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

City Sprawl

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Greek
    There is only one true solution to city sprawl, we need to not only cease expansion of the size of the human population, but we need incentives at every level
    Message 1 of 26 , Jun 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      There is only one true solution to city sprawl, we
      need to not only cease expansion of the size of the
      human population, but we need incentives at every
      level toward a reduction in population.

      I would think that in general, it is human nature to
      what to improve ones lot in life, living conditions,
      and to pass on better conditions to your child.

      As long as we continue to seek ways to cram more
      people onto this planet, I don't see that we're going
      to implement real solutions.

      At SOME point, the population of humans must,
      logically, reach a point where we, or nature, say "NO
      MORE". Why must we wait until everywhere is a
      nightmare?

      One of the things that attracted me to the Arcosanti
      site, was the idea that it was to be a relatively
      SMALL community of people, in a relatively small space
      of structures, yet with lots of open space around it
      and under its ownership/control.

      To implement that approach for a place like Los
      Angeles, wouldn't the city of LA need to own, and
      return to wilderness, the entire state of California
      (or more?)

      We do indeed need examples of something better that
      current cities. Proposals like the 500 year town are
      very attractive, but I doubt we want even that
      replicated endlessly across the entire continent.




      Ronald Greek
      Yuma, AZ, USA

      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
      http://calendar.yahoo.com
    • ericofeeler
      Ronald, Yes I agree there are too many humans running around, but you simply won t get them to stop breeding unless you get very Draconian (bejing style) or
      Message 2 of 26 , Jun 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Ronald,
        Yes I agree there are too many humans running around, but you simply
        won't get them to stop breeding unless you get very Draconian (bejing
        style) or get a very old and established mechanized culture (aka
        North Europe). Most of the world is neither.

        I think the LA example of arcology isn't that they would need more
        space around the metro area, but that they would use the space they
        have more efficently. Imagine a large cluster of connected buildings
        in the LA downtown area, large enough to hold the entire population.
        Then imagine the citizens falling back into this arcology, bulldozing
        sprawl as they go and turning it into parkland. Then you would have
        something more Arcosantian.

        (BTW, I DONT think the above example is realistic, but it is what
        I've heard as a plan for large metro areas. I'm just passing it on
        as an example. I think we would be better off making more cities,
        not less, but making them in the 10 to 20,000 range of population and
        spread them out across the country. And even though it seems like we
        have a lot of people, at least in North America there is a LOT of
        open space yet. Now China, India, Indonesia I don't know about, but
        one thing at a time.

        --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Greek <unno_2002@y...> wrote:
        > There is only one true solution to city sprawl, we
        > need to not only cease expansion of the size of the
        > human population, but we need incentives at every
        > level toward a reduction in population.
        >
        > I would think that in general, it is human nature to
        > what to improve ones lot in life, living conditions,
        > and to pass on better conditions to your child.
        >
        > As long as we continue to seek ways to cram more
        > people onto this planet, I don't see that we're going
        > to implement real solutions.
        >
        > At SOME point, the population of humans must,
        > logically, reach a point where we, or nature, say "NO
        > MORE". Why must we wait until everywhere is a
        > nightmare?
        >
        > One of the things that attracted me to the Arcosanti
        > site, was the idea that it was to be a relatively
        > SMALL community of people, in a relatively small space
        > of structures, yet with lots of open space around it
        > and under its ownership/control.
        >
        > To implement that approach for a place like Los
        > Angeles, wouldn't the city of LA need to own, and
        > return to wilderness, the entire state of California
        > (or more?)
        >
        > We do indeed need examples of something better that
        > current cities. Proposals like the 500 year town are
        > very attractive, but I doubt we want even that
        > replicated endlessly across the entire continent.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Ronald Greek
        > Yuma, AZ, USA
        >
        > __________________________________
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
        > http://calendar.yahoo.com
      • Party of Citizens
        What is the 500 year town? POC ********* **********
        Message 3 of 26 , Jun 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          What is the 500 year town?
          POC

          ********* <http://www.geocities.com/partyofcitizens> **********

          On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Ronald Greek wrote:

          > There is only one true solution to city sprawl, we
          > need to not only cease expansion of the size of the
          > human population, but we need incentives at every
          > level toward a reduction in population.
          >
          > I would think that in general, it is human nature to
          > what to improve ones lot in life, living conditions,
          > and to pass on better conditions to your child.
          >
          > As long as we continue to seek ways to cram more
          > people onto this planet, I don't see that we're going
          > to implement real solutions.
          >
          > At SOME point, the population of humans must,
          > logically, reach a point where we, or nature, say "NO
          > MORE". Why must we wait until everywhere is a
          > nightmare?
          >
          > One of the things that attracted me to the Arcosanti
          > site, was the idea that it was to be a relatively
          > SMALL community of people, in a relatively small space
          > of structures, yet with lots of open space around it
          > and under its ownership/control.
          >
          > To implement that approach for a place like Los
          > Angeles, wouldn't the city of LA need to own, and
          > return to wilderness, the entire state of California
          > (or more?)
          >
          > We do indeed need examples of something better that
          > current cities. Proposals like the 500 year town are
          > very attractive, but I doubt we want even that
          > replicated endlessly across the entire continent.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Ronald Greek
          > Yuma, AZ, USA
          >
          > __________________________________
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
          > http://calendar.yahoo.com
          >
          >
          > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
          > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > *
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • Party of Citizens
          See which is being planned for about 10,000 people. Maybe they d like some arcology input. POC *********
          Message 4 of 26 , Jun 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            See <http://www.UniverCity.ca> which is being planned for about 10,000
            people. Maybe they'd like some arcology input.
            POC

            ********* <http://www.geocities.com/partyofcitizens> **********

            On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, ericofeeler wrote:

            > Ronald,
            > Yes I agree there are too many humans running around, but you simply
            > won't get them to stop breeding unless you get very Draconian (bejing
            > style) or get a very old and established mechanized culture (aka
            > North Europe). Most of the world is neither.
            >
            > I think the LA example of arcology isn't that they would need more
            > space around the metro area, but that they would use the space they
            > have more efficently. Imagine a large cluster of connected buildings
            > in the LA downtown area, large enough to hold the entire population.
            > Then imagine the citizens falling back into this arcology, bulldozing
            > sprawl as they go and turning it into parkland. Then you would have
            > something more Arcosantian.
            >
            > (BTW, I DONT think the above example is realistic, but it is what
            > I've heard as a plan for large metro areas. I'm just passing it on
            > as an example. I think we would be better off making more cities,
            > not less, but making them in the 10 to 20,000 range of population and
            > spread them out across the country. And even though it seems like we
            > have a lot of people, at least in North America there is a LOT of
            > open space yet. Now China, India, Indonesia I don't know about, but
            > one thing at a time.
            >
            > --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Greek <unno_2002@y...> wrote:
            > > There is only one true solution to city sprawl, we
            > > need to not only cease expansion of the size of the
            > > human population, but we need incentives at every
            > > level toward a reduction in population.
            > >
            > > I would think that in general, it is human nature to
            > > what to improve ones lot in life, living conditions,
            > > and to pass on better conditions to your child.
            > >
            > > As long as we continue to seek ways to cram more
            > > people onto this planet, I don't see that we're going
            > > to implement real solutions.
            > >
            > > At SOME point, the population of humans must,
            > > logically, reach a point where we, or nature, say "NO
            > > MORE". Why must we wait until everywhere is a
            > > nightmare?
            > >
            > > One of the things that attracted me to the Arcosanti
            > > site, was the idea that it was to be a relatively
            > > SMALL community of people, in a relatively small space
            > > of structures, yet with lots of open space around it
            > > and under its ownership/control.
            > >
            > > To implement that approach for a place like Los
            > > Angeles, wouldn't the city of LA need to own, and
            > > return to wilderness, the entire state of California
            > > (or more?)
            > >
            > > We do indeed need examples of something better that
            > > current cities. Proposals like the 500 year town are
            > > very attractive, but I doubt we want even that
            > > replicated endlessly across the entire continent.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Ronald Greek
            > > Yuma, AZ, USA
            > >
            > > __________________________________
            > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
            > > http://calendar.yahoo.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
            > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > *
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • alypius skinner
            ... won t get them to stop breeding unless you get very Draconian (bejing style) or get a very old and established mechanized culture (aka North Europe). Most
            Message 5 of 26 , Jun 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
               
               
              >Yes I agree there are too many humans running around, but you simply
              won't get them to stop breeding unless you get very Draconian (bejing
              style) or get a very old and established mechanized culture (aka
              North Europe).  Most of the world is neither.
              >
               
              Wrong, wrong, wrong: this is the myth that refuses to die.  US TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is *below* the replacement level, and would be even further below replacement if the immigrants did not have higher birthrates than the native born.  The fact is, all the US needs to do to achieve *negative* population change--yes, population reduction--is to scale immigration back to about 100,000 a year.  (About 200,000 a year emigrate *from* the US--so even if the immigrants continued to have above replacement birthrates, with their numbers only half those of the emigrants, US population growth would slow, then stabilize, then gradually fall, just like in western Europe.)  Overpopulation in the US is an immigration policy problem, plain and simple--but practically no one wants to address it, including Greens and environmentalists, even though most polls consistently show that public opinion is firmly behind  immigration reduction.  The libertarian right wants cheap labor, the religious right wants potential converts, the left wants more Democratic voters, and most Greens and environmentalists, while often claiming disingenuously to be "neither left nor right," are actually conventional leftists who don't want to defy any Democratic Party litmus tests.  Thus, our population will continue to boom indefinitely, even as many other countries are beginning to stabilize or reverse their TFP's.

              ~Alypius

              >Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
              http://www.www60829.w1.com/




            • ericofeeler
              Alypius, I/m sorry, I wasn t being clear enough. I was using Northern (Western) Europe as an example of how a society that becomes mechanized/Westernized for
              Message 6 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Alypius,
                I/m sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. I was using Northern
                (Western) Europe as an example of how a society that becomes
                mechanized/Westernized for multiple generations eventually reaches
                the point where population levels off and could decline. Your point
                about the US underscores that.

                But what about third world countries? When we talk about the world's
                population doubling in the next forty odd years, it won't come from
                North America or even Europe. It will be Asia. (I would also say
                Africa but unfortunately I think AIDS will nix that).

                If population expansion 'myth' is 'wrong, wrong, wrong,' then there
                isn't any concern for sprawl in developed countries, because there
                won't be too many more people coming, will there? The challenge is
                to figure out how to give underdeveloped countries the technology to
                jump them past the growing pains of sprawl so that their exploding
                populations will be manageable, until these countries also manage to
                level out their populaition rates.


                --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, "alypius skinner" <krazeeal@e...>
                wrote:>
                > Wrong, wrong, wrong: this is the myth that refuses to die. US
                TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is *below* the replacement level, and
                would be even further below replacement if the immigrants did not
                have higher birthrates than the native born. The fact is, all the US
                needs to do to achieve *negative* population change--yes, population
                reduction--is to scale immigration back to about 100,000 a year. >
                > ~Alypius
                >
                > >Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
              • Party of Citizens
                How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the highest arcology yet put on paper? POC
                Message 7 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the highest
                  arcology yet put on paper?
                  POC
                • George Kosmides
                  If my memory is correct, the biggest Soleri arcologies have been for 2 million. I think the HyperBuilding or some of the earlier arcologies are the highest. I
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If my memory is correct, the biggest Soleri arcologies have been for 2
                    million. I think the HyperBuilding or some of the earlier arcologies are the
                    highest. I will check on the heights.

