CROSS AS STRATEGIES FOR THE GREATER BAY AREA by CP Lee

CROSS S T R AT E G I E S F O R T H E G R E AT E R B AY A R E A

SD5707 U R B A N S Y S T E M S A N D S T R AT E G I E S

SCHOOL OF DESIGN T H E H O N G KO N G P O LY T E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y

I N C O L L A B O R AT I O N W I T H

D E PA R T M E N T O F U R B A N I S M T U D E L F T, T H E N E T H E R L A N D S

A D R I A N A C A P L OVA L E E M A N PA N 李文彬 LEE ROCHELLE SARAH

z P O S I T I O N I N G S TAT E M E N T

Since 1970s, the greater bay area has been undergoing an unprecedented urban growth, which has resulted in an exponential increase in urban extents which can be observed from its sprawling, agglomeration, transition of socio-economic structure, extreme density, etc.. And such growth is so rapid and strategically unregulated that it can cope with the massive influx of capitals from both the regions and the globe in a fast and flexible manner, becoming a major global manufacturing powerhouse and metropolitan area. However, the unplanned and deregulated urbanization can always lead to a condition known as subnature proposed by Timothy Morton, an undesirable and unpredicted by-product of urbanization. One example in the greater bay area is how the urbanization happens at the expense of the it counter part - the rural As informed by the remaining farmland in the region, the site for agriculture has been decreasing and removed from the central lo-

25km 25km

cation of the area, marginalizing the agricultural sector and food provisioning. Together with the urban and rural condition, the project address the concern of food security, in terms of production & consumption and 4As, namely affordability, accessibility, adequacy and availability, and use the given tool, the cross, as a morphological strategy to shape the environment and transform the food provisioning system. The morphological cross imprint represents the creation of foodscape within the built and unbuilt environment. The project would lead to the development of a repertoire of complementary facilities of a contrasting nature. Pressure in overcrowded areas is deflated by the creation of natural voids, while low-key areas are intensified by the construction of high-intensity agriculture centres. Eventually, the proposed strategy will answer the current food production scarcity with a more intensified/effective ‘system of nature’.

MORPHOLOGY | LANDFORM

GBA is centred along the Pearl River Delta. This led to significant fragmentation of land over the centuries, but has been further intensified by man intervention in recent decades. The fragmented land on the west river bank is now used for agriculture mostly and provides the whole region with food. The sufficient water supply comes from the wide river delta which extends deeply to the North.

KEY / LEGEND Contour line at +0.0m Contourline in +100.0m sucession Contourline in -10.0m sucession

50km

M O R P H O L O G Y | R E C L A M AT I O N

Coastal line as of 2000 Coastal line as of 1960 Coastal line as of 1880 0

50km

DENSITY | URBAN DENSITY

Urban density of the GBA is intense. The greenland is mostly present in isolated green patches disconnected from the city scape. The rapid and ‘de-regulated’ urbanization is present in a variety of urban form and city typologies. Interestingly enough, the built-up ratio does not necessarily correspond to population density. We can see the population density is uneven and concentrated in the first tier cities: Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou continuum.

50km

DENSITY | URBAN FORM

50km

D E N S I T Y | P O P U L AT I O N D E N S I T Y

50km

LAND USE | INDUSTRIAL

The significant part of fragmented land on the west river bank is actually the farm land that provides the whole region with food. This uneven agricultural distribution creates regional disbalance, puts local food security at risk and disconnects urban communities from land. As a result of ‘de-regulated’ urbanization, we can see repeating patterns in residential and industrial land use. They are usually clustered or they expand at the outlying edge.

50km

LAND USE | RESIDENTIAL

50km

L A N D U S E | FA R M L A N D

50km

LAND USE (OVERLAPPED)

The overlay of the village map and the inhabitants living there highlights the opportunity for agro functionalities. Demand for crop produce is illustrated by the location of urban villages. There is a imbalance portion of farmland to the village demand. Water resources also highlights the opportnity for agro functionalities in the certain regions.

KEY / LEGEND Villages Farmland Residential landuse Water resources

LAND USE

50km

A D M I N I S T R AT I O N | V I L L A G E

The urban density of GBA has been intensified by the emergence of so called urban villages. They spread evenly over the area and are outlying expansions of ‘factory town’which emerged after China opened its economy to the world in 1979. To further stimulate economic growth, the establishment of the free-trade zones has been strategically located in a triangular manner. This should secure balanced development of each city.

