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

[arcology] Re: Elements: Population Size

Expand Messages
  • Rafael Pizarro
    ... Interesting poll! Good idea, Randall! People: For me, it is an arcology of more than two million. My concern is cultural richness. From my own
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      >Poll:
      >How big do you personally envision?
      >Both in terms of population and in terms of physical size (length, breadth,
      >height)?

      Interesting poll! Good idea, Randall!

      People: For me, it is an arcology of more than two million. My concern is
      "cultural richness." From my own experience having lived in about 10-12
      cities in three differnt continents and having visited another 20 (also in
      differnt countries) of sizes varying from 600 to 12 million I feel the
      possibilities of having a rich cultural diversity of poeples from difernt
      cultural backgrounds/practices, ethnicitoes, religions, worldviews and their
      own partucluar artistic expressions, less than two million is very difficult
      to achieve the above. BUt then again, I may be biased toward the big
      metropolis. I must admit that my models are the traditional big cities such
      as NY, S. Fco, London, Paris, Rio, etc. If we could get rid cmopeltely of
      their cars and sorround them with, aty least, 300 sq. miles of greenery
      (agr., and nat. preserves) I would be happy as a clam (how could they be
      happy being clams? go figure!).

      Height: rather unimportant to me. I'm confident that techniology will sert
      the limit to arcology hiehgt.


      Footprint: The 1/2 mile diameter. Maybe another 1/4 mile extra if provided
      with appropriate moving sidewalks and bike paths running outward toward the
      "edges" of the city.

      Rafael.
    • Rafael Pizarro
      ... miles ... Not sure where you got this datum from but even if true your prophecy depends on the material those structures are built of and where (floating
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >The earth's crust will start to buckle and liquify when buildings reach 40
        miles
        >tall.

        Not sure where you got this datum from but even if true your prophecy
        depends on the material those structures are built of and where (floating
        arcologies will operate under different forces).

        >> I'll vote for a premier structure that houses a permanent population of
        >> 25-30 thousand

        Are you kidding? a 25-30 thousand "arcology" is a bit larger than what many
        countries would call a "village." Not that I am criticizing the concept but
        it strikes me as VERY different to what Soleri has in mind. But even
        outside Soleri's notion of "city," I doubt a 25-30,000 "town" can develop a
        healthy economy. It would become too dependent on surrounding larger urban
        systems to be robust. Not to mention the culture issue (that for me is so
        crucial). 25-30K is what?...something like Prescott, perhaps? Lovely town
        to visit but I would die of boredom there in 6 months!

        Rafael.
      • Randall Hunt
        ... Here s my reasoning: You have to start somewhere. I want to have something that is big enough to be meaningful yet small enough to be achievable. We are
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Rafael wondered:

          >Are you kidding? a 25-30 thousand "arcology"
          >is a bit larger than what many countries would
          >call a "village." Not that I am criticizing
          >the concept but it strikes me as VERY different
          >to what Soleri has in mind. But even outside
          >Soleri's notion of "city," I
          >doubt a 25-30,000 "town" can develop a healthy
          >economy. It would become too dependent on
          >surrounding larger urban systems to be robust.
          >Not to mention the culture issue (that for me
          >is so crucial). 25-30K is what?...something
          >like Prescott, perhaps? Lovely town to visit
          >but I would die of boredom there in 6 months!

          Here's my reasoning:

          You have to start somewhere. I want to have something that is big enough to
          be meaningful yet small enough to be achievable. We are talking billions of
          dollars here but not so many billions that cannot be mustered with the
          right proposal. The project can only be financed by capital interest that
          has an eye on ROI (I wouldn't count on anything but lip service from
          government). I believe that resources can be found to build a full, working
          city: a premier "support structure" (arcology). I believe that it would be
          famous and would draw visitors--and their tourist cash--from around the
          world for at least 50 years. I believe that such a city can have an
          intrinsic system of economics (intrinsically economical) which would make
          it not only autonomous but prosperous. I believe that such a premier
          structure would see cultural diversity and opportunity beyond that which
          you are extrapolating. I do not believe you would die of boredom.

          More reasoning:

          Urban historians have asked the question, What is the ideal size for a
          city? My research informs that most historical opinion places the figure
          between 10-50 thousand, with observations that above 100,000 there are
          increasing social problems which begin to dramatically offset the cultural
          advantages enjoyed up to that number. My target figure of 25-30 thousand
          (permanent population; up to 40 thousand at full visitor capacity) places
          the proposal well within the nod of considered opinion and historic example.


