Arcologies: Theory and some Calculations.

[Gangerolf]

insane

I'd rather live the rest of my life in a tipi than in one of those futuristic gulags. But I'm weird like that

Arcology
Archaeology

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by monolith94
Yeah, because covering every square inch of land with suburban sprawl is so human...

While mega-arcologies are obviously unfeasable, we should be building up, not out. I wouldn't mind living in a skyscraper at all, if it meant that I would still be able to visit the state parks of my childhood, and eventually so that my children could enjoy them as well.

Imitate Europe already.

[Gangerolf]

How many skyscrapers are there in Europe? 5?

[Spiffor]

There are few skyscrapers. However, there are many mid-rises and high-rises in nearly every important city. Suburban sprawl is not nearly as endemic as in the US, because the population density in ordinary cities is much higher.

[Gangerolf]

that be true

euro suburb:


us suburb:

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Thanks for the link. Having examined the matter, I dismiss the idea as inhuman.

*Images Removed*

FYI those are NOT arcologies in any shape way or form. You didn't examine very closely. Those images are just big buildings, the first (which really isn't all that big, probably much smaller than many Las Vegas Strip casinos) is very modern, the other is some kind of Communist Chinese abomination made of concrete. I wouldn't house prisoners in that thing, nevermind regular people.

[Spiffor]

More generally, I think arcologies would be a terrible idea, simply because they're urban concepts that have no wiggle room once built.

In France, we have a few horror-neighbourhoods that have been designed by a megalomaniac architect (Le Corbusier), that can not be modified once built. This lack of flexibility notably comes from the fact that there are several "layers" (usually two) in the city, with the street, parkings and other crap being on ground, and the sidewalk (very much used) being on the second floor. If you want to do any notable change, you won't have just to raze one building and build something new: you have to raze pretty much the entire neighbourhood.

As a result, the city doesn't evolve as its inhabitants evolve. People have different tastes now than in the 60ies, and yet they are to live in an habitat that was designed for a 60ies way of life.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
that be true

euro suburb:


us suburb:

I find US suburbia disgusting, ugly, and a f*cking waste of oil.

Car Culture:

Arcologies would be cool as long as they are made to be whole "enclosed" cities with a pleasant enviroment, not supersized apartments.

[DRoseDARs]

I guess I should throw in my own opinion too. The valid point was made earlier that (old Soleri and Le Corbusier -style) arcologies are pretty much as-is in terms of their ability to change with city culture. But Soleri's are the monolith type and Le Corbusier's are complexes of buildings. They are both very old and were conceived based on old understandings of nature and modern culture. Neither fully understood or expected the unimaginable expansion, nay, infection of the Earth's surface by the car and such urban sprawl as we know it. There is no written rule that once you build one (Soleri) archology in an area you can't build any more there. Just build another next to it. Several, in fact, creating a complex as envisioned by Le Corbusier. Dense urban environments like Tokyo or New York whose only option for growth is to build upwards are not failed ideas, they're a step in the right direction. As far as being built as enormous, soild blocks of metal and concrete where only a few lucky people get rooms with windows is not a fundamental design feature of the arcology, it's a fundamental feature of bad design and a failure of imagination and design effort on the part of the architects/engineers designing the project; they didn't "rise" to the challenges of arcological design, instead opting for cost-efficiency and ease-of-construction aka cop-out construction.

[Spiffor]

Drose: the difference between New York/Tokyo and a Le Corbusier complex is that private actors can fairly freely change the urban landscape. Once you own the land and the building, you aren't confronted to immense technical problems if you wish to modify or raze/rebuild it. Such is not the case in a Le Corbusier complex, where every aspect of the daily life is supposedly planned.

[DRoseDARs]

As I already said, both styles of arcologies are based on out-dated perceptions. They can't work as-is in our modern cities; their basic principles need to be adjusted to fit in existing cities. Though, arcologies are better suited for new developement rather than redevelopement due to that very issue of private ownership in existing cities.

It should be noted that "private ownership" of land is a Western idea, whereas in cultures like that of amerindians the land is collectively tended to. If national parks can be collectively run for the benefit of society as a whole, arcological developements (new developement, not redevelopement in existing cities) can be given similar consideration.

I need to go to class now; I should have already left, but I can't resist a discussion about acrologies since they are what got me into architecture in the first place.

[VetLegion]

DRoseDARs, you're missing Spiffor's point.

If there is a need to tear down a building in a city to make a park, it's trivial to do it. Same with building a parking lot over a park.

But in an Arcology, once built, you can't change parts just like that, as the whole structure can collapse to the ground if you want to, say, make the 56th floor a floor without pillars, just for fun. After an Arcology is built, you're much more limited in reconstruction options than you are with 2D cities.

[Spiffor]

Thanks, Vetlegion, for making my point more clear

[FrostyBoy]

While what VetLegion says is true, it is really up to the architect to design a flexible arcology.

And KH: Your "outside" is not exactly healthy, peaceful and safe, considering all the cars, roads, rubbish and crap.

It is better to do away with countless roads and alley ways, so that you can enjoy fresh air and open space, which is surrounding the entire arcology. And of course, transportation inside the arcology would be comfortable, convenient and quick. So even if you were an unfortunate loser who got the apartment at the very center of the arcology, you would still be able to reach outside in reasonable time, especially compared to travelling from the CDB of New York to the closest park/farmland away from the city.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


FYI those are NOT arcologies in any shape way or form. You didn't examine very closely. Those images are just big buildings, the first (which really isn't all that big, probably much smaller than many Las Vegas Strip casinos) is very modern, the other is some kind of Communist Chinese abomination made of concrete. I wouldn't house prisoners in that thing, nevermind regular people.

It's a joke actually. The drawing of Arcology I found reminded me of the infamous Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang. The Hotel is not technically an Arcology, true.