Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [arcology] Re: Big Brother

Expand Messages
  • Randall Hunt
    ... Michael, I appreciate your sensibility. Would you care to freely expand on what you consider important to arcology and to designing arcological space?
    Message 1 of 30 , Apr 2, 2001
      Michael Listman wrote:

      >Many of the security discussions on this list make me
      >question if we designing tightly controlled inner city
      >public housing, or a grand, utopian (or at least
      >highly desireable,) living space.

      Michael, I appreciate your sensibility. Would you care to freely expand on
      what you consider important to arcology and to designing arcological space?
    • Michael Listman
      ... My ultimate vision of an arcology is very close to that of Soleri, implemented with design considerations for energy efficiency, space reuse, and the
      Message 2 of 30 , Apr 3, 2001
        > Randall Hunt wrote:
        >
        > Michael, I appreciate your sensibility. Would you
        > care to freely expand on
        > what you consider important to arcology and to
        > designing arcological space?

        My ultimate vision of an arcology is very close to
        that of Soleri, implemented with design considerations
        for energy efficiency, space reuse, and the reduction
        of travel distances.

        This list has brought up many issues concerning the
        sociology of an arcology, and I feel that this will be
        THE major consideration in their design. For some
        debates here, I have pointed out the relative stances
        of those engaged; envisioning a more utopian society
        within an arcology, or projecting our current western
        culture into it.

        Early arcologies will NEED to embrace most of our
        current culture if they are to succeed. Every
        apartment will need a kitchen, you'll need a garage
        with 2 parking spaces for every unit, etc.

        As arcologies progress, and they can only evolve
        slightly faster than society does, more and more of
        the ultimate dream can be incorporated into their
        designs.

        Thinking of Arcosanti, (pretending that a legitimate
        funding effort was undertaken, and a true desire to
        complete it soon were in place,) I believe it is ahead
        of it's time and would not gain the acceptance of the
        general populace (Though it does make for a great
        artist colony, or maybe even a factory town {for bell
        making.})

        A successful arcology completed in the next decade
        needs to cater to the needs of Joe Sixpack, with all
        manners of diversions, both grand and mundane. With
        all the extra time an arcology promises, we can't
        assume all will choose the same passtime, or even that
        this extra time will be passed productively.

        This being said, an arcology will NEVER be built by
        monied interests (philanthropists stand as the sole
        exception here.)

        But that is another story...

        Michael Listman




        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • Daniel DeLorme
        ... I agree completely, you speak my very thoughts ^_^ ... I beg to disagree. Any entrepreneur worth his salt would recognize the enormous potential of
        Message 3 of 30 , Apr 3, 2001
          Michael Listman wrote:
          >
          > Early arcologies will NEED to embrace most of our
          > current culture if they are to succeed. Every
          > apartment will need a kitchen, you'll need a garage
          > with 2 parking spaces for every unit, etc.

          I agree completely, you speak my very thoughts ^_^

          > This being said, an arcology will NEVER be built by
          > monied interests (philanthropists stand as the sole
          > exception here.)

          I beg to disagree. Any entrepreneur worth his salt would recognize the
          enormous potential of arcologies for profit (and there's nothing wrong
          with profit, it has been the driving force behind most of human techno-
          logical evolution). Of course, few entrepreneurs have the ressources to
          fund an arco. That being said, we must remember that entrepreneurship is
          more a state of mind than a business model. So in order to fund arcology
          we just have to find some VERY rich people with entrepreneur qualities ;-)
          Actually, once those are on board it would probably be a much easier task
          to recruit other more conservative investors.

          Entrepreneurs are not only open to innovation but they thrive on it. That
          kind of person, when confronted with an idea as alien as arcologies, will
          still be willing to evaluate it's full potential instead of just dismissing
          as "too innovative therefore too risky".

          The challenge lies in finding entrepreneurs who have control over enough
          ressources to be significant in the funding of an arcology.

          Daniel
        • Chris ScottHanson
          ... I completely disagree with the garage thing. People do not and will not need a car in this kind of community. Cohousers all over north America are
          Message 4 of 30 , Apr 4, 2001
            Re: [arcology] Re: Re: Big Brother on 4/3/01 10:47 PM, Daniel DeLorme at deld2608@... wrote:

            > Early arcologies will NEED to embrace most of our
            > current culture if they are to succeed. Every
            > apartment will need a kitchen, you'll need a garage
            > with 2 parking spaces for every unit, etc.

            I agree completely, you speak my very thoughts ^_^

            I completely disagree with the garage thing.  People do not and will not need a car in this kind of community.  Cohousers all over north America are choosing not to have garages, and choosing to reduce parking, and choosing to segregate parking from there homes.  In fact, most of the eight cohousing projects I have gotten built or process of being built have underground parking by choice, not be force.

            With enough information, and enough self confidence as a group, groups of people can make really good choices.