                    -George

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Party of Citizens [mailto:citizens@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:13 PM
                    To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl


                    How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the highest
                    arcology yet put on paper?
                    POC



                    Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                    http://www.www60829.w1.com/




                    *

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • ericofeeler
                    Yes, of course we build up! The question only becomes how high? Of course it is theoretically feasible to make an arcology structure as high as any current
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes, of course we build up! The question only becomes how high? Of
                      course it is theoretically feasible to make an arcology structure as
                      high as any current skyscraper (the internal volume of a cube as high
                      as the WTC boggles my mind), but in practicality any structure that
                      goes higher than about 50 stories runs into problems. The cost of
                      reinforcing the lower supports to hold the additional load becomes
                      quite costly. (I heard this from an engineer who used to frequent
                      this very site, whose name is lost to me now.)

                      Since any realistic plan would have to include cost considerations, I
                      would propose keeping an arcology below 50 stories in height, at
                      least until a few mega arcs actually get built and are proven to
                      work. Dissapointing to some, but even ten stories would be ten times
                      better than current one story subdivisions, wouldn't it?

                      (I've seen arcology plans that stretch up hundreds of stories. It
                      always looks to me like the taller the drawing, the less the drawer
                      knows about engineering.)



                      --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, "George Kosmides" <gkosmides@n...>
                      wrote:
                      > If my memory is correct, the biggest Soleri arcologies have been
                      for 2
                      > million. I think the HyperBuilding or some of the earlier
                      arcologies are the
                      > highest. I will check on the heights.
                      >
                      > -George
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Party of Citizens [mailto:citizens@v...]
                      > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:13 PM
                      > To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl
                      >
                      >
                      > How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the
                      highest
                      > arcology yet put on paper?
                      > POC
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                      > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > *
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Party of Citizens
                      ... How about 50 miles? There is enough sand in the Sahara and Alberta Tar Sands for example to build many such structures using silica aerogel blocks. DARPA
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, ericofeeler wrote:

                        > Yes, of course we build up! The question only becomes how high? Of
                        > course it is theoretically feasible to make an arcology structure as
                        > high as any current skyscraper (the internal volume of a cube as high
                        > as the WTC boggles my mind), but in practicality any structure that
                        > goes higher than about 50 stories runs into problems.

                        How about 50 miles? There is enough sand in the Sahara and Alberta Tar
                        Sands for example to build many such structures using silica aerogel
                        blocks. DARPA could have a DARPA Challenge in which the autonomous
                        vehicles would drive to the sand, load up a silica aerogel machine and
                        then take the blocks to the construction site and place them.

                        Homes could be built later on the terraces of these great pyramids.

                        POC

                        The cost of
                        > reinforcing the lower supports to hold the additional load becomes
                        > quite costly. (I heard this from an engineer who used to frequent
                        > this very site, whose name is lost to me now.)
                        >
                        > Since any realistic plan would have to include cost considerations, I
                        > would propose keeping an arcology below 50 stories in height, at
                        > least until a few mega arcs actually get built and are proven to
                        > work. Dissapointing to some, but even ten stories would be ten times
                        > better than current one story subdivisions, wouldn't it?
                        >
                        > (I've seen arcology plans that stretch up hundreds of stories. It
                        > always looks to me like the taller the drawing, the less the drawer
                        > knows about engineering.)
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, "George Kosmides" <gkosmides@n...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > If my memory is correct, the biggest Soleri arcologies have been
                        > for 2
                        > > million. I think the HyperBuilding or some of the earlier
                        > arcologies are the
                        > > highest. I will check on the heights.
                        > >
                        > > -George
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: Party of Citizens [mailto:citizens@v...]
                        > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:13 PM
                        > > To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the
                        > highest
                        > > arcology yet put on paper?
                        > > POC
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                        > > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > *
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                        > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > *
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Alan Grimes
                        FYI: Party of Citizens, AKA Franklin Wayne Poley is a bit, er, senile... Conversing with him is generally a waste of time. I have a long acquaintance with him
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          FYI:

                          Party of Citizens, AKA Franklin Wayne Poley is a bit, er, senile...
                          Conversing with him is generally a waste of time. I have a long
                          acquaintance with him on other lists....

                          Please be advised and not waste too much time considering his
                          nonsense...

                          Every now and again he says something that is almost intelligent....


                          --
                          I'm now offering free telephone tech-support for computer related needs.
                          If you are in the DC metro area e-mail me to arrange a consultation.

                          http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/
                        • Randy and Karin
                          How about the Space for Peace arcologies? Unlimited elevation, and the smallest footprint. Randy
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jun 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            How about the Space for Peace arcologies? Unlimited elevation, and the
                            smallest footprint.

                            Randy

                            > From: "George Kosmides" <gkosmides@...>
                            > Reply-To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                            > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:20:59 -0400
                            > To: <arcology@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Subject: RE: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl
                            >
                            > If my memory is correct, the biggest Soleri arcologies have been for 2
                            > million. I think the HyperBuilding or some of the earlier arcologies are the
                            > highest. I will check on the heights.
                            >
                            > -George
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Party of Citizens [mailto:citizens@...]
                            > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:13 PM
                            > To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl
                            >
                            >
                            > How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the highest
                            > arcology yet put on paper?
                            > POC
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                            > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > *
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                            > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > *
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                          • alypius skinner
                            ... I/m sorry, I wasn t being clear enough. I was using Northern (Western) Europe as an example of how a society that becomes mechanized/Westernized for
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                               
                               
                              >Alypius,
                              I/m sorry, I wasn't being clear enough.  I was using Northern
                              (Western) Europe as an example of how a society that becomes
                              mechanized/Westernized for multiple generations eventually reaches
                              the point where population levels off and could decline.  Your point
                              about the US underscores that.
                              >
                               
                              OK, that sounds reasonable, but still I don't think it's correct.  Look at South Korea: it went from third world to second world status in a single generation, and its TFR plummeted to below replacement levels at the same time.