          >...I doubt a 25-30,000 "town" can develop a healthy economy...

          You might want to reconsider in view of historical precedent.



          >... it strikes me as VERY different to what Soleri has in mind...

          Hey, when you get down to it, Soleri has in mind an Urban Laboratory for
          6,000 or so.


          Randall Hunt
          randhunt@...
          DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
        • Robert Rainmaker
          Randall, It s good to be back in touch... I must favor Rafael s response. The ideal arcology would house millions. Of course, this must be qualified: It seems
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Randall,

            It's good to be back in touch...
            I must favor Rafael's response. The ideal arcology would house millions. Of
            course, this must be qualified: It seems to be generally considered that an
            arcology must be a monolithic structure, quite possibly because of the
            staying power of Soleri's original drawings of megastructures in CITIOM. A
            hybridized system, composed of several linked, yet discreet buildings
            (providing more surface area while maintaining overall density) could house
            millions. I am in favor of looking even beyond the realm of strict arcology
            (whatever that is). Perhaps there is some merit to the initial fusion of New
            Urbanist principles to arcology, a step on the road to arcology that shrinks
            the city's boundries, increases proximity, lessens transit infrastructure
            needs and preserves nature, even if it looks more like a compressed suburb
            than Babel IID...

            Back to Rafael's point. Consider that people still call Arcosanti 'the city
            of the future' when in fact it couldn't even contend in the town category.
            (Village? Maybe.) The urban effect, a civilizational phenomenon, requires a
            certain amount of people. It's that simple. Well, not actually, since the
            urban effect, and indeed 'the city' is an incredibly complex phenomenon. But
            my point is that, from personal experience, BIG cities offer the most
            opportunity for URBANISM to be realized most profoundly. Any takers? How do
            you feel about the requisite population size for a 'city'?

            Again, going with Rafael, I think ideal size should be an effect more than
            cause, save to say that a few straightforward limits should be exercised:
            1. Pedestrian reach: the distance a person is able to traverse comfortably
            in a reasonable amount of time.
            2. Transit reach: the distance a transitor (mechanically conveyed person or
            cargo) can traverse in both energy and time efficiency.
            3. Visual reach: the amount of open land around an arcology required to
            create the symbiosis of man and nature I hold to be a fundamental tenet of
            arcology.

            Because arcology is a largely prescriptive theory (currently), it seems as
            though there will be much interplay about what should constitute a cause and
            effect... This will be very interesting.

            All the best,
            Robert Rainmaker-Matthews

            (On a personal note... it's been much to long. I've missed you!)

            >From: "Rafael Pizarro" <rpizarro@...>
            >Reply-To: arcology@egroups.com
            >To: <arcology@egroups.com>
            >Subject: [arcology] Re: Elements: Population Size
            >Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:27:54 -0800
            >
            > >Poll:
            > >How big do you personally envision?
            > >Both in terms of population and in terms of physical size (length,
            >breadth,
            > >height)?
            >
            >Interesting poll! Good idea, Randall!
            >
            >People: For me, it is an arcology of more than two million. My concern is
            >"cultural richness." From my own experience having lived in about 10-12
            >cities in three differnt continents and having visited another 20 (also in
            >differnt countries) of sizes varying from 600 to 12 million I feel the
            >possibilities of having a rich cultural diversity of poeples from difernt
            >cultural backgrounds/practices, ethnicitoes, religions, worldviews and
            >their
            >own partucluar artistic expressions, less than two million is very
            >difficult
            >to achieve the above. BUt then again, I may be biased toward the big
            >metropolis. I must admit that my models are the traditional big cities
            >such
            >as NY, S. Fco, London, Paris, Rio, etc. If we could get rid cmopeltely of
            >their cars and sorround them with, aty least, 300 sq. miles of greenery
            >(agr., and nat. preserves) I would be happy as a clam (how could they be
            >happy being clams? go figure!).
            >
            >Height: rather unimportant to me. I'm confident that techniology will
            >sert
            >the limit to arcology hiehgt.
            >
            >
            >Footprint: The 1/2 mile diameter. Maybe another 1/4 mile extra if provided
            >with appropriate moving sidewalks and bike paths running outward toward the
            >"edges" of the city.
            >
            >Rafael.
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >Essential Feynman Library for $7.99! A $96.65 value of
            >3 books+6 audio tape set. Learn physics from Feynman
            >renown for making complex ideas easy. Order NOW at
            >Library of Science http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1368
            >
            >-- 20 megs of disk space in your eGroup's Document Vault
            >-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/arcology/?m=1
            >
            >

