Arcologies and the 21st Century

[Tony Williams]

8) No Pets! That's got to be one of the worst "suggestions" for an Acrology there ever was! People as a general rule LIKE to be around animals and there is no practical reason why they could not be accomodated easily and safetly into an Arcology.

OK, I accept that point. Not having any pets of my own, and being conscious of the way dogs crap all over the place in my town (despite laws against it) and that cats slaughter a significant percentage of the wild life every year, I'm not exactly pet-friendly. However, there would be no reason why small cage pets could not be kept, or at the other end of the scale horses (stables could be provided on the ground floor so horsey folk could walk down to them in a few minutes and ride straight out into the countryside - probably a damn sight more quickly and easily than they can at present, unless they live on a farm). I'm still not sure of the practicalities of keeping dogs and cats, though - I understand it is not unusual for them to be banned from apartment blocks, which is a comparable situation. If they were allowed (as some would be anyway - guide dogs for the blind, for instance) they'd have to be thoroughly house-trained and regulated (as guide dogs are).

I agree with the other points you make. The fact is, every type of place and way of living has its pros and cons, and so far we've been hearing a lot of about the potential cons of an arcology (generally exaggerated). Just consider the following for a moment:

Most people in the First World live in urban areas. These often consist of sprawling residential areas without much else within walking distance (including any countryside). So if you want to get anywhere, you generally have to get the car out. You are likely to live several miles from where you work, and on average spend several hours a week sitting in your car, commuting. You also need to use the car to visit shops, restaurants, cinemas, to take the kids to school or to get to any recreational activities. If you don't want to use a car you either have to take public transport (assuming that there is any) or ride a bike (and risk getting crushed by vehicles) or, if you do live close enough to your destination to walk, you're liable to face the constant proximity of noisy and smelly traffic, the hazards of crossing roads, and the delights (depending on location and season) of rain, ice and snow, very hot weather or darkness.

In contrast, consider a well-designed arcology like my Torus. The living accommodation will all have windows to the tall and wide circulation space which has fresh air pumped through it at a comfortable temperature. You don't have to worry about the weather, you just wear whatever you wish and stroll for a few minutes, without any traffic around, to get to a coffee bar in a large, open square with a window wall to the outside. A few more minutes stroll and you're at your workplace or school. Afterwards, there will be a choice of bars, restaurants, cinemas and other recreational activities, all a few minutes walk away. Or you can just as quickly get to the outside of the building and into the recreational park. Or if the weather's bad, go to the huge central park under a transparent roof.

To me, a well-run arcology like that sounds a damn sight more attractive than living in car-dominated suburbia.

 

[Grey Havoc]

What about seabed Arcologies?

 

[aam641]

Isn't an arcology supposed to be self-sufficient in terms of energy/food/manufacturing?

 

[RanulfC]

OK, I accept that point. Not having any pets of my own, and being conscious of the way dogs crap all over the place in my town (despite laws against it) and that cats slaughter a significant percentage of the wild life every year, I'm not exactly pet-friendly.

Yup, "owning" a pet is responsibility and should be treated as such. That being said there's probably a greater chance that pets in an Arcology are going to be easier to regulate and take care of than in a more conventional dwelling.

However, there would be no reason why small cage pets could not be kept, or at the other end of the scale horses (stables could be provided on the ground floor so horsey folk could walk down to them in a few minutes and ride straight out into the countryside - probably a damn sight more quickly and easily than they can at present, unless they live on a farm). I'm still not sure of the practicalities of keeping dogs and cats, though - I understand it is not unusual for them to be banned from apartment blocks, which is a comparable situation. If they were allowed (as some would be anyway - guide dogs for the blind, for instance) they'd have to be thoroughly house-trained and regulated (as guide dogs are).

