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

[arcology] Green acres is the place to be?

Expand Messages
  • randy wade
    Laurie Barlow wrote: The way to move this forward is through groups that are already advocating for these approaches to combat sprawl, and market it to cities
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Green acres is the place to be? Laurie Barlow wrote:

      "The way to move this forward is through groups that are already
      advocating for these approaches to combat sprawl, and market it to
      cities that are looking to rebuild their infrastructure and recapture
      market base."

      and,

      ben wrote:

      "My idea of a good arcology is a village sized community (hundreds not
      thousands), situated in a wilderness...  I believe that a genuine natural setting is
      necessary for mental health."



      I am intrigued by the division that occurs between the city folk and their country cousins.  There are distinctions worthy of note:  Village sized developments built in "wilderness" will be heavily dependant upon outside resources, and they will not experience the urban effect.  Conversely, urban villages will be subject to pre-existing social problems, and will face constricted site issues.  

      Both urban and remote pre-arcologies are logical steps in the right direction.  A third location comes to mind that will not please either camp: suburban pre-arcologies.  I can hear the scoffs. But, consider;  Land costs would be less than urban sites (except for baggage heavy brown-stone types,) inner city problems (perceived and real) would be minimal, and access to wilderness and urban services would be easily facilitated.

      At first the notion of a suburban site seems humorous at best. Yet, until we are able to pursue a full-scale arcology, all sites are sub-optimal.  So, imagine a large vault spanning a freeway.  The outer surface home to a few thousand suburbanites, the inner surface laced with exposed infrastructure.  The vault would be skeletalized to allow air and light to pass through to a secondary light weight vault of greenery below.  This second, inner vault would filter polluted air until petrol-based vehicles are outmoded, and would provide an agricultural trellis thereafter.  Each vault village would save thousands of acres of land that would otherwise be developed at the city edge.  The cost of land at either side of a freeway would be cheap, and they could be built in series along the hundreds of miles of existing freeways.

      Not an arcology you say.  Don't give me criticism, give us solutions.  Put up or sprawl out.  

      "Where do we go from here?"

      Randy Wade





    • Joseph Mcdermott
      ... http://click.egroups.com/1/2623/6/_/20724/_/954572898/ ... http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=arcology&m=1 ... Dear friends it is time to come
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 1 2:22 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- randy wade <wade@...> wrote:
        > Laurie Barlow wrote:
        >
        > "The way to move this forward is through groups that
        > are already
        > advocating for these approaches to combat sprawl,
        > and market it to
        > cities that are looking to rebuild their
        > infrastructure and recapture
        > market base."
        >
        > and,
        >
        > ben wrote:
        >
        > "My idea of a good arcology is a village sized
        > community (hundreds not
        > thousands), situated in a wilderness... I believe
        > that a genuine natural
        > setting is
        > necessary for mental health."
        >
        >
        >
        > I am intrigued by the division that occurs between
        > the city folk and their
        > country cousins. There are distinctions worthy of
        > note: Village sized
        > developments built in "wilderness" will be heavily
        > dependant upon outside
        > resources, and they will not experience the urban
        > effect. Conversely, urban
        > villages will be subject to pre-existing social
        > problems, and will face
        > constricted site issues.
        >
        > Both urban and remote pre-arcologies are logical
        > steps in the right
        > direction. A third location comes to mind that will
        > not please either camp:
        > suburban pre-arcologies. I can hear the scoffs.
        > But, consider; Land costs
        > would be less than urban sites (except for baggage
        > heavy brown-stone types,)
        > inner city problems (perceived and real) would be
        > minimal, and access to
        > wilderness and urban services would be easily
        > facilitated.
        >
        > At first the notion of a suburban site seems
        > humorous at best. Yet, until we
        > are able to pursue a full-scale arcology, all sites
        > are sub-optimal. So,
        > imagine a large vault spanning a freeway. The outer
        > surface home to a few
        > thousand suburbanites, the inner surface laced with
        > exposed infrastructure.
        > The vault would be skeletalized to allow air and
        > light to pass through to a
        > secondary light weight vault of greenery below.
        > This second, inner vault
        > would filter polluted air until petrol-based
        > vehicles are outmoded, and
        > would provide an agricultural trellis thereafter.
        > Each vault village would
        > save thousands of acres of land that would otherwise
        > be developed at the
        > city edge. The cost of land at either side of a
        > freeway would be cheap, and
        > they could be built in series along the hundreds of
        > miles of existing
        > freeways.
        >
        > Not an arcology you say. Don't give me criticism,
        > give us solutions. Put
        > up or sprawl out.
        >
        > "Where do we go from here?"
        >
        > Randy Wade
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Good friends, school spirit, hair-dos you'd like to
        > forget.
        > Classmates.com has them all. And with 4.4 million
        > alumni already
        > registered, there's a good chance you'll find your
        > friends here:
        >
        http://click.egroups.com/1/2623/6/_/20724/_/954572898/
        >
        > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
        > --
        >
        http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=arcology&m=1
        > From xosip
        Dear friends it is time to come down from the clouds
        and get truelly earthed. Arcology as advocated is
        hermeticism and should be accepted as such.

        Small scale ideals are not sufficient for a global
        problem.
        >As for colonising our mountains that is a
        non-starter.