            ______________________________________________________
          • Robert Rainmaker
            Earth s crust buckling!? Now that s apocolyptic. Needless to say, an arcology 40 miles tall (over 200,000 ft. - some 17k stories) would place the penthouse
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Earth's crust buckling!? Now that's apocolyptic. Needless to say, an
              arcology 40 miles tall (over 200,000 ft. - some 17k stories) would place the
              penthouse suite somewhere in, well, space. The view from the balcony would
              be stunning to be sure, but cold... DAMN COLD!!!


              >From: "Rafael Pizarro" <rpizarro@...>
              >Reply-To: arcology@egroups.com
              >To: <arcology@egroups.com>
              >Subject: [arcology] Re: Elements: Population Size
              >Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:12 -0800
              >
              > >The earth's crust will start to buckle and liquify when buildings reach
              >40
              >miles
              > >tall.
              >
              >Not sure where you got this datum from but even if true your prophecy
              >depends on the material those structures are built of and where (floating
              >arcologies will operate under different forces).
              >
              > >> I'll vote for a premier structure that houses a permanent population of
              > >> 25-30 thousand
              >
              >Are you kidding? a 25-30 thousand "arcology" is a bit larger than what
              >many
              >countries would call a "village." Not that I am criticizing the concept
              >but
              >it strikes me as VERY different to what Soleri has in mind. But even
              >outside Soleri's notion of "city," I doubt a 25-30,000 "town" can develop a
              >healthy economy. It would become too dependent on surrounding larger urban
              >systems to be robust. Not to mention the culture issue (that for me is so
              >crucial). 25-30K is what?...something like Prescott, perhaps? Lovely town
              >to visit but I would die of boredom there in 6 months!
              >
              >Rafael.
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >Looking for the latest consumer electronic gadgets or computer
              >equipment? eBay has thousands of audio equipment, computer
              >games & accessories. You never know what you might find at eBay!
              >http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1142
              >
              >eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/arcology/
              >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              >
              >
              >

              ______________________________________________________
            • Randall Hunt
              ... and ... Your use of terms, cause and effect leaves me without an understanding of what you are saying. Can you rephrase? Randall Hunt
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Robert Rainmaker-Matthews wrote:

                >Again, going with Rafael, I think ideal size
                >should be an effect more than cause...

                and

                >Because arcology is a largely prescriptive
                >theory (currently), it seems as though there
                >will be much interplay about what should
                >constitute a cause and effect...

                Your use of terms, "cause and effect" leaves me without an understanding of
                what you are saying. Can you rephrase?


                Randall Hunt
                randhunt@...
                DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
              • Lou Dallara
                This tread died a while ago, but still has me thinking about the subject. We were discussing the location of individual residences located behind the foundry,
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 5, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  This tread died a while ago, but still has me thinking about the subject.
                   
                  We were discussing the location of individual residences located behind the foundry,
                  and the problems associated living in close proximity to a factory or noisy manufacturing.
                   
                  The question I have is whether it is truly possible to design habit close to manufacturing?
                   
                  Is it possible to design a universal structure??
                   
                  Lou
                • Alan Grimes
                  ... Remember the scale we are talking about. If you can find a way to manage the heat given off by a foundry, or in a few years a nano ore-seperation facility,
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 5, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Lou Dallara wrote:
                    >
                    > This tread died a while ago, but still has me thinking about the subject.
                    >
                    > We were discussing the location of individual residences located behind the
                    > foundry,
                    > and the problems associated living in close proximity to a factory or noisy
                    > manufacturing.
                    >
                    > The question I have is whether it is truly possible to design habit close to
                    > manufacturing?
                    >
                    > Is it possible to design a universal structure??

