roseembolism | Arcologies and Reality

So, I was doing a Google search of arcologies to look for ideas for Under the Green Moon, and I came across this quote by Paolo Soleri, the inventor of the Arcology concept.

"The problem I am confronting is the present design of cities only a few stories high, stretching outward in unwieldy sprawl for miles. As a result of their sprawl, they literally transform the earth, turn farms into parking lots and waste enormous amounts of time and energy transporting people, goods and services over their expanses."

I have to wonder if he considered that one of the main reasons cities are designed the way they are is the limitations of technology. A whole host of practical problems, ranging from load bearing architecture, to steel quality, to elevator technology had to be solved to make buildings above 10 stories feasible. And even for modern skyscrapers, the technology of elements like elevators and plumbing limit their convenience and utility beyond a certain height.

I suppose if there's an actual point here, its that there's a huge gap between interesting designs on paper, and actual physical accomplishment, and in the process, accommodations have to be made with reality.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think there's a lot of truth in this. While we could build large arcologies today, with our current tech, I'm far from certain that we could deal with fires or other seriously problems in any fashion that wouldn't leave open the possibility of mass death on a scale never seen in a conventional city (or at least any conventional city that wasn't carpet bombed). Of course, there are also social factors at work - an arcology could be a wondrous city of the future, or it could become a giant Cabrini Green, which is a rather horrifying possibility, and it's far from clear how we could definitely avoid that possibility.

In any case, in UTGM, I can easily see Lifemaker designed living arcologies, which would make the idea of living in one exceedingly appealing - an arcology that grows up and eagerly awaits occupants (perhaps literally, depending upon the level of volition and intelligence of the city-brain) would be a very popular place indeed.

This sort of scenario turned up at least twice in soc.history.what-if

Burnt Offerings: The Mile High Tower Seige of 1980

Oops of Fealty

I remember reading Oops of Fealty a while ago, which is odd, because I never read the original book. IIRC, it annoyed quite a few people.

The hazards presented by deliberate or accidental aircraft collisions obviously Weren't apparent to Soleri or any of the other Arcology proponents. And personally, I think arcologies have enough problems even without their high value as targets.

I just now read Burnt Offerings: scarily plausible, given that we're talking 1970s politics and Frank Lloyd Wright's work. Of course I'm not sure that even 1970s elevators and plumbing could have handled the skyscraper.

I think in fact FLW envisioned a break-through in elevator technology (I really want to say "atom-powered elevators") as a precondition for the Mile High.

Funny you should mention living arcologies, because I DID mention a few living structures of the Lifemakers still alive and in use. There's undoubtedly far more dead ones that are being used, though they are much less pleasant, and may be regarded more as mines than arcologies.

Which is why I find this picture from Anders Sandberg inspiring. I note the shape seems a bit more practical than most arcologies as well.

As I recall, the design features that allowed the twin towers to come down the way they did were a solution to the problem of eventually filling up the interior of a very tall structure with supports.

I was treated to an email sent by a coworker who works a floor down from me in our 4-story building. I work in the fourth floor. The email, addressed to my boss, is a very angry rant about Human Resources issuing checks only to certain authorized staff, which makes my coworker have to leave her desk, go downstairs, and walk a city block and back, sometimes as much as twice a week. My boss asked me if I too found it was a problem.
“I like walking. I like getting up and stretching and taking a break. It’s nice outside. Also, I like seeing my friends in HR.”
I’m really worried that I might be in the minority here.
I’m concerned that with as much access to online social networks as we have, coupled with elevators and other ideas designed to limit the overland hauling of our own fat butts that arcologies seem to espouse, we’d have some serious WALL-E problems with social and physical mobility.

Well, one of the major advantages cited by the designers of having a city in a building was having nature close by, as well as extensive promenades. However, as you mentioned earlier, there's linear distance, and "elevator" distance.

I think part of the situation may be the emphasis on going to the gym and doing specific "sculpting" exercises, rather than braving the outdoors with its pollen, wild animals and strange people. Also, there's always the intarwebs to blame.

Building skyscrapers is expensive. As long as both land and transport are cheap, it’s easier to just sprawl. If we come up with replicating constructors of some sort (which might just be genetically engineered bacteria and plants, as there are some thermodynamic concerns over whether strong nanotech is actually feasible) that can build skyscrapers as long as you provide them with appropriate energy and feedstocks, the value proposition for land use changes drastically.

I don't think there is a link between the limitations of technology and arcology. Communities were developed around human scale for most of human history - out of necessity. It was the automobile that changed everything. Of course arcology adds other layers of complexity that would improve on the kind of village design.

Soleri developed Arcosanti as an educational project to test and demonstrate arcology, to work out the details.

I thought Arcosanti was designed as a money sink and a factory for ceramic bells. ;')

And while the Arcology buffs may think that Arcologies are immune to the constraints of technology, the laws of physics and chemistry (not to mention psychology, economics, etc..) won't disappear simply because an architect draws up some neat plans. the problems with things like elevators, plumbing, stairways, access crowding and time-to-outside won't be simply handwaved away. I really hate to think of what the traffic flow patterns around an arcology would be like.

Also, communities have been built primarily around economic and political factors in the past, leaving all abstract nonsense about density and energy flows aside. Hence cities like Beijing and Rome have reached populations of up to a million even before the automobile, and facing serious technological constraints. The fact that Arcosanti is pretty much a failure indicates that while technology is a limit, it is not a sufficient factor.

Arcologies and Reality

no subject

the possibility of mass death on a scale never seen in a conventional city

Re: the possibility of mass death on a scale never seen in a conventional city

Re: the possibility of mass death on a scale never seen in a conventional city

Re: the possibility of mass death on a scale never seen in a conventional city

no subject

no subject

Part the first of my thoughts

Re: Part the first of my thoughts

no subject

Paolo Soleri's quote and technology

Re: Paolo Soleri's quote and technology