                              >But what about third world countries? 
                               
                              The original theory of demographic transition included several items--it seems like it was 14, but I might have the precise number wrong (I can check if you really want to know; Rodney Stark discusses this in his excellent out-of-print textbook,_Sociology_).  But it increasingly appears that all that is really necessary is to make affordable contraception widely and easily available.  Look at Cuba: one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere, but they have very low birthrates and reportedly did not resort to draconian measures to obtain them.  The human condition will remain very precarious as long as world population is near its current mind-boggling level, but if we can avoid ecological, resource, military, or climatic catastrophe for another 200 years, global population will almost certainly have plummeted, and without having to resort to extreme measures.  There are problems which man is seemingly incompetent to fix, but overpopulation is not one of them.  Human population growth can be reversed, and it can be done without legal restrictions on anyone's right to reproduce. 
                               
                              Indeed, experience so far indicates that it is very difficult to induce people to raise their birthrates upto the replacement level unless access to birth control is denied.  Lowering birthrates appears far easier, if a society can afford to widely distribute  low cost contraception.  Nor does the type of birth control appear critical.  Abortion is illegal in Ireland and Poland.  The Pill was long forbidden in Japan.  The IUD is extremely (and unjustifiedly) unpopular in the US.  Yet all these countries have TFR's below 2.1.  And the contraceptive revolution is quickly spreading to the third world.  Get an almanac and look at how many countries already have below replacement TFR's. It's a lot of countries, and not all of them are in Europe; and lots more are moving rapidly in that direction.
                               
                               
                              >If population expansion 'myth' is 'wrong, wrong, wrong,' then there
                              isn't any concern for sprawl in developed countries,
                              >
                               
                              Well, that depends on immigration policy and the popularity of suburbanization.  And also on how long the automobile remains a viable mode of transportation.  I don't think there's any doubt that the automobile is a major contributor to urban sprawl.  Old cities were built around the capabilities of human feet and legs, and horses to some extent.  Modern cities are built around the capabilities of the automobile.  It's a big difference. 
                               
                              I would like to see a blueprint for a city small enough spatially to make autos unnecessary.  Furthermore, a fringe benefit of a city this small it that it would occupy so little acreage (or "hectareage") that it should be possible to start one up using entirely private resources, pooled from several thousand persons. 
                               
                              Here is something I have wondered about: if, in a typical city, one added up all the combined floorspace of private residences, businesses, public buildings, and churches and other private non-profits, what percentage of this total floorspace would the residential and combined non-residential sectors occupy? Anyone know? Anyone know an easy way to find out or make a good estimate?
                               
                              ~Alypius
                               
                               
                               

                            • George Kosmides
                              And you can take Mother Nature s Silver Seed to a new home in the sun. -George ... From: Randy and Karin [mailto:wade@theriver.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05,
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                And you can take Mother Nature's Silver Seed to a new home in the sun.

                                -George

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Randy and Karin [mailto:wade@...]
                                Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:08 AM
                                To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl


                                How about the Space for Peace arcologies? Unlimited elevation, and the
                                smallest footprint.

                                Randy

                                > From: "George Kosmides" <gkosmides@...>
                                > Reply-To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:20:59 -0400
                                > To: <arcology@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Subject: RE: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl
                                >
                                > If my memory is correct, the biggest Soleri arcologies have been for 2
                                > million. I think the HyperBuilding or some of the earlier arcologies are
                                the
                                > highest. I will check on the heights.
                                >
                                > -George
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: Party of Citizens [mailto:citizens@...]
                                > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:13 PM
                                > To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl
                                >
                                >
                                > How about building UP to solve the sprawl problem? What is the highest
                                > arcology yet put on paper?
                                > POC
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > *
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > *
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >



                                Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                http://www.www60829.w1.com/




                                *

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • ericofeeler
                                ... correct. Look at South Korea: it went from third world to second world status in a single generation, and its TFR plummeted to below replacement levels at
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, "alypius skinner" <krazeeal@e...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > OK, that sounds reasonable, but still I don't think it's
                                  correct. Look at South Korea: it went from third world to second
                                  world status in a single generation, and its TFR plummeted to below
                                  replacement levels at the same time.
                                  >

                                  -Excellent point. Good example of change in a generation.
                                  > >But what about third world countries?
                                  >
                                  > The original theory of demographic transition included several
                                  items--it seems like it was 14, but I might have the precise number
                                  wrong (I can check if you really want to know; Rodney Stark discusses
                                  this in his excellent out-of-print textbook,_Sociology_). But it
                                  increasingly appears that all that is really necessary is to make
                                  affordable contraception widely and easily available. Look at Cuba:
                                  one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere, but they have
                                  very low birthrates and reportedly did not resort to draconian
                                  measures to obtain them. The human condition will remain very
                                  precarious as long as world population is near its current mind-
                                  boggling level, but if we can avoid ecological, resource, military,
                                  or climatic catastrophe for another 200 years, global population will
                                  almost certainly have plummeted, and without having to resort to
                                  extreme measures. There are problems which man is seemingly
                                  incompetent to fix, but overpopulation is not one of them. Human
                                  population growth can be reversed, and it can be done without legal
                                  restrictions on anyone's right to reproduce.
                                  >

                                  - Another excelletn point. I had forgotten about contraception, to
                                  be honest with you. But contraceptive use and the decision as far as
                                  how many children to have ties into the point that I think we're both
                                  groping for: that population rates are based on culture more than
                                  anything else. If you live in an agrarian, low tech society, it
                                  makes sense to have six or eight kids because you need the help and
                                  some them are going to die anyway. When the culture remains agrarian
                                  even though the technology has modernized, that's when you get
                                  problems. It's only when the culture catches up with the technology
                                  that negative growth can be attained, and I guess that's what I was
                                  really trying to say.

