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

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

top-down authoritarianism

Welcome to a major faction within SF.

[palecur.livejournal.com]

Arcologies, to my mind, share the same phase-space as a moored generation-ship. The concepts are not identical but share a number of essentials, in particular that a level of authoritarianism is critical, at least for the 'crew'. The general inhabitants serve the ship's ecosystem by providing a functioning economy, and their behavioral restrictions can be looser.

There's something interesting in here about personal freedom as a function of the scope of the environment. Five people in a lifeboat can afford a sharply limited amount of personal autonomy -- five billion people on a planet a good bit more. Fifty million in a sealed environment? Bit more open question.

[mithriltabby]

Arcology thinking stands in opposition to the “a man’s home is his castle” principle. That can take the form of centralized authority, or of “we’re all in this together” cooperation.

I think part of it is that arcologies are an example of the classic “if this goes on” trope in science fiction. We keep building bigger buildings in our cities, and building bigger cities, so it’s natural to ask where that will lead us. Arcologies are one of the tourist attractions along that path, then the ecumenopolis (like Trantor), and then on to the megastructures...

[racerxmachina.livejournal.com]

I would caution against taking these critiques as canon about the problems existing in Arcosanti, though, no doubt, there are some, as there are with any planned community. Considering that all these critiques are housed on the same website, and have the style and tone of being written by the same person, it seems to me like a concerted hate-on rather than an independent, unbiased analysis of the way the arcology is run. I would, therefore, like to see articles from other online or print sources examining on the social/architectural environment of Arcosanti, to get a broader, more realistic picture of what works and what doesn't.

I observed that the use of the word fascist/fascism in the essay by the former resident is often used as an inflammatory remark, rather than an actual descriptor of the socio-political structure used in Italy during Soleri's time there. No concrete examples of how fascism actually functioned are given to illustrate the author's opinion of Soleri's methodology and how it is totalitarian and fascist.

An example of "fascism" cited in the former resident's critique, in which Soleri expected women to take their children to work with them as was done in "fascist" Italy, seems to me to be less a question of fascism and more a situation that arose from Soleri's living in Turin, an urban area, with no set social structure for taking care of children during wartime, when the men were off to fight and the women went to the factories. Italian cities do not tend to have the agrarian family structure set in place (China, parts of Africa) wherein the parents work while the grandparents watch the small children full-time. No childcare provision was given, in Soleri's experience, because he grew up in an urban, male-dominated culture with strict expectations that women raise their own children, and no real back-up plan in case they couldn't-- it has little to do with fascism.

Also, I shall now step off my nerdbox and somewhat rudely submit that anyone who calls themselves Doctress Neutopia may wish to loosen their hemp shorts a smidge.

[seawasp]

To me the appeal of an arcology is obvious. I can go anywhere I want without going outside.

The authoritarian bit seems obviously part of certain aspects of fandom, myself included: if you just had the RIGHT people running things it would be so much better. With us, of course, being the right sort of people.

Pity practice doesn't seem to play well with theory.

Yes and No

[(Anonymous)]

All of the comments are well taken, however...

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