50km

A D M I N I S T R AT I O N | F R E E T R A D E Z O N E

50km

CONNECTIVITY | ROAD AND RAIL

The traffic network density concentrates around Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou as the main axis. It is also where all the biggest ports and airports are located. There is an obvious strategy for urban development at this axis. However, for its specific location, Hong Kong and Shenzhen maintain a majority of the connections with the world, whereas Guangzhou provides connections mostly with the mainland.

50km

CONNECTIVITY | AIRPORTS & AIR ROUTES

50km

CONNECTIVITY | PORTS AND VESSELS

50km

PROPOSITION CROSS BETWEEN THE URBAN AND RURAL

The urban development of the major cities of greater bay area (GBA) has been following a same pattern cycling between sprawling and intensification, where the focus is given to the urbanization. The prosperity of a city is always first and primarily addressed by its urbanity.However, the rural and the urban are just as complementary to each other as solid and void. Considering the way how the urban development has been growing, it always begins with a developed central region and keeps pushing its boundary outward in the expense of the rural area. In this way, the one changing is not only the urban but also the rural. However, the rural here is nothing more than a leftover land as it is an unconscious result because of urbanization. At least half of land potential could be missed if the urbanization is only deemed as a tool to design and shape itself. And just by looking at the builtup area map of GBA and taking the development of southern China of recent decades into acRural 0

count, the urban status of GBA has already way passed a point in which the cities were small and only account for a tiny fraction of map. It is now a giant and yet the urban regimes are still on the track of sprawling and agglomerating together. Perhaps the urban designers’ focus at that time was all about zoning for more area for urban development as there was a vast rural land. The only urban intervention available for them was to conquer the rural and it was all about the urban itself. However, it is not the case anymore. The urbanized regimes are already on par with the rural area left, if not greater. And what are the urban intervention available for us when it comes to this context? In the conventional way, urbanization is used for the construction of urbanity alone, shaping the rural unconsciously. It is an additive way. As such, what is the deductive intervention? Could there be urbanization in reverse?

Urban 50km

Water

Heading Regular text Regular text Regular text Regular text Regular text Regular text Regular text

to reshape each

4,900.8km^2 37%

wat

+ADDIT

+ without urban area, the only option available for urban strategy is additive intervention.

CROSS IN ACTION |SUBSTRACTIVE

2,822.3km^2 63%

water body water body

Suchas understanding sets up the project’s And it is said the reductive and additiveproposition: intervention are equally important in the project. So how are both interventions used not only to design itself, but also to reshape each other. The project considers ruralization as a subtractive urban intervention, and it should be as important assecond the additive one.that By taking thethey ruralization on the agenda,complementary, the aim is to make And it is the question it means are not just arbitrarily but both thethey urban and the rural as conscious how are developed into each other? parts of the urban design. The focus is not only about the transformation of the rural and urban, but also take it as a mindful tool to reshape each other. Such intervention makes one new typology possible, which is a rural regime within urban

rural area

SUBTRACTIVE

rural area

PROPOSITION #1 ADDITIVE

The first question of the project is to search if there is an equilibrium between the rural and urban, and how is it going to be addressed?

+ without urban area, the only option available for urban strategy is additive intervention.

urban area

The project considers ruralization as a subtractive urban intervention, and it should be as important as the additive one. By taking the ruralization on the agenda, the aim is to make both the urban and the rural as conscious parts of the urban design. The focus is not only about the transformation of the rural and urban, but also take it as a mindful tool to reshape each other.

CURRENT EQUILIBRIUM?

environment. One stereotype of rural area due to the conventional urban intervention is the The first question of the project is it toissearch is an equilibrium between and remoteness of a rural area, either farms iforthere a natural landscape, etc. What the will rural the rural urban, how be? is it going to beaaddressed? with in and urbanity How could farm evolve into when it is brought to the urban context?

4,900.8km^2 37% And by using the CROSS as a tool to carry out such intervention, what are the characters

And as it is said theof reductive andisadditive intervention arerural equally important in the project. The third question the project to search for such new typologies. So how are both interventions used not only to design itself, but also to reshape each other.

