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

[arcology] Re: Elements of Arcological Design

Expand Messages
  • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
    I am more interested in arcologizing than in building a single arcology like the ones Paolo has designed: I think it highly unlikely that a
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 1, 1999
      I am more interested in "arcologizing" than in building a single "arcology"
      like the ones Paolo has designed: I think it highly unlikely that a
      single-structure city would meet the needs of people on this planet,
      although I do not rule out the possibility of building such structures to
      float on the ocean or perhaps for space. I feel that all the practical
      issues you raise need to be addressed as immediate concerns, within
      existing cities, on the terrain we already have.

      If we can't slow down the material environment we use now, how will we be
      able to build single-structured ones, in which all existing urban problems
      would have to be solved before any construction could happen? We haven't
      solved any of the issues Randall identifies below for New York, Los
      Angeles, Paris, Tokyo, etc, at least not insofar as I have seen. I think
      you have to "start where you are." RC

      >Alan Grimes wrote:
      >
      >>...The only true showstopper problem I can see
      >>with [arcologies] is that of heat dissipation...
      >
      >I do not believe that heat dissipation is a showstopper problem. A variety
      >of elements (heat dissipation, for instance) are problematic. Problem
      >elements can be identified and resolved in concert by adjusting the form of
      >the structure.
      >
      >Here are some elements (not in any particular order) that I consider to be
      >of major importance. They are:
      >
      >* Air circulation (heat dissipation)
      >
      >* Noise
      >
      >* Vibration
      >
      >* Natural light
      >
      >* Population size
      >
      >* Security
      >
      >* Terrorism
      >
      >* Fire
      >
      >* Earthquake, etc.
      >
      >* Materials handling
      >
      >
      >In order to facilitate fruitful discussion and development of these
      >separate topics, I'm posting my own thoughts and comments as separate
      >threads. Let's examine these--and more--and see how much progress we can
      >make toward a working plan.
      >
      >Randall Hunt
      >randhunt@...
      >DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >Cell Biology Reference Set-3 books + 2 CDs-for $7.99!
      >A $127.40 value, yours with membership in Library
      >of Science, the leading science book club since 1958!
      >Order NOW at http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1367
      >
      >
      >eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/arcology
      >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Alan Grimes
      Before I go into the response I would like to state my utter shock that Palo never worked the details out! How could he become so fomous with no actual numbers
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 1, 1999
        Before I go into the response I would like to state my utter shock that Palo
        never worked the details out! How could he become so fomous with no actual
        numbers work? With just sketches he is nothing more than an artist!!! I still
        like his ideas but I think all the credit should go to the person who actually
        solves (past or future, I don't know) the technical, ploiticial, and social
        problems involved in building one.


        Ruth-Claire Weintraub wrote:
        >
        > Alan, I wonder what you mean? How could one person build an arcology?

        Okay okay I'll answer... =P
        Lets start with a anicdote:

        A man spends his last penny on a grassy lot Seing its emptyness he decides to
        plant a tree on it. He goes to the bank and takes out a lone for some money. He
        then goes to a nursery and buys a tree that they had raised from an acorn. He
        pays for a man with a truck to haul it to his lot. He then pays two diggers
        diggers to move enough dirt asside to actually plant it in the ground. In the
        end he has a lot, a tree, and $2,000 in debt. So who planted the tree?
        The man who took the initiative to start the venture ofcourse! =)

        That is the role I would take. If I had fantastic ammounts of money I could
        simply snap my fingers and make it happen, (more or less). Or if I had unlimited
        time (being independantly wealthy) I could, with a modest personal investment,
        orgainize the community and create a synergy merely by convincing people to buy
        stock in it, that would build the arcology. Either way the arcology would be
        built. I think the latter has a very good chance of being worked out by a
        subscriber to this list because once people are shown that they could live in
        luxury for half their current living expenses: house+car+time lost in rush
        hour... And help protect the environment at the same time! =)


        > >> I am a strong supporter of arcologies. I wish I had the time
        >>>*or* the money to build one. =)

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

        users.erols.com/alangrimes/
      • Randall Hunt
        Thanks, RC, for pointing up some things that need clarification... ... Of course, your sentiment does not go unappreciated. Indeed, existing cities must be
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 1, 1999
          Thanks, RC, for pointing up some things that need clarification...


          >I am more interested in "arcologizing" than
          >in building a single "arcology" like the ones
          >Paolo has designed: I think it highly unlikely
          >that a single-structure city would meet the
          >needs of people on this planet, although I do
          >not rule out the possibility of building such
          >structures to float on the ocean or perhaps
          >for space. I feel that all the practical
          >issues you raise need to be addressed as
          >immediate concerns, within existing cities,
          >on the terrain we already have.