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
        http://im.yahoo.com
      • randy wade
        ... Dear Joseph: Arcology is based on urbanism, or the urban effect. What do you mean by getting truly earthed. Is hermeticism a reference to hermetic
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 3 11:43 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: Joseph Mcdermott <xosip@...>

          > Dear friends it is time to come down from the clouds
          > and get truelly earthed. Arcology as advocated is
          > hermeticism and should be accepted as such.
          >
          > Small scale ideals are not sufficient for a global
          > problem.
          >> As for colonising our mountains that is a
          > non-starter.

          Dear Joseph:

          Arcology is based on urbanism, or the "urban effect." What do you mean by
          getting "truly earthed." Is hermeticism a reference to hermetic (airtight)
          conditions or something else. Perhaps just a misspelled version of
          hermit-like? If so see urbanism references.

          As for colonizing mountains, I tend to agree, "wilderness arcologies" seem a
          bit oxy-moronic, and at the same time appealing.

          Randy Wade
        • ben
          The criticism that even an Eco-friendly arcology would destroy the pristine qualities of nature, is valid. Building on untouched virgin land is not the best
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 9 12:37 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            The criticism that even an Eco-friendly arcology would destroy the
            pristine qualities of nature, is valid. Building on untouched virgin
            land is not the best option, considering there is so little of it
            left. However, a "wilderness" arcology could still exist with a
            little comprimise. East of the Mississippi most of the National
            forests are interspersed with patches of private land, we could buy
            it, tear down what already exists there, and build. In the west,
            National forests are more contiguous, but there is still private
            slightly developed land on the fringes.

            I actually like the idea of a suburban arcology a great deal. If an
            arcology can protect a significant amount of the land around it from
            development, great. It's ecofriendly, offers an urban lifestyle, it
            blocks conventional sprawl. And, can easily be connected to light
            rail. Your freeway idea is interesting too. Noise would be a
            problem, but plenty of people already put up with that.

            I don't think small arcologies would be any more dependent on the
            outside than large ones. A small 1000-500 person arcology would
            easily support, food production, textile needs, wood shop, metal
            shop,
            ceramics shop, etc. They would, of course, import high-tech
            equipment
            and luxury goods. But, so would a large arcology.

            ben




            > >
            > > "The way to move this forward is through groups that
            > > are already
            > > advocating for these approaches to combat sprawl,
            > > and market it to
            > > cities that are looking to rebuild their
            > > infrastructure and recapture
            > > market base."
            > >
            > > and,
            > >
            > > ben wrote:
            > >
            > > "My idea of a good arcology is a village sized
            > > community (hundreds not
            > > thousands), situated in a wilderness... I believe
            > > that a genuine natural
            > > setting is
            > > necessary for mental health."
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I am intrigued by the division that occurs between
            > > the city folk and their
            > > country cousins. There are distinctions worthy of
            > > note: Village sized
            > > developments built in "wilderness" will be heavily
            > > dependant upon outside
            > > resources, and they will not experience the urban
            > > effect. Conversely, urban
            > > villages will be subject to pre-existing social
            > > problems, and will face
            > > constricted site issues.
            > >
            > > Both urban and remote pre-arcologies are logical
            > > steps in the right
            > > direction. A third location comes to mind that will
            > > not please either camp:
            > > suburban pre-arcologies. I can hear the scoffs.
            > > But, consider; Land costs
            > > would be less than urban sites (except for baggage
            > > heavy brown-stone types,)
            > > inner city problems (perceived and real) would be
            > > minimal, and access to
            > > wilderness and urban services would be easily
            > > facilitated.
            > >
            > > At first the notion of a suburban site seems
            > > humorous at best. Yet, until we
            > > are able to pursue a full-scale arcology, all sites
            > > are sub-optimal. So,
            > > imagine a large vault spanning a freeway. The outer
            > > surface home to a few
            > > thousand suburbanites, the inner surface laced with
            > > exposed infrastructure.
            > > The vault would be skeletalized to allow air and
            > > light to pass through to a
            > > secondary light weight vault of greenery below.
            > > This second, inner vault
            > > would filter polluted air until petrol-based
            > > vehicles are outmoded, and
            > > would provide an agricultural trellis thereafter.
            > > Each vault village would
            > > save thousands of acres of land that would otherwise
            > > be developed at the
            > > city edge. The cost of land at either side of a
            > > freeway would be cheap, and
            > > they could be built in series along the hundreds of
            > > miles of existing
            > > freeways.
            > >
            > > Not an arcology you say. Don't give me criticism,
            > > give us solutions. Put
            > > up or sprawl out.
            > >
            > > "Where do we go from here?"
            > >
            > > Randy Wade
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > > Good friends, school spirit, hair-dos you'd like to
            > > forget.
            > > Classmates.com has them all. And with 4.4 million
            > > alumni already
            > > registered, there's a good chance you'll find your
            > > friends here:
            > >
            > http://click.egroups.com/1/2623/6/_/20724/_/954572898/
            > >
            > > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
            > > --
            > >
            > http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=arcology&m=1
            > > From xosip
            > Dear friends it is time to come down from the clouds
            > and get truelly earthed. Arcology as advocated is
            > hermeticism and should be accepted as such.
            >
            > Small scale ideals are not sufficient for a global
            > problem.
            > >As for colonising our mountains that is a
            > non-starter.
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
            > http://im.yahoo.com
          • Louis Dallara
            Quote: In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high. Author: Henry
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 14 4:26 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Quote:In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high.
              Author:Henry David Thoreau
              Source:Walden, or Life in the Woods by Henry David Thoreau
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.