CROSS IN ACT Without urban area, the only option availiable for urban strategy is additive intervention

CURRENT

urban area

PROPOSITION #1 water body

rural area

urban area

However, it is not the case anymore. The urbanized regimes are already on par with the rural area left, if not greater. And what are the urban intervention available for us when it comes to this context? In the conventional way, urbanization is used for the construction of urbanity alone, shaping the rural unconsciously. It is an additive way. As such, what is the subtractive intervention? Could be urbanization Such understanding sets up the there project’s proposition: in reverse?

Diagramatic representation of different territories within the studies region before urban expansion The pre-urban expansion areas of urban, rural and water territories within the studied region are simplifed proportionally and put side-by-side for comparison in size

+ADDIT

new rural typologies.And by using the CROSS as additive intervention are equally important in the Perhaps focus at that time was all about tool designers' to carry out such intervention, what zoning are thefor more area for urban project. So how are both interventions used not theaurban development as there was a vast rural land. The only urban intervention available for them characters canthe make use of? only to design itself, but also to reshape each wasothto conquer the ruralfrom and itCROSS was all we about urban itself.

PROPOSITION

crosses

RURALIZATION water body

2,822.3km^2 63%

THE PAST rural area

CROSS OF COMPLEMENTATION

+SUBTRACTIVE STRATERGY

2020.04.16 However, the rural and the urban are just as complementary to each other as solid and void. Considering the way how the urban development has been growing, it always begins with a developed central region and keeps pushing its boundary outward in the expense of the complementary, but rural area. In this way, the one changing is not only the urban but also the rural. However, the rural here is nothing more than a leftover land as it is an unconscious result because of PROPOSITION urbanization. At least half of land potential could be missed if the urbanization is only CRO SS BETWEEN THE URBAN AND RURAL deemed as a tool to design and shape itself. egime within urban The urban development of the major cities of greater bay area (GBA) has been following a n intervention is the samejust pattern cycling between sprawling andmap intensification, where thethe focus is given to the And by looking at the built-up area of GBA and taking development of What will the rural urbanization. The of a city is always first and primarily addressed by its urbanity. southern China ofprosperity recent decades into account, the urban status of GBA has already way er. And it isthe thecities second means for they The project considers ruralization as a subtractive the urban context? passed a point in which werequestion small andthat onlyitaccount a tiny fraction of map. It However, rural and the urban are complementary, just as complementary tothe each otherofas sprawling solid and void. are not just arbitrarily butonhow are urban intervention, and it should be as important is now a the giant and yet the urban regimes are still track and Considering thetogether. way how the urban development has been growing, it always begins with a agglomerating ies. they developed into each other?Such intervention as the additive one. By taking the ruralization on developed central region and keeps pushing its boundary outward in the expense of the makes onethe new typology possible, is zoning a rural the agenda, the aim is to make both the urban ruraland area. this way, one changing not was onlywhich urban but also the rural. Perhaps theInurban designers' focus at thatistime allthe about for more area However, for urban t are the characters regime within environment. One the rural as conscious parts of the urban design. the rural here is nothing more than a leftover land as it isstereotype anintervention unconsciousavailable result because of development as there was a urban vast rural land. The only urban for them urbanization. least half ofitland potential could beurban missedinterif the urbanization is only + considering theabout amount of today’s urban area, can the urban area grow in was toofconquer the rural and was all about the urban itself. of At rural area due to the conventional The focus is not only the transformation deemed as a tool to design and shape itself. a rural reverse manner in form intervention? vention is the remoteness of a rural area, either it the and urban, but also take it of as asubtractive mindful However, it is not the case anymore. The urbanized regimes are already on par with the rural is farms or athe natural landscape, etc. Whatand will the for tool to reshape each other. The firstbetween questionAnd of the just by looking atAnd built-up area mapintervention of GBA taking the us development of + what is the equilibrium the urban and rural? area left, if not greater. what are the urban available when it comes southern China recent decades account, the urban of already way to this theinconventional urbanization is status used forGBA the has construction of ruralofIn with urbanityinto be?way, How could a farm evolve project is to search if there is an equilibrium be- context? passed a alone, which the cities were small and Itonly account forway. a tiny of map. It urbanity shaping unconsciously. is an additive Asfraction such, what is the intoin when it isrural brought to the urban context?The tween the rural and urban, and how is it going to point is now a giant and yetCould the there urbanberegimes are still on the track of sprawling and subtractive intervention? urbanization in reverse? third question of the project is to search for such be addressed?And as it is said the subtractive and agglomerating together.