                    Remember the scale we are talking about. If you can find a way to manage the
                    heat given off by a foundry, or in a few years a nano ore-seperation facility,
                    you would seperate it from the rest of the structure by placing medium-noise
                    areas such as the resident's car garage next-door. By using echo halting
                    wallcoverings and vibration dampening equipment the noise should be quite
                    tolerable... =)

                    --
                    The mind is like a knot. Once you solve it it disappears.

                    users.erols.com/alangrimes/
                  • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
                    I did live behind the foundry at Cosanti many years ago (before there was a bell-assembly area behind the wirand apse). It was a very tiny room, really just a
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 5, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I did live behind the foundry at Cosanti many years ago (before there was a
                      bell-assembly area behind the wirand apse). It was a very tiny room,
                      really just a sleeping/dressing space. I didn't find it noisy and I didn't
                      find it too hot (even during a pour) but of course the circumstances were
                      abnormal or at least a bit out of the ordinary. Lofts in industrial areas
                      have idiosyncratic tenants as a rule: maybe that's the answer. I can't
                      imagine what an "universal structure" would be, as structures are nearly
                      always culture-specific and there's hardly such a thing as an "universal
                      culture." Claire

                      This thread died a while ago, but still has me thinking about the subject.

                      We were discussing the location of individual residences located behind the
                      foundry,
                      and the problems associated living in close proximity to a factory or noisy
                      manufacturing.

                      The question I have is whether it is truly possible to design habit close
                      to manufacturing?

                      Is it possible to design a universal structure??

                      Lou

                      <http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1398>

                      Click here!

                      eGroups.com Home:
                      <http://www.egroups.com/group/arcology>http://www.egroups.com/group/arcology
                      <http://www.egroups.com>www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                    • Robert Rainmaker
                      Of course: I didn t mean to confuse. Let me pose a question. Should we first determine the physical size of the structure, then populate it? Or consider the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 6, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Of course:

                        I didn't mean to confuse. Let me pose a question. Should we first determine
                        the physical size of the structure, then populate it? Or consider the
                        population first, then determine the physical size? By cause and effect, I
                        mean that a finite physical container will limit the population as a
                        maximum. Similarly, a predefined minimum population (critical mass?) will
                        limit the size of the physical container as a minimum.

                        I consider arcology theory to be prescriptive, i.e. describing what 'should'
                        be rather than descriptive. Arcology will prescribe many conditions, such as
                        pedestrianism, and certainly size limits both to population and physical
                        size will be suggested. Thus the interplay: the population - physical size
                        equation will have to be balanced. I believe that this was really the point
                        of your original question.

                        Rephrased: Which should be determined first, population size or physical
                        limits? Both angles are significant, and perhaps a more thoughtful response
                        on my part would be this: We should define each for itself, under idealized
                        circumstances, then attempt to reconcile the two.

                        If we say that, ideally and for example, an arcology should have 20 million
                        inhabitants, and that, independently, an ideal arcology size is no more that
                        1/4 mile in diameter, then somethings got to give if the density is to be
                        manageable.

                        Let me state one thing with certainty. Your original question was most
                        excellent. I must continue to give it thought and really appreciate the
                        conversation about this issue. It is critical to our mission.

                        Your friend,
                        Rob


                        >From: Randall Hunt <randhunt@...>
                        >Reply-To: arcology@egroups.com
                        >To: arcology@egroups.com
                        >Subject: [arcology] Re: Elements: Population Size
                        >Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:39:08 -0700
                        >
                        >Robert Rainmaker-Matthews wrote:
                        >
                        > >Again, going with Rafael, I think ideal size
                        > >should be an effect more than cause...
                        >
                        >and
                        >
                        > >Because arcology is a largely prescriptive
                        > >theory (currently), it seems as though there
                        > >will be much interplay about what should
                        > >constitute a cause and effect...
                        >
                        >Your use of terms, "cause and effect" leaves me without an understanding of
                        >what you are saying. Can you rephrase?
                        >
                        >

                        ______________________________________________________
                      • Randall Hunt
                        Rob was speaking about prescriptive v. descriptive theory of arcology vis-a-vis population/structural size... I asked Paolo a couple of years ago what he
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 6, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Rob was speaking about prescriptive v. descriptive theory of arcology
                          vis-a-vis population/structural size...


                          I asked Paolo a couple of years ago what he considered to be an ideal size
                          for an arcology. Essentially, his answer was, "Ideal for what?" He pointed
                          out that an ideal size will vary depending on many factors. One of those
                          factors is knowing what the particular city is created for [paraphrased].

