Authoritarian Arcologies?

[roseembolism]

Arcologies are constantly popping up in the literature of Science Fiction, and there's something about huge, "cities in a building that just seems to appeal to the fannish sensibility.  I've always wondered why.  Well, apart form they're being spectacular, if impractical applications of extreme architecture.




But there's always been something monolithic and extravagant about arcologies that seems to hint at a sort of utopian monomania. In fact, the notion of an entire city in a single, pre-planned building implies a sort of top-down authoritarianism, as opposed to the organic growth that a normal city has.

So oddly enough, it was no surprise to find out that Soleri grew up in fascist Italy.  And multiple critiques  of Arcosanti, Soleri's perpetually-in-construction seed arcology by a former resident, has detailed a structure that denies dissent and critical discussion.  Aside from Dr. Neutopia, sociologist Paul Ray has reported on the lack of workers rights and freedom in Arcosanti.  The needs of the individuals in the community are subjugated to the vision of Soleri, which is odd, considering that Arcologies are supposed to be a better way to live. 

Certainly there seems no element of human scale in Soleri's designs, no scope for individual contributions.  It is also too easy to imagine a place like Hexahedron (above), being divided into the elite in the top half, and the workers in the lower section; the design seems all to  useful for restricting flow of people and items.  Critics like Neutopia have compared the management structure at Arcosanti, to that of China: "based on the age old authoritarian, patriarchal model of command and control of the masses."  Perhaps that's a reason why China seems to be leading the race to build a functioning arcology, and not just their need for low-ecological impact housing.

The larger question here, is whether this is merely a problem with Soleri's particular vision, or whether authoritarian governmental structures go hand-in hand with the idea of arcologies.  And if so, what does it say about the science fiction culture's fascination with the idea?

Comments

[mithriltabby]

I usually hear “suburban sprawl” from environmentalists, and they make a number of good points about sustainability, habitat destruction, water usage, and so on. Las Vegas is going to be an interesting case study in water management in a few decades.

I suspect the key to high population densities is going multilevel. There’s only such much street-level crowding people can handle, but if you go with multiple levels with high ceilings, lots of light wells, and good air circulation, you could probably make it fairly pleasant.

One of the big caveats, though, is that we don’t really have a lot of experience in building structures for the long term. In a regular city, you can knock down buildings when the cost of maintenance gets too high for the value you derive from the building, and build something more efficient in its place. How do you do that to an arcology?

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Funny you should ask that question, because my next post is going to think about that.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

One possibility is building just a big enclosure, then building buildings inside of that. Done in a different order is "roofing over a city".

[mithriltabby]

At that point one might just treat it as a different kind of exercise in urban planning: put as many services as possible under the streets (water, power, data, subways, package delivery, earth-tube heat exchangers) and then you just hook up your foundations up when you build or renovate a building. Porous concrete to allow water to get into the aquifers instead of exiting via storm drains, lots of city parks and green roofs to provide extra cooling and avoid the urban heat island effect.