EQUILIBRIUM?

urban area

ortant in the project. reshape each other.

2,822.3km^2 EQUILIBRIUM? 63%

4,900.8km^2 37%

CROSSES’DIVISION | URBAN SEPARATION

Diagramatic representation of current different territories within the studies region The current areas of urban, rural and water territories within the studied region are simplifed proportionally and put side-by-side for comparison in size

+SUBTRACT

Considering the amount of today’s urban area, can the urban area grow in a reverse manner in form of substractive intervention?

+SUBTRACT

What is the equalibirum between the urban and rural?

CROSSES’P-A RATI

is the second question means theyrural are not just arbitrarily complementary, but Proposition diagram. CROSS as both an additiveAnd and itsubtractive spatial tool tothat shape urban and regimes from CROSS weifcan make use of? + In view of urbanization and ruralization, the cross isitused as the basic + considering the amount of today’s urban area, can the urban area grow in how are they developed into each other? reverse manner form in of subtractive intervention? unit, how can it be operated as both additive and subtractive intervention? +what is the sptiala character of aincross form of void/ruralization? +what is the sptial character of a c intervention makes one new typology possible, which is a rural regime within urban + what is the equilibrium between the urban and rural? + what is the spatial character ofSuch a cross? +it become + as the crosses emerge in the urban farb environment. One stereotype of rural area due to the conventional urban intervention is the a tool breaking down the agglomerating and sprawling urban form remoteness of a rural area, either it is farms or a natural landscape, etc. What will the rural

One stereotype of rural area etc. due to the conventional remoteness of a rural area, either it is farms environment. or a natural landscape, What willurban theintervention rural is the remoteness of a rural area, either it is farms or a natural landscape, etc. What will the rural with in urbanity be? How could a farm evolvewith into when it is brought to the urban context? in urbanity be? How could a farm evolve into when it is brought to the urban context?

Such understanding sets up the project’s proposition:

urban area

The 2 colours are used to represent the complementary relationship of urban and rural just like the andintervention void do.are equally important in the project. And as it is said the reductive solid and additive The first question of the project is to search if there is an equilibrium between the rural and urban, and how is it going to be addressed?

oped in form of additive and subtractive strategy

The strategy guides the game boarding on GBA scale

COMPLEMENTATION

So how are both interventions used not only to design itself, but also to reshape each other. And it is the second question that it means they are not just arbitrarily complementary, but how are they developed into each other?

URBANIZATION

water body

COMPLEMENTATION A subset of manipulation the crosses are develFRAME of OF REFERENCE

On the first iteration, the project attributes the cross with 2 characteristics: the sizes and 2 colours.

EQUILIBRIUM?

RURALIZATION

Such intervention makes one new typology possible, which is a rural regime within urban environment. One stereotype of rural area due to the conventional urban intervention is the remoteness of a rural area, either it is farms or a natural landscape, etc. What will the rural with in urbanity be? How could a farm evolve into when it is brought to the urban context?

2,822.3km^2 63%

The third question of the project is to search for such new rural typologies. And by using the CROSS as a tool to carry out such intervention, what are the characters from CROSS we can make use of?

4,900.8km^2 37%

+ considering the amount of today’s urban area, can the urban area grow in a reverse manner in form of subtractive intervention? + what is the equilibrium between the urban and rural? + the creation of the urban andarea rural are consider as a way to reshape + totaleach land + total = 10,157.4km^2 + water body = 2,234.3 km^2 | 24% + urban area others + land

ADDITIVE

2,822.3km^2 63%

SUBTRACTIVE

4,900.8km^2 Cross as network Cross as division 37% CROSSES’ARTICULATION INFRASTRUCTURAL CONNECTION | IMGINARY DEFINITION CROSSES’DIVISION | insertion URBAN SEPARATION the branching of|crosses from boundary can Within a larger extent,CROSSES’EXTENT an of a cross can

12km x 12km

boundary of existing built-up area

SUBTRACTIVE

+ADDITIVE STRATERGY

And just by looking at the built-up area map of GBA and taking the development of southern China of recent decades into account, the urban status of GBA has already way passed a point in which the cities were small and only account for a tiny fraction of map. It is now a giant and yet the urban regimes are still on the track of sprawling and agglomerating together. Perhaps the urban designers' focus at that time was all about zoning for more area for urban 2,822.3km^2 development as there was a vast rural land. The only urban intervention available for them 63% was to conquer the rural and it was all about the urban itself.