          Of course, your sentiment does not go unappreciated. Indeed, existing
          cities must be comprenhensively examined and addressed: cities are not
          going to go away. You understand that for me, the crucial issue is the
          continued use (dependence!) upon the automobile. Of course, my position is
          that we should eliminate the technology of the automobile from our lives.
          In my perception, it is both practically impossible and highly improbable
          that we will convert existing cities into wholly pedestrian cities, that
          is, into what could truly exist as an honestly optimum demonstration of
          "pedestrian" architecture. Life does not work this way.

          The point here is creating arcology--especially successful arcology.
          Arcology (defined) begins as volumetric architecture whose _raison_d'etre_
          is to nurture human culture. Arcology seeks to create cities that gratify
          the human spirit and nurture human culture. Of course existing cities can
          be "arcologized" but they can never be the instruments they might be if
          built from scratch (in other words, the optimum instrument).

          I do not--can not--ignore the problems and work we have as improvers of our
          existing cities. But I *can* choose to put energy toward the consideration
          of something altogether greater and more satisfying, more appropriate. If I
          spend all time kludging and jerry-rigging a system that is flawed from the
          start, I shall never truly experience a fine working product. Most
          particularly, I am talking about a product that is volumetric: an arcology.
          Existing cities have their form. That form is not the form of arcology.
          First, it would take more energy/time/money to convert a form based on
          transit to a pedestrian form than it would to simply build a new, fully
          pedestrian form from scratch. Secondly, you aren't going to find money to
          do it (there are limits!). And thirdly, you will end up with a
          bastard-child (if it goes well) or a monster (if it doesn't); you will
          never end up with an optimum.

          I am promoting these threads of thought on this listserv to
          develop/define/refine what it will take to build a succesful arcology as
          quickly as possible: a new city, an optimum. It's good and important for
          one to remain involved in fixing existing problems because we live with
          them. But I want to spend energy trying to see it done right. It's frontier
          work.




          >If we can't slow down the material environment
          >we use now, how will we be able to build
          >single-structured ones, ...

          Two different propositions that have nothing to do with each other. If
          anything, one needs an active material environment in order to create
          arcology.

          >... in which all existing
          >urban problems would have to be solved before
          >any construction could happen?

          Does one need to solve existing urban problems in order to propose a solution?



          Randall Hunt
          randhunt@...
          DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
        • Robert Rainmaker
          Let me reply thusly: It is the customary role of a visionary to set a monumental idea into motion. The process of articulating a vision is such that the
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 2, 1999
            Let me reply thusly:

            It is the customary role of a visionary to set a monumental idea into
            motion. The process of articulating a vision is such that the 'details' of
            how it's all going to 'actually happen' are less important that the
            introduction of the idea itself. If the vision has true merit, and with some
            luck, others will follow the vision to fill in the required details. Adam
            Smith envisioned the modern capitalist economy, he didn't build it. Christ
            envisioned (or revealed, if you prefer) a worldwide church. Even he didn't
            build the Catholic church. I don't mean to sound overly simplistic, but I
            suggest that Soleri just wasn't interested in the minute details of arcology
            construction. He was preoccupied with what arcology MEANS. Someday, when
            (and if) arcology theory is developed, then utilized, then vindicated... a
            lot of ifs... then Soleri would still be the starting point of it all. I
            hope the lack of 'details' would not detract from the vitality and
            brilliance of Soleri's vision. Nor would I hope, on the other hand, that the
            rest of us would hold him up to be the definitive standard of what arcology
            IS. Any viable paradigm must undergo powerful scrutiny, criticism and
            revision before it can be considered validated and useful. In short, we may
            well someday have someone we call "the first person to 'build' an arcology",
            but in all fairness, Soleri will always be the Ur-arcologist, or stated
            another way, the arcologist emeritus.

            Yours in arcology,
            Robert Rainmaker-Matthews
            arcology.org

            >Before I go into the response I would like to state my utter shock that
            >Palo
            >never worked the details out! How could he become so fomous with no actual
            >numbers work? With just sketches he is nothing more than an artist!!! I
            >still
            >like his ideas but I think all the credit should go to the person who
            >actually
            >solves (past or future, I don't know) the technical, ploiticial, and social
            >problems involved in building one.
            >
            >

            ______________________________________________________
          • Ruth-Claire Weintraub
            Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I don t feel that way about existing cities. Whatever their disagreeable aspects, Paris and London are extraordinary
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 6, 1999
              Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't feel that way about
              existing cities. Whatever their disagreeable aspects, Paris and London are
              extraordinary and interesting places, New York is -- well, New York.
              Honolulu is lovely; I'll have first impressions of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem
              soon and I can look forward to seeing Prague and Budapest and Tokyo and
              Beijing someday, I hope.