"Service" animals come in many shapes, sizes, and types these days. Though dogs and cats are often "banned" from apartment blocks this normally leads to people simply keeping them "under-the-table" more often than not. There are large numbers of "pet-friendly" apartments, condos, even high-rise blocks now adays. Limitations on size and number are common but exceptions are usually easy to get if you work with the management. On the other hand those same management will usually start coming down hard on residents who disregard or flagrently ignore the rules that are established.
(Shades of the "Police-State" but more often than not it is simply enforcing personal responsibility on the pet owner )

[quote
I agree with the other points you make. The fact is, every type of place and way of living has its pros and cons, and so far we've been hearing a lot of about the potential cons of an arcology (generally exaggerated). Just consider the following for a moment:

Most people in the First World live in urban areas. These often consist of sprawling residential areas without much else within walking distance (including any countryside). So if you want to get anywhere, you generally have to get the car out. You are likely to live several miles from where you work, and on average spend several hours a week sitting in your car, commuting. You also need to use the car to visit shops, restaurants, cinemas, to take the kids to school or to get to any recreational activities. If you don't want to use a car you either have to take public transport (assuming that there is any) or ride a bike (and risk getting crushed by vehicles) or, if you do live close enough to your destination to walk, you're liable to face the constant proximity of noisy and smelly traffic, the hazards of crossing roads, and the delights (depending on location and season) of rain, ice and snow, very hot weather or darkness.

In contrast, consider a well-designed arcology like my Torus. The living accommodation will all have windows to the tall and wide circulation space which has fresh air pumped through it at a comfortable temperature. You don't have to worry about the weather, you just wear whatever you wish and stroll for a few minutes, without any traffic around, to get to a coffee bar in a large, open square with a window wall to the outside. A few more minutes stroll and you're at your workplace or school. Afterwards, there will be a choice of bars, restaurants, cinemas and other recreational activities, all a few minutes walk away. Or you can just as quickly get to the outside of the building and into the recreational park. Or if the weather's bad, go to the huge central park under a transparent roof.

To me, a well-run arcology like that sounds a damn sight more attractive than living in car-dominated suburbia.

"Well-Designed" as well as "Well-Run," "Liveable" and a few dozen other "key-words" are important here

As long as the core systems and utilities are built and maintained in depth and easy to get too to maintain or replace you have the basic needs met. It's the extras that can (should) be built in that set a proper Arcology apart from the majority of distopian hell-holes that have been envisioned. Indoor green-spaces (cleans the indoor air as well) and gardens, mixed use (residential, light industry, shops, entertainment, etc) sections, seperate concentrated areas for heavy manufacturing, dangerous industry, and support facilities etc.

OBB points out that Space Colonies will be similar to this, and he's very correct. There won't be any loner-pioneer prospectors or single family homesteads on the Space Frontier. It will be multi-family, tight packed communities at first with gradual expansion as time goes on of a basic life support space. Unfortunatly the human race has forgotten most of what it knew on how to live in such a community and one reason for an Arcology of any size is to re-learn the lessons all over again.

I believe that any successful Arcology is or Space Community is going to have to be based on a very modular, very easily expandable and changeable internal structure capable of being re-built as well as repurposed when ever needed. This will require a highly durable, highly modular "structure" type that can be used to build and modify the internal space of the "shell" structure. I personally like the "T-Slot" concepts of the Millennial Project 2.0 found here:

http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Utilihab_Project
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Enclosure_Profiles
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Aquarius
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/EvoHab
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Valhalla
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Excavated_Settlement
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Excavated_Colonies
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Atrium_Habitat
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Lava_Tunnel_Habitats
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Surface_Domes

But that's probably just me

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

What about seabed Arcologies?

Not sure how "practical" one would be really I can see a floating one but what do you get for all the issues you have to build for to have one sitting on the bottom of the ocean?

(Really I'm curious as to what you'd envision for one of these... Anyone?)

Randy

 

[Tony Williams]

"Well-Designed" as well as "Well-Run," "Liveable" and a few dozen other "key-words" are important here

Definitely!

OBB points out that Space Colonies will be similar to this, and he's very correct. There won't be any loner-pioneer prospectors or single family homesteads on the Space Frontier. It will be multi-family, tight packed communities at first with gradual expansion as time goes on of a basic life support space. Unfortunatly the human race has forgotten most of what it knew on how to live in such a community and one reason for an Arcology of any size is to re-learn the lessons all over again.