                          The aim of my inquiry into these various elements we are discussing is to
                          arrive at actual working specifications (prescriptive, if you will) and
                          working drawings (descriptive). Without an actual plan, arcology will
                          remain theoretical and there will never be one built. I am hacking my way
                          toward a real proposal to be presented (in good time) to real people.

                          Compared to the current situation of urban development, a proposal for an
                          arcology would be extremely radical and out of the ordinary. Actual
                          implementation would depend on an airtight case for its commercial success
                          and its social benefit. Comparatively, it would be a very, very expensive
                          project to capitalize.

                          Toward this end, I/we must decide how big the project is to be. Since the
                          entire point is to nurture culture, an arcology--I really prefer the
                          descriptive, unambiguous, uncomplicated term, "support structure"-- a
                          support structure that is too small in terms of population will not create
                          the social dynamic that is the essence of the matter. Conversely, a project
                          that is much larger than necessary will simply not see the light of day due
                          to its cost. My intent is not mere sophomoric discussion of abstract
                          ideals. My intent is to find the smallest size that will be a fully robust
                          city--economically, socially, etc.--so that it will get built and
                          successfully stand on its own.

                          My gut target of 25-30 thousand permanent population (plus transient
                          accommodation) may be larger than required to demonstrate viability but it
                          would certainly insure a sufficient amount of diversity to call it, without
                          a doubt, a real city. Structures for a million people or more may perhaps
                          be implemented someday--tho I personally doubt it--but I guarantee that
                          figure does not stand a chance as a first effort.

                          My hunch is that given the extraordinary density of an arcological
                          construct, one would need fewer people to stimulate the urban effect than
                          in a flat city. In other words: if urban historians agree that it takes at
                          least 25,000 to make a true city that offers optimum benefits with the
                          least social liability, an arcology might achieve the same thing with only
                          20,000 or 15,000. If true, this would work in our favor because we can
                          propose a less expensive project.

                          Remember, this is something I want to have built, not something for the
                          theory books. Cost increases exponentially with size. The bigger it is, the
                          more people we must convince and the more difficult it will be.

                          Now as for the question of which comes first (a population target or a size
                          target), I opt for a population target as a starting point. From that, one
                          deduces the extent of civic, institutional, commercial (etc) facilities
                          required to support that population. Ultimately we arrive at minimum
                          physical size. From there, one adds/multiplies by a fudge factor to get a
                          final, proposed physical size. Then you create an actual plan. It seems
                          putting the cart before the horse to say the structure should be
                          such-and-such a size and then try to figure how many it will hold after we
                          account for the facility needs of that unknown figure. Too much
                          back-and-forth figuring, don't you agree?


                          Randall Hunt
                          randhunt@...
                          DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
                        • Randall Hunt
                          ... Sure it s possible to design habitat close to manufacturing--especially light manufacturing. I spent a year living in the east Foundry studio (over the
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 6, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Lou wrote:

                            >We were discussing the location of individual
                            >residences located behind the foundry, and
                            >the problems associated living in close
                            >proximity to a factory or noisy manufacturing.  
                            >The question I have is whether it is truly
                            >possible to design habitat close to manufacturing?  
                            >Is it possible to design a universal structure??

                            Sure it's possible to design habitat close to manufacturing--especially
                            light manufacturing. I spent a year living in the east Foundry studio (over
                            the furnace). It was the nicest room I've ever occupied. I was elsewhere at
                            work during the day so the noise didn't bother me. Even sick in bed,
                            recouperating, it wasn't that bothersome. At night, of course, all was
                            quiet and clean. The dust was only a problem if I foolishly left the
                            windows open during the day. It's too bad the fire marshall delcared the
                            room unsuitable for habitation, due to the furnace. (For the last decade or
                            more, that beautiful room has been Tomalty's private trash heap--not even a
                            day studio for a working artist! And they bemoan a lack of facilities!
                            Check it out next time you're at Arcosanti.)

                            BTW: I lived in one of the studios in the Lab Building for several months,
                            too. The proximity of the woodshop never bothered me either. Don't get me
                            wrong, tho: I don't believe that lifestyle will appeal to all people or all
                            ages. And that's OK because there won't be even light manufacturing
                            adjacent to all residences. As Alan says, what noise and dust/fumes there
                            are in certain places can be isolated and contained/controlled.