                                  > Indeed, experience so far indicates that it is very difficult to
                                  induce people to raise their birthrates upto the replacement level
                                  unless access to birth control is denied. Lowering birthrates
                                  appears far easier, if a society can afford to widely distribute low
                                  cost contraception. Nor does the type of birth control appear
                                  critical. Abortion is illegal in Ireland and Poland. The Pill was
                                  long forbidden in Japan. The IUD is extremely (and unjustifiedly)
                                  unpopular in the US. Yet all these countries have TFR's below 2.1.
                                  And the contraceptive revolution is quickly spreading to the third
                                  world. Get an almanac and look at how many countries already have
                                  below replacement TFR's. It's a lot of countries, and not all of them
                                  are in Europe; and lots more are moving rapidly in that direction.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > >If population expansion 'myth' is 'wrong, wrong, wrong,' then
                                  there
                                  > isn't any concern for sprawl in developed countries,
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Well, that depends on immigration policy and the popularity of
                                  suburbanization. And also on how long the automobile remains a
                                  viable mode of transportation. I don't think there's any doubt that
                                  the automobile is a major contributor to urban sprawl. Old cities
                                  were built around the capabilities of human feet and legs, and horses
                                  to some extent. Modern cities are built around the capabilities of
                                  the automobile. It's a big difference.
                                  >

                                  > I would like to see a blueprint for a city small enough spatially
                                  to make autos unnecessary. Furthermore, a fringe benefit of a city
                                  this small it that it would occupy so little acreage
                                  (or "hectareage") that it should be possible to start one up using
                                  entirely private resources, pooled from several thousand persons.
                                  >
                                  > Here is something I have wondered about: if, in a typical city,
                                  one added up all the combined floorspace of private residences,
                                  businesses, public buildings, and churches and other private non-
                                  profits, what percentage of this total floorspace would the
                                  residential and combined non-residential sectors occupy? Anyone know?
                                  Anyone know an easy way to find out or make a good estimate?
                                  >
                                  > ~Alypius
                                • Daniel DeLorme
                                  For the love of God, learn how to write emails. I can t even tell the difference between the quoted parts and the new message! ... Why would you believe the
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    For the love of God, learn how to write emails. I can't even tell the
                                    difference between the quoted parts and the new message!

                                    alypius skinner wrote:
                                    > I would like to see a blueprint for a city small enough spatially to
                                    > make autos unnecessary. Furthermore, a fringe benefit of a city
                                    > this small it that it would occupy so little acreage (or
                                    > "hectareage") that it should be possible to start one up using
                                    > entirely private resources, pooled from several thousand persons.

                                    Why would you believe the cost of a city is based on its footprint? If
                                    that were the case, people would already be building much more densely.
                                    The automobile isn't the only responsible for urban sprawl; there's
                                    also the low cost of terrain and the high cost of building up. The
                                    higher you build, the more difficult it becomes on the engineering
                                    level, and so the costlier it becomes. it ends up costing less to
                                    build ten 5-story buildings than to build one 50-story building. The
                                    only place this isn't true is in locations with high land value, like
                                    downtowns. Arcology (and building up in general) is something that
                                    saves resources in the LONG RUN, but the initial investment required
                                    is quite higher than sprawl.

                                    Daniel
                                  • keramfamily@juno.com
                                    Temper temper danny boy. Vertical structures may be more expensive the higher they go, but I think Soleri and us here are looking at the social and ecological
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Temper temper danny boy.

                                      Vertical structures may be more expensive the higher they go, but I think Soleri and us here are looking at the social and ecological costs of sprawl. It may have been less expensive to turn New Jersey from the 'Garden State' into the suburban muck it is now, than construct a vertical urban form with a much smaller footprint, but in an arcology people would have quick access to fresh locally grown veggies, outdoor recreation, urban comforts and neccessities; society as we know it might indeed be very different.

                                      As for the taller arcologies that soleri desinged, i think those were visions of possibilities, rather than concrete proposals. You folks that are more intimate with him might be bettter able to assess his
                                      ideas when he put together the 'black book'.

                                      I do not think we need to worry about the 600,000+ population arcologies; if they happen it will be in the far distant future. Rather, I think we should focus on how we can transform the present cities into more livable communities, possibly by growing arcologies out of them, or how we can develop viable alternatives to the cities that are around today.

                                      I do not know if there are city planners on this list. I would encourage us to try to involve individuals who are active in the planning communities to become involved in this discussion. I find it difficult to believe that we will effect change by talking amongst ourselves.

                                      Another way to effect change is to actually DO or BUILD something. Something physical versus 'virtual'. Arcosanti is, for better or worse,
                                      concrete (literally). It can be seen, touched, and experienced.

                                      Thoughts?

                                      Dan Keram

                                      ________________________________________________________________
                                      The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                                      Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                                      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
                                    • Leonardi, Doug
                                      Dan, I think Daniel was responding to the dubious comment that a city this small ...would occupy so little acreage (or hectareage ) that it should be
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        RE: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl

                                        Dan,

                                        I think Daniel was responding to the dubious comment that "a city this small ...would occupy so little acreage (or "hectareage") that it should be possible to start one up using entirely private resources, pooled from several thousand persons." This is not an assessment of the social cost of cars, but the structural cost of an arcology based solely on footprint.

                                        I fully agree that talking and throwing ideas out amongst ourselves is not going to get anything built. It takes a plan AND an effort to do anything, and while calling and harassing city planners is a good start, I seriously doubt any city planner (who wants to keep there job, at least) would consider an arcology without a sound proof of concept.

                                        Having said that I will put the following out there one more time for anyone who is interested:

                                        I have developed a construction system which is compatible with conventional, existing steel and masonry techniques, but which provides considerable structural, environmental, and economic advantages. More importantly to this group, the product is specifically engineered to erect megastructures, and also to inter-connect existing conventional buildings to form virtual megastructures.