              I think what divides us is not so much ideological as it is practical. I
              would be the last person to encourage automobile dependence, as you know.
              But I think it utterly unlikely that the global auto empire will come to a
              grinding halt or even a major slowdown. Despite the sustainable
              transportation movement and the new stronger enthusiasm for eco-tourism, we
              are busy destroying the environment at a very rapid pace.

              Unless we make the effort to encourage arcological solutions to the
              problems of existing cities, ie "slow down" the cities we have now, I fear
              there will be no way to focus enthusiasm for the kind of investment
              necessary to "build a [real] arcology."

              Globally, people desperately need the basics: clean water, housing, safe
              places to raise kids -- like that. How can arcologists meet those needs?
              It's only by demonstrating how arcological solutions are better than sprawl
              solutions for existing problems that we can make a legitimate case for
              "arcology" even as a conceptual solution. I don't think we will get
              anywhere by turning our backs on what we have, on what exists. That's why
              the sustainable transportation people were so receptive (at the first
              conference last year) when I said "Paolo Soleri suggested blah blah forty
              years ago and we call that concept "arcology." In truth, "arcology"
              evolved from "cosanti," another word Paolo invented to capture an idea.
              Very Germanic of him, actually, isn't it? Mushing words together to make
              new ones. "Wissenschaft" and so on... RC

              >Thanks, RC, for pointing up some things that need clarification...
              >
              >
              >>I am more interested in "arcologizing" than
              >>in building a single "arcology" like the ones
              >>Paolo has designed: I think it highly unlikely
              >>that a single-structure city would meet the
              >>needs of people on this planet, although I do
              >>not rule out the possibility of building such
              >>structures to float on the ocean or perhaps
              >>for space. I feel that all the practical
              >>issues you raise need to be addressed as
              >>immediate concerns, within existing cities,
              >>on the terrain we already have.
              >
              >
              >Of course, your sentiment does not go unappreciated. Indeed, existing
              >cities must be comprenhensively examined and addressed: cities are not
              >going to go away. You understand that for me, the crucial issue is the
              >continued use (dependence!) upon the automobile. Of course, my position is
              >that we should eliminate the technology of the automobile from our lives.
              >In my perception, it is both practically impossible and highly improbable
              >that we will convert existing cities into wholly pedestrian cities, that
              >is, into what could truly exist as an honestly optimum demonstration of
              >"pedestrian" architecture. Life does not work this way.
              >
              >The point here is creating arcology--especially successful arcology.
              >Arcology (defined) begins as volumetric architecture whose _raison_d'etre_
              >is to nurture human culture. Arcology seeks to create cities that gratify
              >the human spirit and nurture human culture. Of course existing cities can
              >be "arcologized" but they can never be the instruments they might be if
              >built from scratch (in other words, the optimum instrument).
              >
              >I do not--can not--ignore the problems and work we have as improvers of our
              >existing cities. But I *can* choose to put energy toward the consideration
              >of something altogether greater and more satisfying, more appropriate. If I
              >spend all time kludging and jerry-rigging a system that is flawed from the
              >start, I shall never truly experience a fine working product. Most
              >particularly, I am talking about a product that is volumetric: an arcology.
              >Existing cities have their form. That form is not the form of arcology.
              >First, it would take more energy/time/money to convert a form based on
              >transit to a pedestrian form than it would to simply build a new, fully
              >pedestrian form from scratch. Secondly, you aren't going to find money to
              >do it (there are limits!). And thirdly, you will end up with a
              >bastard-child (if it goes well) or a monster (if it doesn't); you will
              >never end up with an optimum.
              >
              >I am promoting these threads of thought on this listserv to
              >develop/define/refine what it will take to build a succesful arcology as
              >quickly as possible: a new city, an optimum. It's good and important for
              >one to remain involved in fixing existing problems because we live with
              >them. But I want to spend energy trying to see it done right. It's frontier
              >work.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>If we can't slow down the material environment
              >>we use now, how will we be able to build
              >>single-structured ones, ...
              >
              >Two different propositions that have nothing to do with each other. If
              >anything, one needs an active material environment in order to create
              >arcology.
              >
              >>... in which all existing
              >>urban problems would have to be solved before
              >>any construction could happen?
              >
              >Does one need to solve existing urban problems in order to propose a solution?
              >
              >
              >
              >Randall Hunt
              >randhunt@...
              >DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >The Mental Health Practitionerís Instant
              >Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
              >of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
              >$139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
              >http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364
              >
              >-- 20 megs of disk space in your eGroup's Document Vault
              >-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/arcology/?m=1
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.