ACT

water body

rural area

rural area urban area

urban area

However, the rural and the urban are just as complementary to each other as solid and void. Considering the way how the urban development has been growing, it always begins with a developed central region and keeps pushing its boundary outward in the expense of the rural area. In this way, the one changing is not only the urban but also the rural. However, the rural here is nothing more than a leftover land as it is an unconscious resultADDITIVE because of urbanization. At least half of land potential could be missed if the urbanization is only deemed as a tool to design and shape itself.

+= In2,234.4km^2 view of urbanization and ruralization, if the cross is used as the basic build up an network ofin articulationm which breakdown theofbig fragment. It of canvoid/ruralization? be of manipulat+what is spatial character a cross in form of solid/urbanization +what the additive spatial character of a cross form of solid/urbanization? = 2,822.3km^2 unit, how can |it37% be operated asisboth and subtractive intervention? +whatcan is the sptial character a the cross in form +what is the + it is a tool to intuitively define an area, at least in an imaginary manner 4,900.8km^2 | 63% +if urbanization involves infrastructure, there should be an infrastructural articulation among the + =what is the spatial character of a cross? +it become a tool down agglomerating and sprawling urban formand + as the cros potentially be used as infrastructure connection ed breaking as a way tothefragmentize urban sprawling crosses

2020.04.16

RURALIZATION

+ rural area

CROSS

+SUBTRACTIVE STRATERGY PROPOSITION RURALIZATION

or mode of networking CROSS IN CROSS ACTION CROSSagglomeration IN ACTION PROPOSITION IN|SUBSTRACTIVE ACTION | ADDITIVE ACT + |SUBSTRACTIVE CROSS IN ACTION | ADDITIVE ADDITIVE SUBTRACTIVE OF COMPLEMENTATION THE PAST

COMPLEMENTATION FRAME OF REFERENCE

CROSS

= 7,723.1 km^2 | 76%

+ considering the amount of today’s urban area, can the urban area grow in a reverse manner in form of subtractive intervention? +PROPOSITION what is the equilibrium between theSTRATEGY urban and rural? INSUBTRACTIVE CROSS ACTION CROS ADDITIVE STRATEGY CROSS IN|SUBSTRACTIVE ACTION | ADDITIV CROSS IN ACTION | ADDITIVE

water body

CURRENT

rural area

PROPOSITION #1

a reverse manner in form of subtractive intervention? + what is the equilibrium between the urban and rural?

water body

from CROSS we can make use of?

And by using the CROSS as a tool to carry out such intervention, what are the characters from CROSS we can make use of?

4,900.8km^2 2,822.3km^2 4,900.8km^2 37% 63% 37% + considering the amount of today’s urban area, can the urban area grow in

rural area

U N D E R S TA N D I N G T H E C R O S S

2,822.3km^2 63%

rural area

The third question of the project is to search And forbysuch new rural typologies. using the CROSS as a tool to carry out such intervention, what are the characters

urban area

+ without urban area, the only option available for urban strategy is additive The third question of the project is to search for such new rural typologies. intervention.

urban area

2,822.3km^2 63%

URBANIZATION

4,900.8km^2 Cross as extent 37%

4,900.8km^2 Cross as accessibility 37% | INFRASTRUCTURAL CONNECTION the geometry of a cross can induce the precepthe perimeter-to-area is intrinsically high due CROSSES’ARTICULATION CROSSES’EXTENT | IMGINARY DEFINITION CROSSES’DIVISION | URBAN SEPARATION CROSSES’P-A RATIO ratio | RURAL ACCESSIBILITY