                                        I am in the process of raising the capital to bring the product to market now. If anyone on this list has a skill or resource which they feel would be helpful towards this end, and feels that introducing an environmentally friendly, remediating technology that is intended to bring about the first REAL arcology is worth associating yourself with an evil capitalistic corporation (and maybe even *gasp* making a profit in the process), please feel free to contact me directly at dleonardi@....

                                        Doug

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: keramfamily@... [mailto:keramfamily@...]
                                        Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:05 PM
                                        To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [arcology] Re: City Sprawl


                                        Temper temper danny boy.

                                        Vertical structures may be more expensive the higher they go, but I think Soleri and us here are looking at the social and ecological costs of sprawl. It may have been less expensive to turn New Jersey from the 'Garden State' into the suburban muck it is now, than construct a vertical urban form with a much smaller footprint, but in an arcology people would have quick access to fresh locally grown veggies, outdoor recreation, urban comforts and neccessities; society as we know it might indeed be very different.

                                        As for the taller arcologies that soleri desinged, i think those were visions of possibilities, rather than concrete proposals. You folks that are more intimate with him might be bettter able to assess his

                                        ideas when he put together the 'black book'.

                                        I do not think we need to worry about the 600,000+ population arcologies; if they happen it will be in the far distant future. Rather, I think we should focus on how we can transform the present cities into more livable communities, possibly by growing arcologies out of them, or how we can develop viable alternatives to the cities that are around today.

                                        I do not know if there are city planners on this list. I would encourage us to try to involve individuals who are active in the planning communities to become involved in this discussion. I find it difficult to believe that we will effect change by talking amongst ourselves.

                                        Another way to effect change is to actually DO or BUILD something. Something physical versus 'virtual'. Arcosanti is, for better or worse,

                                        concrete (literally). It can be seen, touched, and experienced.

                                        Thoughts?

                                        Dan Keram

                                        ________________________________________________________________
                                        The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                                        Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                                        Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

                                        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                                        Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
                                        http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/3OlolB/TM
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                                        Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                        http://www.www60829.w1.com/




                                        *

                                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                                      • Ronald Greek
                                        Subject: Re: City Sprawl Rhetorical (sort of) question: What is the purpose of a city? To serve as a cultural, educational, scientific, manufacturing, trade,
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Subject: Re: City Sprawl

                                          Rhetorical (sort of) question: What is the purpose of
                                          a city?

                                          To serve as a cultural, educational, scientific,
                                          manufacturing, trade, etc. center?

                                          or

                                          To house excess humans?

                                          My opinion is that cities have become both a breeding
                                          place and a magnet for the excess, and excesses of
                                          humanity.

                                          I disagree that to get people to stop excess breeding
                                          requires Draconian (bejing style) measures or "...a
                                          very old and established mechanized culture (aka North
                                          Europe)." My understanding is that the U.S., absent
                                          immigration, is at or below "replacement" births.
                                          EVERY place needs to match this aspect of U.S.
                                          culture.

                                          (Within the U.S., we need to "get over" the present
                                          "consumer" economy and move on to an economy and
                                          infrastructure that is sustainable.)

                                          What's required is the example of something better.
                                          (Combined with elimination of all of the "enabling"
                                          activity.) Apparently, a lot of Americans have found
                                          a reason to limit the number of their children. In
                                          that aspect, I see an "arcology", as an example of a
                                          better (and hopefully sustainable) way of living.

                                          Arcosanti though is stalled, and even if Los Angeles
                                          would be better off tearing down the present
                                          infrastructure and building a series of arcologies, I
                                          don't see it happening.

                                          What CAN happen is versions smaller than Arcosanti,
                                          where those who believe in something better, who
                                          believe in moving on to the next paradigm now, can put
                                          their "...money (and effort) where their mouth is..."

                                          My thought though is that a city "arcology" should not
                                          be to simply house people in the minimum volume,
                                          rather there should be a PURPOSE (as mentioned above)
                                          to the "arcology".

                                          I'm very pessimistic about the coming decades. While
                                          I can see "arcology" type cities in the future, I
                                          don't see them coming "on line" in any widespread
                                          manner, and/or the population peacefully reduced in
                                          time to avoid a major collapse of the present
                                          infrastructure.

                                          So, if even the 5,000 person scale "Arcosanti" is not
                                          making it, I want to ask:

                                          WHAT is the MINIMUM scale for an "arcology"?

                                          Where do we put it?

                                          When do we start?


                                          __________________________________
                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                                          http://calendar.yahoo.com
                                        • Party of Citizens
                                          ... Not so...he is a total loon. POC
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Alan Grimes wrote:

                                            > FYI:
                                            >
                                            > Party of Citizens, AKA Franklin Wayne Poley is a bit, er, senile...

                                            Not so...he is a total loon.
                                            POC

                                            > Conversing with him is generally a waste of time. I have a long
                                            > acquaintance with him on other lists....
                                            >
                                            > Please be advised and not waste too much time considering his
                                            > nonsense...
                                            >
                                            > Every now and again he says something that is almost intelligent....
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > I'm now offering free telephone tech-support for computer related needs.
                                            > If you are in the DC metro area e-mail me to arrange a consultation.
                                            >
                                            > http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                            > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > *
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • Leonardi, Doug
                                            Ronald, I think everyone here would agree that cities are not human storage facilities. They are reaction engines, mixing and melting pots, and places where
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              RE: [arcology] City Sprawl

                                              Ronald,

                                              I think everyone here would agree that cities are not human storage facilities. They are reaction engines, mixing and melting pots, and places where people can pool their efforts and ideas.

                                              Arcology isn't about capacity, it's about complexity.

                                              I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you sound, about the near OR far future. There is no pending meltdown of any infrastructure, and we are not in immediate danger of running out of space, energy, air, or spirit.

