and they set a precedent for integrating diverse communal functions, including wet markets, cooked food centers, libraries, government offices, and sports facilities. The range of programs, from indoor basketball courts to dance studios and gyms, embodied the city's efforts to support community well-being in dense urban areas. Over time, each new MSB continued to expand this vision, testing the limits of Rem Koolhaas' concept of Delirious New York and the programmatic density of the Downtown Athletic Club. One of the most ambitious MSBs is in Sheung Wan, initially built by the government department ArchSD. Standing at 13 stories, it offers the typical array of public amenities—wet markets, libraries, food centers, and sports facilities—and a theatre, lecture rooms, practice spaces, and galleries. The sheer size and complexity of the Sheung Wan MSB and 40 other MSBs have led some to refer to them as Hong Kong's "Urban Living Room Machine." This expansive typology has attracted attention from architectural organizations like the AIA (HK) and Docomomo Hong Kong, sparking renewed interest in its potential for shaping community-focused urban design and public building. It has also become a subject of academic inquiry, with architecture students at the University of Hong Kong examining how the MSB can be reimagined and further developed to serve the common good better while expanding on architectural concepts and their agencies. The Aberdeen Municipal Services Building was the first in Hong Kong, setting the stage for a new urban complex far removed from pristine shopping malls or single-use sports centers. Its appeal lies in its organized chaos, where an eclectic mix of programs coexist in a vibrant, dynamic environment. From wet markets to cooked food centers, the building's floors are packed with finely subdivided stalls—often more than 30 on a single floor of wet markets and over 10 food stalls in dining areas—each operated by local vendors. This diverse mix facilitates small businesses and local commerce while fostering a strong sense of community. In the case of the Aberdeen MSB, including a generously sized public library and well-maintained sports facilities further enhances the building's role as a central hub where residents engage in everyday activities. It's common for locals to chat with stall owners after a workout session or grab a quick meal with their gym buddies, creating an atmosphere of familiarity and interaction. This unique blend of activities and the fact that these buildings are publicly funded gives users a sense of agency and ownership rarely found in commercial spaces. Without a dominant "owner" possessing the building, local residents can navigate the space as if it were their own, fostering a robust communal atmosphere. Small, tight-knit groups naturally form, carving out their routines while respecting the diversity of the other users. This grassroots sense of belonging is further bolstered by the absence of supermarkets or chain retailers, which helps to drive local small businesses. As a result, the Aberdeen MSB serves as a functional hub and preserves the local urban fabric, ensuring that the economic and social vitality of the surrounding area remains intact. The Ap Lei Chau Municipal Services Building, the last of its kind developed by the Urban Council before its dissolution, opened in 1999 just across the Aberdeen Harbour—a mere 12-minute walk from its predecessor. This was the first MSB designed with an integrated HVAC system, marking a shift in building standards and comfort and an improvement from the perspective of building systems and thermal comfort for the users and the common good. Situated on a small island in the southern part of Hong Kong, connected by bridges and the MTR but still geographically distinct, Ap Lei Chau MSB quickly became the vibrant heart of its local community. Its harbor-side location and its role as a community hub transformed it into a critical urban node that helped activate the otherwise quiet Ap Lei Chau Waterfront Promenade. The building fostered a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding urban fabric, particularly along the waterfront. Locals frequently purchase fresh seafood directly from the wet market or boats docked at the nearby promenade and bring it to the cooked food stalls inside the MSB, where it is prepared to order. These stalls, not limited to the ones in Ap Lei Chau but also in other MSBs, function like communal kitchens, offering an ever-changing, unwritten menu shaped by local traditions and customers' fresh ingredients. The unique dynamic fosters a hyper-localized culinary culture, where the personal relationship between customer and vendor drives the experience. This distinctive heritage, the public built environment, and city fabric becoming like an extension of your home and living room are only made possible due to the development of MSBs. Beyond the waterfront, Ap Lei Chau MSB sustains small businesses in the surrounding streets, reinforcing the community-driven atmosphere typical of Hong Kong's MSBs. Activities spill out from the building, with conversations and commerce extending into adjacent streets blessed with minimal traffic. The absence of large retail conglomerates and heavy vehicular flow has allowed the area to flourish as a pedestrian-friendly, tightly-knit neighborhood. Ap Lei Chau MSB exemplifies an evolved version of the community network found in other MSBs, enriched by its island location and the leisurely urban fabric surrounding it. Many of Hong Kong's Municipal Service Buildings (MSBs) are now showing their age, with several surpassing the 40-year mark. This has raised questions about these once-pioneering communal structures' mounting maintenance and management costs. As Hong Kong's urban landscape has evolved, particularly with the rapid expansion of the subway system over the last two decades, younger generations have gravitated towards air-conditioned, cleaner, and more conveniently located supermarkets along their commute, most of the time residing directly above subway stations. This shift in consumer habits has sparked debate over whether MSBs are becoming obsolete. The passive design strategies used in the original MSBs, which excluded modern HVAC systems, have mainly proven insufficient, given the lack of cross-ventilation in these large, solid buildings coupled with rising urban temperatures. Additionally, the community-driven markets housed within MSBs often lack the oversight to maintain hygienic and pleasant environments despite their allure of organized chaos. This has become a factor that has contributed to the decision to demolish some MSBs, including the Kowloon City MSB. Luckily for the iconic Aberdeen MSB, the first of its kind, underwent a costly renovation that introduced HVAC systems and better hygiene despite losing parts of its original architectural characteristics. As the conversation around designing for the common good continues, the future of Hong Kong's MSBs remains uncertain. Will these buildings find a second life through improved design principles, integrating better passive strategies with modern HVAC systems to serve a different yet still local audience? Or will they meet a tragic end, with their roles as communal hubs gradually usurped by the forces of capitalism and real estate development? The fate of the MSBs offers a poignant case study of how we balance historical value, community-driven spaces, and the pressures of modern urban living. This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: Designing for the Common Good. Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us.

mixed-use

Oct 07, 2024

articles found