Agreed, except that a space colony would be an extreme form of arcology: far more cramped, and without an "outside" you can stroll into when you want some fresh air and solitude.

I believe that any successful Arcology is or Space Community is going to have to be based on a very modular, very easily expandable and changeable internal structure capable of being re-built as well as repurposed when ever needed. This will require a highly durable, highly modular "structure" type that can be used to build and modify the internal space of the "shell" structure.

Yep, the construction of Torus basically provides levels which are (mostly) four stories high, one being a "service" floor entirely devoted to the infrastructure. Except where some larger squares two levels high are included, and the central ring-shaped street adjacent to vertical circulation (mainly escalators), the rest of the floor space will be entirely flexible, with structures on it knocked down and rebuilt as required.

 

[RanulfC]

Isn't an arcology supposed to be self-sufficient in terms of energy/food/manufacturing?

In the usual sense the answer is supposed to be "mostly" though it really depends on who's doing the defining

In most cases you'd want to reduce the amount of "outside" inputs as much as possible but very few "realistic" Arcologies are supposed to be fully self sufficent. You'd want to try and keep energy use down to what you can locally produce, import as little food and materials as possible making as much of both locally as well. The problem is that we're no where near the needed technology level to actually make every material, resource, equipment or food item anyone would want from waste materials and "dirt" no matter how much some folks would wish other wise

Worse yet if you ARE truelly "self-sufficent" and need no outside "contact" then the trend with human beings is especially communities, is they tend to neither seek nor want "contact" and that leads to social and other issues you want to avoid getting into as much as possible

Arcologies (good ones) are supposed to promote the mental and physical well being of the people who inhabit them, and to that end they are supposed to support and shelter the inhabitants, but also ensure they are stimulated and motivated to participate in the overall "community" and beyond at the same time.
Really producing sufficent "food" and providing sufficent power for a well designed and run Arcology isn't that difficult to do, (more so with the advent of modular-Nuclear power generators as are coming out of the labs) but it by far is the least of the design issues that need to be seriously addressed for an Arcology. Fostering and building on a sense of community along with individualism is one of the biggest and most important things that needs to be included in planning and building an Arcology from the very start.

Ironically OBB pointed this out when he cited this article:
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

Even though his point was to show all the negatives, the article itself as well as the experimenter in question both point out rather specifically that the "lesson-learned" from the intial studies and report was exactly the WRONG one and that the dystopian/disfunctional "Behaviour Sink" was in fact NOT the inevitable outcome of the experiments! The research clearly showed that left to their own devices the majority of mice would repeat the cycle over and over again, but each and every time there were exceptions. And those exceptions were found to adapt, inovate, and survive. And when those mice were encouraged and supported the conditions got better and the cycle was broken. People are not mice, we are however an "animal" at heart and if we are not encouraged, stimulated, supported, or given a chance to better ourselves or our situation we WILL tend to react in a set pattern. At the same time we're a thinking animal with a generally positve attitude on life and given the chance we are far more inovative and adaptable than mice are.

I think it's rather funny that despite all the negative articles and stories "based" on the research done in the cited article in the end probably the most lasting legacy will be not the doom-and-gloom population "bomb" arguments and stories, but the rather upbeat childrens story that was also inspired by the work: :"Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH"

Randy

 

[Grey Havoc]

What about seabed Arcologies?

Not sure how "practical" one would be really I can see a floating one but what do you get for all the issues you have to build for to have one sitting on the bottom of the ocean?

(Really I'm curious as to what you'd envision for one of these... Anyone?)

Randy

Leaving out research related activities for the moment, development of seabed/oceanic resources is back in vogue again, but, ROVs and other automation can go only so far in their exploitation. Therefore you'll likely ultimately need accommodation for workers, admin staff, etc., and/or their families and the personnel need to support them in turn, near to where the action is, so to speak.