                                              However, that doesn't mean a healthier way isn't needed. I personally think 5,000 to 20,000 person sub-Arcs are not only possible, but the best chance we have of remediating existing cities. A combination of interconnection of traditional buildings and small, open sub-Arcs can be developed with nowhere near the cost of a full arcology, and offers the incentive to people of progressive value as the complex increases in scale.

                                              Instead of having to erect a half-mile high tower Arcologies need to grow out of and into existing cities, absorbing their streets into an always evolving infrastructure. Citizens would benefit economically, socially, and environmentally from this model through all stages of development, even in the beginning, whether they live there or not.

                                              The key, I feel, is making the venture profitable to the residents. The best of intentions mean nothing if the people go bankrupt in the process. If you arrange the valuation of the deal correctly you'll be fighting them off.

                                              Doug

                                            • Daniel DeLorme
                                              ... While I really like the idea of slowly mutating a downtown area into an arcology, I also see a little problem with this. George made a post just a few
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Leonardi, Doug wrote:
                                                > Instead of having to erect a half-mile high tower Arcologies need to
                                                > grow out of and into existing cities, absorbing their streets into an
                                                > always evolving infrastructure. Citizens would benefit economically,
                                                > socially, and environmentally from this model through all stages of
                                                > development, even in the beginning, whether they live there or not.

                                                While I really like the idea of slowly mutating a downtown area into an
                                                arcology, I also see a little problem with this. George made a post just
                                                a few hours ago about people living on the boundary of the arco facing
                                                out to nice views, and Dan was talking about having quick access to fresh
                                                locally grown veggies. Well, if you grow an arco out of a city, the only
                                                view you'll have will be a sea of asphalt and concrete, and the only
                                                fresh veggies you'll eat will be the ones grown on balconies or hydroponic
                                                gardens.

                                                If an arco was built in the middle of parkland, I'd pay to have a view on
                                                the outside. If an arco was built in the middle of a city, I'd pay to NOT
                                                have a view on the outside.

                                                Daniel
                                              • George Kosmides
                                                Good point about the views. I guess I am talking about greenfield arcologies or the arco-future (or the view out of just about any apartment now at
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Good point about the views. I guess I am talking about 'greenfield'
                                                  arcologies or the 'arco-future' (or the view out of just about any apartment
                                                  now at Arcosanti).

                                                  As far as food - whether it is a 'new greenfield' arcology or one
                                                  growing/arising from an existing cityscape - I strongly believe that the
                                                  arcology should incorporate the terraced-solar greenhouses of the Two Suns
                                                  Arcology designs to generate heat, intensively grow food, and serve as a
                                                  nursery for seedlings/orchards. For the proposed/designed/but not yet built
                                                  5 acres of greenhouse at Arcosanti, Soleri and others have talked about
                                                  having a restaurant with pick-your-own salad bar. I'd like to see a
                                                  hospital/healing center in there.

                                                  Just about any city that I have been in has reasonable views in just about
                                                  any area. The only problems I can foresee with existing areas are with
                                                  cities having height or view limitations, like DC or Athens (nothing can be
                                                  higher than, or significantly obstruct views of the Acropolis). BTW, 'acro'
                                                  means 'high', so an acropolis is a high city.

                                                  -George

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: Daniel DeLorme [mailto:daniel@...]
                                                  Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:07 PM
                                                  To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: Re: [arcology] City Sprawl


                                                  Leonardi, Doug wrote:
                                                  > Instead of having to erect a half-mile high tower Arcologies need to
                                                  > grow out of and into existing cities, absorbing their streets into an
                                                  > always evolving infrastructure. Citizens would benefit economically,
                                                  > socially, and environmentally from this model through all stages of
                                                  > development, even in the beginning, whether they live there or not.

                                                  While I really like the idea of slowly mutating a downtown area into an
                                                  arcology, I also see a little problem with this. George made a post just
                                                  a few hours ago about people living on the boundary of the arco facing
                                                  out to nice views, and Dan was talking about having quick access to fresh
                                                  locally grown veggies. Well, if you grow an arco out of a city, the only
                                                  view you'll have will be a sea of asphalt and concrete, and the only
                                                  fresh veggies you'll eat will be the ones grown on balconies or hydroponic
                                                  gardens.

                                                  If an arco was built in the middle of parkland, I'd pay to have a view on
                                                  the outside. If an arco was built in the middle of a city, I'd pay to NOT
                                                  have a view on the outside.

                                                  Daniel



                                                  Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                                  http://www.www60829.w1.com/




                                                  *

                                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                • Leonardi, Doug
                                                  Daniel, Do you live in a city now? Real urbanites pay hundreds a month for tiny apartments with NO view, or thousands for a view of (gasp) the city. If one can
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Jun 5, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    RE: [arcology] City Sprawl

                                                    Daniel,

                                                    Do you live in a city now?

                                                    Real urbanites pay hundreds a month for tiny apartments with NO view, or thousands for a view of (gasp) the city. If one can increase the "greenness" of a city while maintaining or increasing those qualities that residents moved to the city for to begin with, the value is not hypothetical or ethical...it's tangible.

                                                    Frankly, I find the assumption that an arcology should be a "Farm with Buildings" impractical. Farms on the periphery are expected and a great idea, but a city is a city. Make it green, clean, and human....but urban.

                                                    Besides, your End Goal may be a lush, green multi-level forest of an arcology...but don't expect it in one fell swoop. Building up from an existing city may not meet your expectations right away, but it's the most practical road to getting there, imho.

                                                    I'm convinced that this "all or nothing" attitude regarding Arcology is its greatest inhibitor to implementation. Everyone seems so focused on the final target that intermediate solutions seem like settling or copping out. Progress comes in small steps.