CRO

+ determin + create a + the creation of the urban andarea rural are consider as a way to reshape += In 2,234.4km^2 view of urbanization and ruralization, if the cross is used as the basic + totaleach land + total = 10,157.4km^2 tion of an imaginary boundry to it own configuration. It implys it can provide However, it is not the case anymore. The urbanized regimes are already on par with the rural + place th +what is the spatial character of a cross in form of solid/urbanization? +what is the spatial character of a cross in form of solid/urbanization? + water body = 2,234.3 km^2 | 24% + urban area = 2,822.3km^2 | 37% others unit, how can it be operated as both additive and subtractive intervention? +what is the sptial character of a cross in form of void/ruralization? +what is the sptial character of a cross in form of void/ruralization? area left, if not greater. And what are the urban intervention available for us when it comes + it is a tool to intuitively define an area, at least in an imaginary manner + land = 7,723.1 km^2 | 76% + rural area = 4,900.8km^2 | 63% + use the extensive interface betwwen the fragment and the +if urbanization involves infrastructure, there should be an infrastructural articulation among the is the spatial of a cross? to this context? In the conventional way, urbanization is used + forwhat the construction of character +it become a tool breaking down the agglomerating and sprawling urban form + as the crosses emerge in the urban farbics, the broken fragment are all surrouned by the rural crosses + avoid cr 2020.04.16 urbanity alone, shaping the rural unconsciously. It is an additive way. As such, what is the + without urban area, the only option available for urban strategy is additive crosses itself subtractive intervention? Could there be urbanization in reverse? intervention. +it become a tool b

+ the creation of the urban and rural are consider as a way to reshape each others

THE PAST a

PLEMENTATION

+ In view of urbanization and ruralization, if the cross is used as the basic unit, how can it be operated as both additive and subtractive intervention? + what is the spatial character of a cross?

+what is the sptia

GAMEBOARDING (MAPS GBA SCALE) I T E R AT I O N # 1

Heading The crosses in this iteration acts as a basic unit to form a network of urbanization in rural area and de-urbanization in urban area. The point is to question the traditional way of urbanization by clustering and zoning. If networking and access are the key in the age of information, can we shift the paradigm of urban design to branching and network-based methodology

PLACE IMAGE HERE

KEY / LEGEND Urbanization De-urbanization 0

50km

GAMEBOARDING (MAPS GBA SCALE) I T E R AT I O N # 2

In this iteration, the intersection of the crosses are annotated with either a green or a black block as a way to address what transformation can be induced by de-urbanizing the existing urban fabrics. The black blocks on the intersection of the tip of the cross are expected to create an infrastructural linkage while the central points of the crosses can be developed into agro-related programme or amenity such as community farms and agricultural park.

KEY / LEGEND Urbanization Agriculture Site Deurbanization 0

50km

GAMEBOARDING (MAPS GBA SCALE) I T E R AT I O N # 3

The concept in this itteration is extended from the complementary properity of the urban and the rural. The existing map are used as a “ material” to construct both urban and rural area to explore the possiblity of design using existing fabrics and patterns.

KEY / LEGEND Fill-In Void-Out 0

50km

GAMEBOARDING (MAPS GBA SCALE) I T E R AT I O N # 4

KEY / LEGEND De-urbanization Urbanization Axis as Infrastructural connection 0

50km

GAMEBOARDING (MAPS GBA SCALE) THE RULES Additive Strategy Act 1: determine the scale of the crosses (L) identify major rural areas place the crosses(L) starting from the centre of rural area maximize the extent of the cross until it reach the boundary use the crosses(L) as a strategic tool to define rural area avoid crosses of this scale connecting each others Act 2: scale down the crosses(M) from the pervious one insert the crosses(M) into corresponding rural areas avoid overlapping with the imaginary sqaure defined by crosses(L) use this medium crosses as a strategic tools to define the sub-rural avoid connects to the crosses (M+L) Act 3: further scale down the crosses(S) from the pervious one place crosses(S) the smallest possible rural areas connect with all others crosses (S+M+L) start from the tips instead of avoiding connecton do not trespass the imginart square imposed by crosses (M+L) keep entending until overlapping with the built-up areas Subtractive Strategy Act 1: determine the location of the crosses (L) create axes from black crosses(L) implying infrastructural passage place the crosses(L) close to the intersection of axes if possible use the crosses(L) as a strategic tool to break down urban fabrics avoid crosses of this scale connecting all other crosses Act 2: scale down the crosses(M) from the previous one place the crosses to the axial intersection if not covered by crosses(L) identify high urban density area between crosses (L) avoid trespassing the imaginary square imposed by crosses(L) leave the imaginary square to be permeated by crosses (S) Act 3: insert the crosses (S) into the urban fabrics trespassing the imaginary square imposed by crosses (L) align with crosses (M) and with crosses(S) themselves break the urban fabrics into pieces while parts of the fabrics remain connected avoid connection among crosses(S+M+L)