 

[RanulfC]

OBB points out that Space Colonies will be similar to this, and he's very correct. There won't be any loner-pioneer prospectors or single family homesteads on the Space Frontier. It will be multi-family, tight packed communities at first with gradual expansion as time goes on of a basic life support space. Unfortunatly the human race has forgotten most of what it knew on how to live in such a community and one reason for an Arcology of any size is to re-learn the lessons all over again.

Agreed, except that a space colony would be an extreme form of arcology: far more cramped, and without an "outside" you can stroll into when you want some fresh air and solitude.

Actually you might want to look as some of the on-line issues of the Moon Miners Manifesto at some point. They make a lot of good arguments and plans for a good deal of "inside-out-doors" such as garden-nodes and plant-walls along corridors. As well as other "inovations" for creating the illusion of extra "space" and room even if its not actually real.

I'm particularly enamoured with the idea of taking a small "crater" and anchoring a roof over it with a foundatioin and cable tie downs as well as a covering of regolith over it held up by internal air pressure. You'd bring light in to it indirectly using light wells and mirrors and fiber optics and the whole inside surface would be terreced and gardened with inidvidual "dwellings" sunk into the walls. It's probably not something that would be done within the first couple of decades of colonization, but its very doable as a structure.
(It's actually been done on Earth as a type of housing known as a "Vertical Crawl Space" house or sometimes a "House-in-a-Hole" where a round berm is roofed over and equiped with skylights and ventilation and a "second-house" built inside that. The double envelope helps smooth out heating and cooling needs and weather extremes.)

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

What about seabed Arcologies?

Not sure how "practical" one would be really I can see a floating one but what do you get for all the issues you have to build for to have one sitting on the bottom of the ocean?

(Really I'm curious as to what you'd envision for one of these... Anyone?)

Leaving out research related activities for the moment, development of seabed/oceanic resources is back in vogue again, but, ROVs and other automation can go only so far in their exploitation. Therefore you'll likely ultimately need accommodation for workers, admin staff, etc., and/or their families and the personnel need to support them in turn, near to where the action is, so to speak.

I can see the reasoning, and agree but I'm not sure I see that leading to a "seabed" settlment... If you take a look at the Aquarious links I posted above, a settlement mounted on a Pnumatically Stabilized Platform base would fill the bill in most cases probably cheaper than a seabed structure. I like the idea of seabed colonization, I just have had a very hard time finding a good "justification" for them

Randy

 

[Orionblamblam]

Boy, you really do have a negative view of humanity

Incorrect. We are, indeed, the paragon of animals... but we *are* animals. If you want to institute hell on Earth, one of the best ways to do it is to try to institute a paradise that ignores reality.

FWIW the arcologies in my story would accommodate only a small percentage of the population - equivalent to those displaced by sea level change.

When much of New Orleans got flooded, the residents didn't have to go to an arcology, or even z single city. They dispersed. With the extremely gradual sea level rise that's projected, you won't have cities like New York being abandoned overnight. Instead, a cheaper solution to the problem would be to do what the Dutch have donw. A wall around a city is a hell of a lot cheaper than an entirely new city.
acuate
New Orleans, however, is instructive here. A natural disaster was seen coming a few days out. Time enough to *completely* and *calmly* evacuate everyone at risk. Yet, that didn't happen. Why? Two primary reasons:
1) The officials responsible, namely the local city givernments, were shockingly inept (remember the aerial photos of whole fleets of drowned school buses?).
2) The people who stayed behind and died were the people who had become dependant upin government services. They couldn't be bothered to pick up and leave; instead, they waited for someone to come and pick them up. And so somethign like 1500 of them died for no good reason.

Extend that to an arcology, where *millions* of people are *entirely* dependent upon city services.

And then shut off the lights.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There is nothing to suggest that an arcology would be more prone to failure than any other type of community.

Sure. But an arcology is a more integral unit. If a building in a conventional city fails, the rest of the city goes on. An arcology is more like a giant cruise ship in that regard; failure affect *everyone*.