            Chris ScottHanson

            Cohousing Resources, LLC
            Ecovillage, Cohousing & Sustainable Communities
            Development and Consulting

            email:          Chris@...
            web site:      http://www.CohousingResources.com

            9813 NE Murden Cove Dr.
            Bainbridge Island, WA  98110

            (206)842-9160
            (206)842-9203 FAX
            (206)369-7755 Cell
          • mlistman@yahoo.com
            ... will not ... America are ... choosing ... cohousing ... underground ... Underground parking is still parking! The intent of my statement was just to
            Message 5 of 30 , Apr 4, 2001
              > Chris ScottHanson writes:

              > I completely disagree with the garage thing. People do not and
              will not
              > need a car in this kind of community. Cohousers all over north
              America are
              > choosing not to have garages, and choosing to reduce parking, and
              choosing
              > to segregate parking from there homes. In fact, most of the eight
              cohousing
              > projects I have gotten built or process of being built have
              underground
              > parking by choice, not be force.

              Underground parking is still parking!

              The intent of my statement was just to illustrate some of the
              cultural contrasts between western and arcological living. The
              ultimate dream of the arcology, would be for no resident to need or
              own vehicles, that when one was needed (rarely,) they would be
              available for rent (or through some other arrangement.) And these
              cars would definitely be segragated from living areas.

              My point was that when people are ready for the full blown arcology,
              they will be ready to give up their cars. Cohousers may reduce the
              number of cars they own, they may even share their cars, but they
              still HAVE cars, it is necessary in our current system.

              People will not move to an arcology where they can't take their car
              (s), if they think they still need them. And in an arcology built
              today, they still need them.

              Michael Listman
            • Alan Grimes
              ... My answer to that was to give everybody access to whitecars that are maintained with the building. How parking should be provided is an issue for the
              Message 6 of 30 , Apr 4, 2001
                > People will not move to an arcology where they can't take their car
                > (s), if they think they still need them. And in an arcology built
                > today, they still need them.

                My answer to that was to give everybody access to "whitecars" that are
                maintained with the building. How parking should be provided is an
                issue for the architects...

                Again that was a much older posting....

                Another posting described how an arcology development corporation would
                work.

                --
                I hope you will excuse me but I don't really want to use an operating
                system that was developed before I was born. (Unix)
                http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website.
                Any usage of this e-mail account is subject to the terms and conditions
                specified on my website.
              • Randall Hunt
                ... [snip] ... Let me disabuse you of a misconception: for a paltry sum of $2,000,000 (and up) you can buy a residence aboard the world s first(?) floating
                Message 7 of 30 , Apr 4, 2001
                  >A successful arcology completed in the next decade
                  >needs to cater to the needs of Joe Sixpack...
                  [snip]
                  >This being said, an arcology will NEVER be built by
                  >monied interests (philanthropists stand as the sole
                  >exception here.)
                  >
                  >But that is another story...

                  Let me disabuse you of a misconception: for a paltry sum of $2,000,000 (and
                  up) you can buy a residence aboard the world's first(?) floating arcology.
                  "The World" is the name of a ship now under construction in Norway and will
                  be delivered by December, 2001. It will have 110 residences. of which 75%
                  are already sold. See the ad on page 75 of the January 8, 2001 issue of
                  Forbes, or go to their web site at: http://www.residensea.com
                • mlistman@yahoo.com
                  ... $2,000,000 (and ... arcology. This is an example of a profit motive I identified previously (office building example.) That such things like this could be
                  Message 8 of 30 , Apr 5, 2001
                    Randall Hunt wrote:

                    > Let me disabuse you of a misconception: for a paltry sum of
                    $2,000,000 (and
                    > up) you can buy a residence aboard the world's first(?) floating
                    arcology.

                    This is an example of a profit motive I identified previously (office
                    building example.) That such things like this could be built today if
                    extreme sums ($2m is extreme for most) are charged to offset
                    construction costs (an hence a nice profit for the builder.)

                    Although this is an EXAMPLE of an arcology, even on the web site,
                    this is billed as a haven for the elite (who do not need to be
                    controlled by the establishment,) and is not an arcology for the
                    masses, which is what we're all after... right?

                    Michael Listman
                  • Chris ScottHanson
                    ... A pretty grand statement, Michael. Are you that sure? Chris ScottHanson
                    Message 9 of 30 , Apr 5, 2001
                      Re: [arcology] Re: Big Brother on 4/4/01 5:53 PM, mlistman@... at mlistman@... wrote:

                      People will not move to an arcology where they can't take their car
                      (s), if they think they still need them. And in an arcology built
                      today, they still need them.

                      A pretty grand statement, Michael.  Are you that sure?


                      Chris ScottHanson
                    • Daniel DeLorme
                      ... Whoa! mucho coolo! It s nice to know there *are* arcologies being built today. Even if it s just for the rich... it s a beginning! After all, when cars
                      Message 10 of 30 , Apr 5, 2001
                        mlistman@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Randall Hunt wrote:
                        >
                        > > Let me disabuse you of a misconception: for a paltry sum of
                        > $2,000,000 (and
                        > > up) you can buy a residence aboard the world's first(?) floating
                        > arcology.
                        >
                        > Although this is an EXAMPLE of an arcology, even on the web site,
                        > this is billed as a haven for the elite (who do not need to be
                        > controlled by the establishment,) and is not an arcology for the
                        > masses, which is what we're all after... right?

