roseembolism (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
roseembolism) wrote2009-06-02 11:27 am
roseembolism) wrote2009-06-02 11:27 am
Entry tags:
Authoritarian Arcologies?
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?
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?
Yes and No
(Anonymous) 2009-06-05 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)It does not have to be so. A structure like the one shown can function as a Armature (areas, volumes, infrastructure) not unlike the “flat” city as it has been for hundreds of years. The individual buildings within this can actually be more varied and individual than any urban environment we have today.
The principle values to be gained are:
1) volume and space, much more of it than the “peanut butter spread” of a typical city.
2) reduction of transportation and utility runs.
3) efficient prefabricated structure.
4) better energy management (volume to skin ratios), etc.
5) dense urban experience with a few minute “drop” to farming, recreational and authentic wilderness areas.
And so on.
I believe that Palo’s concept is weakest in terms of the governance and social systems aspects yet I point out that traditional cities are not immune to the darker aspects of Human misconduct. There is not reason that an Arcology or mega-city has to be such. NYC and many other urban spaces are mega-cities - just poorly design one - mostly.
It is certainly true that the last 25 years of architecture is not encouraging as human scale has all but been obliterated. It is true that a better result will not be accomplished by a top-down, dictatorial result. This is a process issue much broader than architecture itself, however.
I urge that the concept is not thrown out with the bath water. In a world of growing population, weather change, resource competition, this approach may have a place. If done properly and if not promoted as THE solution as there is no such thing.
Up may find the following interesting:
http://www.matttaylor.com/public/4_sf_vertical_housing.htm
http://www.matttaylor.com/public/l_5_interview.htm
http://www.matttaylor.com/public/master_plan.htm
http://www.matttaylor.com/public/xanadu_project.htm
http://www.matttaylor.com/public/monkeyspaw.htm
In any schema for making habitat there are inherent opportunities and risks. the trick is to get the good aspects and eliminate the bad. This is a design process. In complex projects (almost everything) this requires an authentic collaborative design process not just among professionals - among all members of a community and society. we do not have this today.
Matt Taylor