Detroit, for example. The city is a punchline these days (has been for 40 years). But even though it has fallen far from what it once was, there is a sizable portion of the city that is doing fairly well. There is a vast suburban area that has fallen into disuse and decay, to the point that whole neighborhoods are beign turned into forests and farms. You know what? That's fine. Cities grow, cities shrink. But an arcology.... hmmm. Imagine an arcology for 5 million people that sufferes an economic collapse and drops to 500,000, and half of the residential section of the arcology goes up in flames. That would be a *disaster.*

Another way to look at it is that an arcology is, kinda like thre Gaia hypothesis, a single organism. You could wipe out half the population of a non-integrated city (plague, democide, whatever), and the city will go on. But if you kill half of an organism, you've killed the organism.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Who said anything about not shooting guns? With the building surrounded by recreation space accessible within a few minutes, there's no reason why opportunities for shooting shouldn't be provided if there's a demand for them. Unless, of course, you want to wander through the building shooting as you please, in which case your stay in the arcology would be very brief.....

If I want to shoot guns *now,* or fire off rockets or fly RC airplanes, I need go no further than my back porch. I refuse to settle any place so uncivilized that that is not possible.

 

[aam641]

I can see the reasoning, and agree but I'm not sure I see that leading to a "seabed" settlment... If you take a look at the Aquarious links I posted above, a settlement mounted on a Pnumatically Stabilized Platform base would fill the bill in most cases probably cheaper than a seabed structure. I like the idea of seabed colonization, I just have had a very hard time finding a good "justification" for them
Randy

I can see two possible cases.
One: some underwater mining operation that uses divers as workers. If it was deeper than about 100m, it would be more practical for workers to live underwater, rather than have to slowly decompress after every shift.
Two: the biggest difficulty with large floating structures is the wave action. Building a large structure on a seabed 30m below the surface may be cheaper in the long run. The water pressure is still manageable, you get decent amount of sunlight and most people would survive swimming to the surface without diving gear in an emergency.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It would depend entirely on the alternative. If your options are arcology / zombie-infested city / zombie-infested countryside, you might reconsider.

You left out "zombie infested arcology."

There's a reason why the zombie apocalypse movies generally focus on cities: because the rural areas would only "suffer" from the zombie apocalyse when and if hordes of *city* zombies got there. Wide open spaces with long shooting ranges, low population densities and lots of people armed and skilled in the use of arms? Not the best breeding ground for a zombie apocalypse, compared to an apartment building.

 

[Orionblamblam]

stroll for a few minutes, without any traffic around, to get to a coffee bar in a large, open square with a window wall to the outside. A few more minutes stroll and you're at your workplace or school.

That'd be a neat trick. How often is that the case in *any* city so far built, apart from "company towns?"

Afterwards, there will be a choice of bars, restaurants, cinemas and other recreational activities, all a few minutes walk away.

This would mean a relatively *vast* number of bars, restaurants, cinemas and other recreational activities, duplicated over and over.

 

[Orionblamblam]

As long as the core systems and utilities are built and maintained in depth and easy to get too to maintain or replace you have the basic needs met.

Yeah... until the utilities Union realizes just what kind of stranglehold they have, and go on strike now and again just to demonstrate their power and to extort even more money out of the denizens. Then throw in regular organized crime and a corrupted police force...

There won't be any loner-pioneer prospectors or single family homesteads on the Space Frontier.

I don't see why not. Right now spacecraft are hideously expensive. But with advanced manufacturing systems - nano-assemblers and other concepts currently stuck in sci-fi, but definitely possible - a spacecraft meant to transport small single-family prospectors around the system might be no more expensive that a wallet full of nanites and some raw materials.

Unfortunatly the human race has forgotten most of what it knew on how to live in such a community and one reason for an Arcology of any size is to re-learn the lessons all over again.

Uh, yeah... so we can recall the heady days of living in the arcologies of the Olduvai Gorge and the central Asian steppes, the vast mile-high metropoli of Persia and Scandinavia...