                            I don't think it's practical to envision a "universal structure", if by
                            that you mean one that can be duplicated in plan. Cities just don't work
                            that way. There are always improvements that will be made. However, it is
                            practical and useful to envision prescriptive specifications that account
                            for the physical uniqueness of arcology. They may be the basis for
                            interpretive form.


                            Randall Hunt
                            randhunt@...
                            DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
                          • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
                            The Russians thought that 30,000 was a good number because that is the maximum number of people one can have sight recognition of. That s not a big city,
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 9, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The Russians thought that 30,000 was a good number because that is the
                              maximum number of people one can have sight recognition of. That's not a
                              "big city," but if countering anonymity is a goal, then trying to limit
                              population is logical. The advantage of such a limit, I daresay, is that
                              sight recognition probably cuts down on the opportunity to commit crimes.
                              That may even have been one of the appealing factors about suburban life,
                              originally, in addition to the desire for more green space and private
                              housing, neither of which is available in great measure in most cities, at
                              least not for Joe/Jill Average.

                              But if you like (or prefer not to be) recognized / identified as a familiar
                              face then obviously you want to live in a much more populated community.
                              Even in the suburbs, neighborhoods are important. In the cities, they are
                              (see Jane Jacobs' masterpiece) how people identify where they live:
                              Chelsea, SoHo, The Village, et al.

                              Arcosanti is not a city. It is an "urban laboratory" ie the campus of
                              Cosanti's educational project. It needs a paved access road if more of it
                              is to be built.
                              Claire

                              >Randall,
                              >
                              >It's good to be back in touch...
                              >I must favor Rafael's response. The ideal arcology would house millions. Of
                              >course, this must be qualified: It seems to be generally considered that an
                              >arcology must be a monolithic structure, quite possibly because of the
                              >staying power of Soleri's original drawings of megastructures in CITIOM. A
                              >hybridized system, composed of several linked, yet discreet buildings
                              >(providing more surface area while maintaining overall density) could house
                              >millions. I am in favor of looking even beyond the realm of strict arcology
                              >(whatever that is). Perhaps there is some merit to the initial fusion of New
                              >Urbanist principles to arcology, a step on the road to arcology that shrinks
                              >the city's boundries, increases proximity, lessens transit infrastructure
                              >needs and preserves nature, even if it looks more like a compressed suburb
                              >than Babel IID...
                              >
                              >Back to Rafael's point. Consider that people still call Arcosanti 'the city
                              >of the future' when in fact it couldn't even contend in the town category.
                              >(Village? Maybe.) The urban effect, a civilizational phenomenon, requires a
                              >certain amount of people. It's that simple. Well, not actually, since the
                              >urban effect, and indeed 'the city' is an incredibly complex phenomenon. But
                              >my point is that, from personal experience, BIG cities offer the most
                              >opportunity for URBANISM to be realized most profoundly. Any takers? How do
                              >you feel about the requisite population size for a 'city'?
                              >
                              >Again, going with Rafael, I think ideal size should be an effect more than
                              >cause, save to say that a few straightforward limits should be exercised:
                              >1. Pedestrian reach: the distance a person is able to traverse comfortably
                              >in a reasonable amount of time.
                              >2. Transit reach: the distance a transitor (mechanically conveyed person or
                              >cargo) can traverse in both energy and time efficiency.
                              >3. Visual reach: the amount of open land around an arcology required to
                              >create the symbiosis of man and nature I hold to be a fundamental tenet of
                              >arcology.
                              >
                              >Because arcology is a largely prescriptive theory (currently), it seems as
                              >though there will be much interplay about what should constitute a cause and
                              >effect... This will be very interesting.
                              >
                              >All the best,
                              >Robert Rainmaker-Matthews
                              >
                              >(On a personal note... it's been much to long. I've missed you!)
                              >
                              >>From: "Rafael Pizarro" <rpizarro@...>
                              >>Reply-To: arcology@egroups.com
                              >>To: <arcology@egroups.com>
                              >>Subject: [arcology] Re: Elements: Population Size
                              >>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:27:54 -0800
                              >>
                              >> >Poll:
                              >> >How big do you personally envision?
                              >> >Both in terms of population and in terms of physical size (length,
                              >>breadth,
                              >> >height)?
                              >>
                              >>Interesting poll! Good idea, Randall!
                              >>
                              >>People: For me, it is an arcology of more than two million. My concern is
                              >>"cultural richness." From my own experience having lived in about 10-12
                              >>cities in three differnt continents and having visited another 20 (also in
                              >>differnt countries) of sizes varying from 600 to 12 million I feel the
                              >>possibilities of having a rich cultural diversity of poeples from difernt
                              >>cultural backgrounds/practices, ethnicitoes, religions, worldviews and
                              >>their
                              >>own partucluar artistic expressions, less than two million is very
                              >>difficult
                              >>to achieve the above. BUt then again, I may be biased toward the big
                              >>metropolis. I must admit that my models are the traditional big cities
                              >>such
                              >>as NY, S. Fco, London, Paris, Rio, etc. If we could get rid cmopeltely of
                              >>their cars and sorround them with, aty least, 300 sq. miles of greenery
                              >>(agr., and nat. preserves) I would be happy as a clam (how could they be
                              >>happy being clams? go figure!).
                              >>
                              >>Height: rather unimportant to me. I'm confident that techniology will
                              >>sert
                              >>the limit to arcology hiehgt.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>Footprint: The 1/2 mile diameter. Maybe another 1/4 mile extra if provided
                              >>with appropriate moving sidewalks and bike paths running outward toward the
                              >>"edges" of the city.
                              >>
                              >>Rafael.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >>Essential Feynman Library for $7.99! A $96.65 value of
                              >>3 books+6 audio tape set. Learn physics from Feynman
                              >>renown for making complex ideas easy. Order NOW at
                              >>Library of Science http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1368
                              >>
                              >>-- 20 megs of disk space in your eGroup's Document Vault
                              >>-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/arcology/?m=1
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >______________________________________________________
                              >
                              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >Petersonís Field Guides-5-volume wildlife set-for
                              >$4.99! Authoritative pocket guides with photos
                              >& quick references for nature lovers. Join & order
                              >NOW http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1366
                              >
                              >
                              >-- eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/arcology/?m=1
                              >-- Free email groups at eGroups.com
                            • Stephen Budner
                              ... ....how many cells in the human body?......
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 9, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ruth-Claire Weintraub wrote:

                                > The Russians thought that 30,000 was a good number because that is the
                                > maximum number of people one can have sight recognition of. That's not a
                                > "big city," but if countering anonymity is a goal, then trying to limit
                                > population is logical.

                                ....how many cells in the human body?......
                              • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
                                Sorry, I don t get the point of this question with respect to population size. Would you please elaborate? Claire
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 10, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sorry, I don't get the point of this question with respect to population
                                  size. Would you please elaborate? Claire

                                  >
                                  >....how many cells in the human body?......
                                  >
                                • Erik Theodoor Buitenhuis
                                  ... Well, I don t see the point either, but I can give you a quick guesstimate: If a human cell is a cylinder of 1 micrometer diameter and 3 micrometer length,
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 10, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >>....how many cells in the human body?......
                                    >Sorry, I don't get the point of this question with respect to population
                                    >size. Would you please elaborate? Claire
                                    Well, I don't see the point either, but I can give you a quick guesstimate:
                                    If a human cell is a cylinder of 1 micrometer diameter and 3 micrometer
                                    length, then a human body of 70 liters contains about 7,000,000,000,000,000
                                    (7E15) cells.

                                    Cheers,
                                    Erik.
                                  • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
                                    Thanks, Erik. More cells in one human body than human individuals on the whole planet? Quite the organizational challenge.for whatever keeps the whole thing
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 11, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks, Erik. More cells in one human body than human individuals on the
                                      whole planet? Quite the organizational challenge.for whatever keeps the
                                      whole thing all in motion. RC

                                      >>>....how many cells in the human body?......
                                      >>Sorry, I don't get the point of this question with respect to population
                                      >>size. Would you please elaborate? Claire
                                      >Well, I don't see the point either, but I can give you a quick guesstimate:
                                      >If a human cell is a cylinder of 1 micrometer diameter and 3 micrometer
                                      >length, then a human body of 70 liters contains about 7,000,000,000,000,000
                                      >(7E15) cells.
                                      >
                                      >Cheers,
                                      >Erik.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      >Looking for that one of a kind collectible or unique home decoration?
                                      >eBay has thousands of kitchenware, lamps, and collectibles up for bid.
                                      >You never know what you might find at eBay!
                                      >http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1141
                                      >
                                      >-- Check out your eGroup's private Chat room
                                      >-- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=arcology&m=1
                                    • Lou Dallara
                                      I wondered why we have to start somewhere???? Does an ant think about how big a colony he will build??? What s so magic about 5K or 25K.. so are we thinking
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jan 15, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                I wondered why we have to start somewhere????
                                                Does an ant think about how big a colony he will build???
                                                What's so magic about 5K or 25K.. so are we thinking
                                                economies of scale???
                                         