A D D I T I V E S T R AT E G Y

S U B T R A C T I V E S T R AT E G Y

summary

PROPOSITION CROSS IN FOOD PROVISIONING

Extending from the proposition of the urban and rural condition, the concept of equilibrium emerges and it sets the question of what exactly is the equilibrium the project is looking for?In terms of equilibrium, there should be an optimal state of being and operating. One can never be the global factory forever in view of the environmental expense ,social inequality and more importantly the economical transition. And the industries in Dongguan are shrinking and a regenerative system to engender the “excessive” urbanity and subnature to recreate

a new the equilibrium is of a pressing concern. So what is the opportunity and how can Dongguang be transitioned? In contrast to the marginalization of food production, can Dongguan be a regional food provisioning site considering its’ geographical central location in GBA so that the food miles can be retained within the regional area as well as re-activating the shrinking industries? Also, as one of the down-steam location of PRD, the agricultural potential was over looked as in terms of its abundance in down-steam sediment

Studied Area The area of PDR covering 11 major cities of GBA

Land mass comparision of different agriculture The land required to feed 4.5M population between soil and vertical farming

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN)

A region of 25by 50km of the pearl river outlet are selected and it covers Dongguan and Nansha area. The selection of site is based on it locational centrality of the province, which can be a strategic advantage, and the mix yet different condition of land use across the river.

KEY / LEGEND Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

50km

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN)

The land-use layers from the previous analytic mapping are also taken into consideration for the gameboarding on the zoom-in scale to inform the design of the crosses

KEY / LEGEND Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

10km

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN)

Prior to the gameboarding, the patterns of the land use are catagorized for the placement and division of crosses in small scale.

KEY / LEGEND Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

10km

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN)

Prior to the gameboarding, the patterns of the land use are catagorized for the placement and division of crosses in small scale.

KEY / LEGEND Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

10km

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN) I T E R AT I O N # 1

2 different types of agriculture are introduced to the gameboarding. One is building-integrated while another one is soil-based. Sub-division of food related programme will be added in the subsequent iteration

PLACE IMAGE HERE

KEY / LEGEND Building-integrated farming Soil-based farming Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

10km

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN) I T E R AT I O N # 2

The crosses inseted into the residential and industrial area now getting more diverse in terms of food provisioning system and agriculture, providing different zones for specific programme such as foosline station as food distribution site, mirco vertical farm and food processing to boost up the shrinking industries and provide job placement to both the local and floating population

KEY / LEGEND

Forest farming Garden gathering Food processing Food distribution Building-integrated farming Soil-based farming Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

10km

PLACE IMAGE HERE

GAMEBOARDING (ZOOM IN) I T E R AT I O N # 3

Building up and fine tuning the second iteration, food related programme are also added such as catering services as a social hub using food as a medium. One scenario is the a massive food court which can serve the factory twons’ floating population to engage in the surrounding environment instead of being narrowed to the space within the factory without knowing the neighbour, by using the food as a medium

KEY / LEGEND Foodline Food-related amenity Forest farming Garden gathering Food processing Food distribution Building-integrated farming Soil-based farming Industrial area Residential area Existing agricultural site 0

10km

PLACE IMAGE HERE

LARGE CROSS A U T O M AT E D V E R T I C A L F A R M

The large corsses of automated vertical farm is situated on a non-inhabitated hilly site on Dongguan as one of the power house of food production on regional scale and as a food supply buffer to Dongguan

LARGE CROSS A U T O M AT E D V E R T I C A L F A R M

Foodline The foodline of the large cross would be mainly connected to other cities or town within the province, which are not able to implement building-integrated agriculture, to create a food provisioning network for GBA and limit the food mile to counter act the marginalization of food production

LARGE CROSS A U T O M AT E D V E R T I C A L F A R M

Tip of the infrastructure is allocated for animal husbandry in accordance to the locals’ diet composition. The configuration of the tilted tip is made with reference to the solar projection and duplex for natural ventilation and daylight as liverstocks’ living environment

PLACE IMAGE HERE

Automated Vertical Farm A 30-stories-high infrastructure with minimal human intervention to produce monocultural grain for both human and livestock with the use of robotic hydroponics. Efficency of food production is it only purpose and maximized.