                                                    Doug

                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Daniel DeLorme [mailto:daniel@...]
                                                    Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:07 PM
                                                    To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: Re: [arcology] City Sprawl

                                                    Leonardi, Doug wrote:
                                                    > Instead of having to erect a half-mile high tower Arcologies need to
                                                    > grow out of and into existing cities, absorbing their streets into an
                                                    > always evolving infrastructure. Citizens would benefit economically,
                                                    > socially, and environmentally from this model through all stages of
                                                    > development, even in the beginning, whether they live there or not.

                                                    While I really like the idea of slowly mutating a downtown area into an
                                                    arcology, I also see a little problem with this. George made a post just
                                                    a few hours ago about people living on the boundary of the arco facing
                                                    out to nice views, and Dan was talking about having quick access to fresh
                                                    locally grown veggies. Well, if you grow an arco out of a city, the only
                                                    view you'll have will be a sea of asphalt and concrete, and the only
                                                    fresh veggies you'll eat will be the ones grown on balconies or hydroponic
                                                    gardens.

                                                    If an arco was built in the middle of parkland, I'd pay to have a view on
                                                    the outside. If an arco was built in the middle of a city, I'd pay to NOT
                                                    have a view on the outside.

                                                    Daniel


                                                    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                                                    Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
                                                    http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/3OlolB/TM
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                                                    Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                                    http://www.www60829.w1.com/




                                                    *

                                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                                                  • ericofeeler
                                                    I agree with Doug about progress in small steps. A Soleri type mega arc will never come about until there is a fundamental acceptance (or even basic
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Jun 6, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I agree with Doug about progress in small steps. A Soleri type mega
                                                      arc will never come about until there is a fundamental acceptance (or
                                                      even basic knowledge) about arcology theory. If you ask somebody
                                                      about living in an arcology today, they would probably say "what,
                                                      like a big ship with animals?"

                                                      Retrofitting existing residential buildings in cities would probably
                                                      be the first steps. Also, many people seem to equate arcology living
                                                      with some sort of enlightened social technology, where everybody
                                                      wants to know their neighbors, not stay at home watching TV, etc.

                                                      This mentality and behavior shift in American populations would be at
                                                      least as daunting a task as actually building a mega arc, in my
                                                      opinion.

                                                      Eric

                                                      --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, "Leonardi, Doug" <dleonardi@c...>
                                                      wrote:
                                                      > Daniel,
                                                      >
                                                      > Do you live in a city now?
                                                      >
                                                      > Real urbanites pay hundreds a month for tiny apartments with NO
                                                      view, or
                                                      > thousands for a view of (gasp) the city. If one can increase
                                                      the "greenness"
                                                      > of a city while maintaining or increasing those qualities that
                                                      residents
                                                      > moved to the city for to begin with, the value is not hypothetical
                                                      or
                                                      > ethical...it's tangible.
                                                      >
                                                      > Frankly, I find the assumption that an arcology should be a "Farm
                                                      with
                                                      > Buildings" impractical. Farms on the periphery are expected and a
                                                      great
                                                      > idea, but a city is a city. Make it green, clean, and human....but
                                                      urban.
                                                      >
                                                      > Besides, your End Goal may be a lush, green multi-level forest of an
                                                      > arcology...but don't expect it in one fell swoop. Building up from
                                                      an
                                                      > existing city may not meet your expectations right away, but it's
                                                      the most
                                                      > practical road to getting there, imho.
                                                      >
                                                      > I'm convinced that this "all or nothing" attitude regarding
                                                      Arcology is its
                                                      > greatest inhibitor to implementation. Everyone seems so focused on
                                                      the final
                                                      > target that intermediate solutions seem like settling or copping
                                                      out.
                                                      > Progress comes in small steps.
                                                      >
                                                      > Doug
                                                      >
                                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                                      > From: Daniel DeLorme [mailto:daniel@d...]
                                                      > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:07 PM
                                                      > To: arcology@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > Subject: Re: [arcology] City Sprawl
                                                      >
                                                      > Leonardi, Doug wrote:
                                                      > > Instead of having to erect a half-mile high tower Arcologies need
                                                      to
                                                      > > grow out of and into existing cities, absorbing their streets
                                                      into an
                                                      > > always evolving infrastructure. Citizens would benefit
                                                      economically,
                                                      > > socially, and environmentally from this model through all stages
                                                      of
                                                      > > development, even in the beginning, whether they live there or
                                                      not.
                                                      >
                                                      > While I really like the idea of slowly mutating a downtown area
                                                      into an
                                                      > arcology, I also see a little problem with this. George made a post
                                                      just
                                                      > a few hours ago about people living on the boundary of the arco
                                                      facing
                                                      > out to nice views, and Dan was talking about having quick access to
                                                      fresh
                                                      > locally grown veggies. Well, if you grow an arco out of a city, the
                                                      only
                                                      > view you'll have will be a sea of asphalt and concrete, and the only
                                                      > fresh veggies you'll eat will be the ones grown on balconies or
                                                      hydroponic
                                                      > gardens.
                                                      >
                                                      > If an arco was built in the middle of parkland, I'd pay to have a
                                                      view on
                                                      > the outside. If an arco was built in the middle of a city, I'd pay
                                                      to NOT
                                                      > have a view on the outside.
                                                      >
                                                      > Daniel
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Site of the month. The 500 year Town. L. Gene Zellmer 1998
                                                      > http://www.www60829.w1.com/
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > *
                                                      >
                                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                    • keramfamily@juno.com
                                                      Small steps. Good idea. Small arcologies. Good idea. Instead of building an arcosanti 60 miles north of a Phoenix, build a sub-arcology in or near a small to
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Jun 6, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Small steps. Good idea. Small arcologies. Good idea. Instead of building an arcosanti 60 miles north of a Phoenix, build a sub-arcology in or near a small to medium sized city. Not to replace it but so the arcology can be evaluted and compared. Its about choices and the idea that an arcology is a better one.

                                                        ________________________________________________________________
                                                        The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                                                        Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                                                        Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.