                                                Louout
                                        Rafael wondered:
                                        
                                        >Are you kidding?  a 25-30 thousand "arcology"
                                        >is a bit larger than what many countries would
                                        >call a "village."  Not that I am criticizing 
                                        >the concept but it strikes me as VERY different
                                        >to what Soleri has in mind.  But even outside
                                        >Soleri's notion of "city," I
                                        >doubt a 25-30,000 "town" can develop a healthy
                                        >economy. It would become too dependent on
                                        >surrounding larger urban systems to be robust.
                                        >Not to mention the culture issue (that for me
                                        >is so crucial).  25-30K is what?...something
                                        >like Prescott, perhaps?  Lovely town to visit
                                        >but I would die of boredom there in 6 months!
                                        
                                        Here's my reasoning:
                                        
                                        You have to start somewhere. I want to have something that is big enough to
                                        be meaningful yet small enough to be achievable. We are talking billions of
                                        dollars here but not so many billions that cannot be mustered with the
                                        right proposal. The project can only be financed by capital interest that
                                        has an eye on ROI (I wouldn't count on anything but lip service from
                                        government). I believe that resources can be found to build a full, working
                                        city: a premier "support structure" (arcology). I believe that it would be
                                        famous and would draw visitors--and their tourist cash--from around the
                                        world for at least 50 years. I believe that such a city can have an
                                        intrinsic system of economics (intrinsically economical) which would make
                                        it not only autonomous but prosperous. I believe that such a premier
                                        structure would see cultural diversity and opportunity beyond that which
                                        you are extrapolating. I do not believe you would die of boredom.
                                        
                                        More reasoning:
                                        
                                        Urban historians have asked the question, What is the ideal size for a
                                        city?  My research informs that most historical opinion places the figure
                                        between 10-50 thousand, with observations that above 100,000 there are
                                        increasing social problems which begin to dramatically offset the cultural
                                        advantages enjoyed up to that number. My target figure of 25-30 thousand
                                        (permanent population; up to 40 thousand at full visitor capacity) places
                                        the proposal well within the nod of considered opinion and historic example.
                                        
                                        
                                        >...I doubt a 25-30,000 "town" can develop a healthy economy...
                                        
                                        You might want to reconsider in view of historical precedent.
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        >... it strikes me as VERY different to what Soleri has in mind...
                                        
                                        Hey, when you get down to it, Soleri has in mind an Urban Laboratory for
                                        6,000 or so.
                                        
                                        
                                        Randall Hunt
                                        randhunt@...
                                        DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
                                        
                                        
                                        

                                        click here
                                        Click here!
                                        eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/arcology
                                        www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                      • Alan Grimes
                                        One way to answer that is this: Okay you want 3 of each business to ensure continuous competition to ensure good quality.... Lets say supermarkets. How many
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jan 15, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          One way to answer that is this:

                                          Okay you want 3 of each business to ensure continuous competition to ensure
                                          good quality....

                                          Lets say supermarkets.

                                          How many customers does a single supermarket require to stay afloat?
                                          (ask the manager at your local supermarket). =)

                                          Now lets say we want the market to be tight to ensure strong competition and
                                          use a magic number of 2.95 as a factor...

                                          NUM FOR ONE SMARKET * 2.95 = Number for competative market for three
                                          supermarkets.

                                          Then you can do that and figure out about how many people is needed to keep
                                          the arco afloat. =)

                                          Ofcourse this can be scaled up and down... for a small-town arco you can
                                          assume that people get their foods at a general store and then adjust down
                                          accordingly. Or up and simply add more supermarkets at various locations
                                          around the arco. =) Anyway. I don't think this was taken into account during
                                          the planning of arcosanti. =\

                                          --
                                          To Mars!

                                          users.erols.com/alangrimes/
                                        • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jan 16, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.