 

[Arjen]

[...]the article itself as well as the experimenter in question both point out rather specifically that the "lesson-learned" from the initial studies and report was exactly the WRONG one and that the dystopian/disfunctional "Behaviour Sink" was in fact NOT the inevitable outcome of the experiments! The research clearly showed that left to their own devices the majority of mice would repeat the cycle over and over again, but each and every time there were exceptions. And those exceptions were found to adapt, innovate, and survive. And when those mice were encouraged and supported the conditions got better and the cycle was broken. People are not mice, we are however an "animal" at heart and if we are not encouraged, stimulated, supported, or given a chance to better ourselves or our situation we WILL tend to react in a set pattern. At the same time we're a thinking animal with a generally positve attitude on life and given the chance we are far more innovative and adaptable than mice are.

I think it's rather funny that despite all the negative articles and stories "based" on the research done in the cited article in the end probably the most lasting legacy will be not the doom-and-gloom population "bomb" arguments and stories, but the rather upbeat childrens story that was also inspired by the work: :"Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH"

Randy

H/T

I have been involved in some behavioural research on animals - not as a subject, I hasten to add - and animals have a way of surprising even the most jaded of observers. If they didn't, watching animals would be less educational.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Relevant:
NYPD program patrols inside private buildings New York City gives you a choice: a police state, or criminals lurking outside your door, peeing in your halways.

 

[aam641]

You left out "zombie infested arcology."

There's a reason why the zombie apocalypse movies generally focus on cities: because the rural areas would only "suffer" from the zombie apocalyse when and if hordes of *city* zombies got there. Wide open spaces with long shooting ranges, low population densities and lots of people armed and skilled in the use of arms? Not the best breeding ground for a zombie apocalypse, compared to an apartment building.

"zombie infested arcology" = get a chain saw and call it Doom 5

 

[Bill Walker]

Relevant:
NYPD program patrols inside private buildings New York City gives you a choice: a police state, or criminals lurking outside your door, peeing in your halways.

But this (and the call for more armed guards inside schools) is happening in the US without arcologies, and not happening (or happening to a much smaller extent) elsewhere. Is the problem arcologies, or US culture?

 

[Orionblamblam]

But this (and the call for more armed guards inside schools) is happening in the US without arcologies,

Just imagine if we *did* have arcologies.

and not happening (or happening to a much smaller extent) elsewhere.

And why is that? Could it be because, in part, elsewhere *already* has this sort of thing? Try spittping out chewing gum on the streets of Singapore. Try driving through London with a shotgun in the gunrack of your pickup.

Is the problem arcologies, or US culture?

*Which* US culture? You don't see this nannystatism unifrmly across the land. There are many of us quite opposed to the willing abandonment of basic human decency that you see so prevalent in the larger, densely populated cities.

 

[Tony Williams]

[Arcologies (good ones) are supposed to promote the mental and physical well being of the people who inhabit them, and to that end they are supposed to support and shelter the inhabitants, but also ensure they are stimulated and motivated to participate in the overall "community" and beyond at the same time.
Really producing sufficent "food" and providing sufficent power for a well designed and run Arcology isn't that difficult to do, (more so with the advent of modular-Nuclear power generators as are coming out of the labs) but it by far is the least of the design issues that need to be seriously addressed for an Arcology. Fostering and building on a sense of community along with individualism is one of the biggest and most important things that needs to be included in planning and building an Arcology from the very start.

I agree totally. The common trend is for people to become more isolated from their neighours the closer they live together; people in cities are much less likely to know their neighbours than people in the countryside, and that isolation has all sorts of bad effects. It would be easy enough to do something about this in an arcology, simply through organisation. To repeat and add something from the notes to my novel:

Torus an independent corporation, all employees have shares and get annual payout. Income for Torus from rents for residential and commercial space, charges for water and power use, selling surplus power and produce to surrounding area, income tax on residents (proportion taken, rest transferred to government).

All Torus employees are shareholders in Torus (Co-op); part of income depends on economic performance. Private entrepreneurs are not shareholders, but rent space and pay taxes.