                        Whoa! mucho coolo! It's nice to know there *are* arcologies being
                        built today. Even if it's just for the rich... it's a beginning!
                        After all, when cars were first made, they were only for the rich
                        too, and look at today.


                        Daniel
                      • Randall Hunt
                        ... I agree with Michael. Just because one would not need a car to move about the city does not mean that one would not keep a car to go elsewhere. His
                        Message 11 of 30 , Apr 5, 2001
                          >>People will not move to an arcology where they can't take their car
                          >>(s), if they think they still need them. And in an arcology built
                          >>today, they still need them.
                          >
                          >A pretty grand statement, Michael.  Are you that sure?

                          I agree with Michael. Just because one would not need a car to move about
                          the city does not mean that one would not keep a car to go elsewhere. His
                          suggestion of a 2-car garage per unit is accommodated in the parking
                          structure(s). There is also the need to accommodate people who visit the
                          city, which, for the most part, means arriving by automobile.

                          Can anyone take an educated guess as to how many visitors per day one might
                          expect of a city that is a world famous landmark? Accommodation for eighty
                          thousand vehicles for a resident population of thirty thousand doesn't seem
                          too extreme to me. Remember, you can't just put out a sign at the city
                          entrance that says, "Sorry, Full"!

                          I note in my book that parking structures should be built for other uses as
                          well so they are not "useless" if "empty".


                          Randall Hunt

                          "My objective is to articulate a means by which an arcological city
                          for a resident population of 25-30,000 can be built in the world
                          as it is today." http://www.wildapache.net/randhunt
                        • Chris ScottHanson
                          ... Regular people, living in regular cities and towns, who move into cohousing are finding that they only need about 1 car per household, with a lot of car
                          Message 12 of 30 , Apr 5, 2001
                            Re: [arcology] Parking on 4/5/01 1:36 PM, Randall Hunt at randhunt@... wrote:

                            >>People will not move to an arcology where they can't take their car
                            >>(s), if they think they still need them. And in an arcology built
                            >>today, they still need them.
                            >
                            >A pretty grand statement, Michael.  Are you that sure?

                            I agree with Michael. Just because one would not need a car to move about
                            the city does not mean that one would not keep a car to go elsewhere. His
                            suggestion of a 2-car garage per unit is accommodated in the parking
                            structure(s). There is also the need to accommodate people who visit the
                            city, which, for the most part, means arriving by automobile.

                            Can anyone take an educated guess as to how many visitors per day one might
                            expect of a city that is a world famous landmark? Accommodation for eighty
                            thousand vehicles for a resident population of thirty thousand doesn't seem
                            too extreme to me. Remember, you can't just put out a sign at the city
                            entrance that says, "Sorry, Full"!

                            I note in my book that parking structures should be built for other uses as
                            well so they are not "useless" if "empty".

                            Regular people, living in regular cities and towns, who move into cohousing are finding that they only need about 1 car per household, with a lot of car sharing, and a lot of commitment to bicycles and buses.  At Winslow (30 units) they moved in back in 1992 with 45 cars and 45 parking spaces, (and 50 adults, and 30 kids, and 16 cats and 4 dogs) and a very cramped parking lot.  Within a few years the numbers of cars had dropped significantly.  The current count, 8 years later, is 31 cars, with plenty of room in the parking lot.  Fewer than 40% of the adults who live there commute off site to go to work.  The rest have all found ways to work at home, or live on less.  My guess is that this number may be 50% nation wide in the 52 existing cohousing communities.

                            I would suggest that the pioneers who want to explore autofree urban life will seek alternative ways to meet their transportation needs.  If an arcology were large enough to be internally sustainable, and I understand that number needs to be around 2000 or 2500 dwelling units, if it were my money I would plan for 1.1 or 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit.  As you say, Randy, parking structures should be built for other uses as well so they are not useless if empty.


                            Chris ScottHanson

                            Cohousing Resources, LLC
                            Ecovillage, Cohousing & Sustainable Communities
                            Development and Consulting

                            email:          Chris@...
                            web site:      http://www.CohousingResources.com

                            9813 NE Murden Cove Dr.
                            Bainbridge Island, WA  98110

                            (206)842-9160
                            (206)842-9203 FAX
                            (206)369-7755 Cell
                          • mlistman@yahoo.com
                            ... car ... That statement, taken out of the context in which it was placed, does seem quite grand. Michael Listman
                            Message 13 of 30 , Apr 5, 2001
                              --- In arcology@y..., Chris ScottHanson <chris@c...> wrote:
                              > on 4/4/01 5:53 PM, mlistman@y... at mlistman@y... wrote:
                              > >
                              > > People will not move to an arcology where they can't take their
                              car
                              > > (s), if they think they still need them. And in an arcology built
                              > > today, they still need them.
                              > >
                              > A pretty grand statement, Michael. Are you that sure?
                              >
                              >
                              > Chris ScottHanson

                              That statement, taken out of the context in which it was placed, does
                              seem quite grand.

                              Michael Listman
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.