Automated Vertical Farm A mutil-bay and mega configuragated food provisioning infrastructure

MEDIUM CROSS A N E W S U B U R B PA R A D I G M

Beyond Subnature In contrast to the subnature as undesired by-product of urbanization, it is an attempt to create nature with the heart of urban fabrics as a conscious movement to fragmentize the unplanned urban sprawling and agglomeration during the time of deregulation. It is expected that primitive agricultural activity , such as fruit gathering, can happen with in the manufactured suburb environment

MEDIUM CROSS A N E W S U B U R B PA R A D I G M

SMALL CROSS A C ATA LY S T F O R F O O D S C A P E

The newly emerged agro-industrial and agro-recreational programme are inserted into the urban fabrics, forming a starting point to trigger urban renewal within the divided urban fragment. For example, it can lead to a urban growth in terms of intensification and advancement together with the new agro-industry and new food provisioning system in residential area, limiting the outward sprawling uncontrollably Meanwhile, it can insert new amenity to the factory towns and provide a open a new living paradigm for the floating population locked up within his own factory and dosimetry

PLACE IMAGE HERE

SMALL CROSS A C ATA LY S T F O R F O O D S C A P E

the heart of the urban area is transformed into a nature area where primitive agro-activity such as gather and recreational can take place

the mono-function and stereotype living style for the miragted worker can be diversified with the introduction of new agro-programme

limit the urban growth within fragment in terms of intensification instead of extensive sprawling create new industry, job opportunity and amenity related to food provisioning at the interface within a walkable distance

Forest It is within area where the scale is large enough and its land use is completely residential as an artificial nature .

Recreation+ Agriculture+Distribution+Food Processing It is between residential and industrial area for creating new types of industry to help to transit industrial shrinkage and provide food-related amenity to the floating population and migrated workers

the continuous non-human scale streetscape in factory towns are broken up as soon as the agro-industry and amenity start to emerge from the interface

Forest+Agriculture+Distribution+Food Processing It is another type for residential area by which the urban growth can be simulated with in the divided fragment with newly emerged agro-programme

urban renewal take places in the existing industrial area, facilitating the industrial transition toward techno-agriculture

SMALL CROSS

A C ATA LY S T F O R F O O D S C A P E | F A C T O R Y T O W N

agro-industry begins to emerge from the cross. the new industry such as hydroponic will expand into the district and reactiviate or even renew the abandoned factories

labour intensive vertical farming becomes new major industry in the district to support the local job market

the life style become diversified due to new agro-activities, moving away from the mono-culture of factory twon

everyone from the neighbourhood become available in the community food court, using the locally produced food

the foodline will reach the citizens by a new food logistic system of bicycle and automated vehicle, removing the food transportation from the traditional logistic. By reducing the foodmile, the food network is limited to walkable distance

multi-functional soil farm take place in the crosses to provide recreational and institutional agriculture

educational facilities such as kinder-garden are also located in the crosses for the kids of the migrated workers , who don’t have the civil wealthy. The building height and density is limited to low so that visibilty can be kept good to improve and openess and the security

with the availability of the knowledge and technology, hydroponic can happen from industrial and individual level, promoting the notion of social equality

CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION

The rapid and intentionally unregulated urbanization of the GBA resulted in disbalanced food security. It left a significant ‘food-print’ on the West Bank of Pearl River Delta landscape, where the majority of the farmland is located. This project addresses food production in terms of food security and uses cross as morphological strategy to shape the environment and to create a system for possible food production planning. As a result, the project develops a repertoire of complementary facilities of a contrasting nature. Strategically placed crosses take

the pressure of overcrowded areas by subtracting existing landscape and creating natural voids. Other crosses are added to low-key areas and intensify them by the construction of high-intensity agriculture centres. In this manner, zooming into a local and communal scale, a cross-additive process generates more accessible food production. Zooming out and applying the strategy to a regional scale, more balanced land use is created. Finally, this strategic and conscious urbanization could generate a ‘FOOD-SCAPE’ that would provide food security for the whole GBA region.