In other words, there would be a significant proportion of the population with a direct financial incentive to ensure that the arcology is successful. A form of local representation in which neighbours hold regular meetings would also help with social cohesion and provide a disincentive to anti-social behaviour.

 

[Tony Williams]

stroll for a few minutes, without any traffic around, to get to a coffee bar in a large, open square with a window wall to the outside. A few more minutes stroll and you're at your workplace or school.

That'd be a neat trick. How often is that the case in *any* city so far built, apart from "company towns?"

None, because nobody's yet built an arcology. I am pointing out the plus side of a well-designed arcology; everything you need a short walk from your home (including the outside).

Afterwards, there will be a choice of bars, restaurants, cinemas and other recreational activities, all a few minutes walk away.

This would mean a relatively *vast* number of bars, restaurants, cinemas and other recreational activities, duplicated over and over.

Nope - look through the figures I quoted for Torus. Anywhere in the building is accessible within a short walk. There would be however many bars etc can be kept profitable by 250,000 residents. Which is probably more than in a conventional settlement, because they would be so easy to get to and use.

If I want to shoot guns *now,* or fire off rockets or fly RC airplanes, I need go no further than my back porch. I refuse to settle any place so uncivilized that that is not possible.

There are obviously different definitions of civilisation. The fact that the great majority of people - including in the USA, and the percentage is increasing every year - already live in urban areas where it is not safe to loose off a rifle from your back porch, makes your definition irrelevant to the great majority.

But an arcology is a more integral unit. If a building in a conventional city fails, the rest of the city goes on. An arcology is more like a giant cruise ship in that regard; failure affect *everyone*.

Depends on what you mean by "fails". If the electricity supply or other services go down, this can affect conventional settlements as much as arcologies. And it's more likely to happen in conventional settlements, where services are more out in the open and vulnerable to weather conditions. The question of collapse due to economic failure is an interesting one. It most often affects single-purpose towns, built around one major industry like a coal mine or a car plant, and happens when that one industry fails. However, such places are relatively uncommon (in the UK anyway), the vast majority of towns and all of the cities are multi-purpose. Some jobs go, others arrive, as part of the normal cycle. There hasn't been a British city which has suffered in anything remotely like the way Detroit has.

New Orleans, however, is instructive here. A natural disaster was seen coming a few days out. Time enough to *completely* and *calmly* evacuate everyone at risk. Yet, that didn't happen. Why? Two primary reasons:
1) The officials responsible, namely the local city givernments, were shockingly inept (remember the aerial photos of whole fleets of drowned school buses?).
2) The people who stayed behind and died were the people who had become dependant upin government services. They couldn't be bothered to pick up and leave; instead, they waited for someone to come and pick them up. And so somethign like 1500 of them died for no good reason.

A good arcology would have an efficient central organisation: emergency escape practice drills would be routine. Arcologies have to be planned and managed in an integrated way, and that means they are far more likely to respond efficiently to problems because they would have the organisation in place to do so, rather more so than most conventional settlements.

With the extremely gradual sea level rise that's projected, you won't have cities like New York being abandoned overnight. Instead, a cheaper solution to the problem would be to do what the Dutch have donw. A wall around a city is a hell of a lot cheaper than an entirely new city.

Well, you're not going to built an arcology overnight either. And while it may make most sense to build protective walls around vital installations, as soon as you get outside the big cities you will find countless towns and villages which it would be prohibitively expensive to try to protect in the same way, because the entire countryside for miles around will become more prone to flooding. Already in the UK decisions have been made to stop protecting some of the most vulnerable coastal areas and move people out instead, and that's with a very small rise in sea level. Once the Greenland ice cap starts slipping into the Atlantic, these kind of problems will rocket. Add a harsher environment and problems with energy shortages and the efficiency of providing replacement accommodation in a low-energy arcology becomes a lot more attractive.

 

[RanulfC]

I can see the reasoning, and agree but I'm not sure I see that leading to a "seabed" settlment... If you take a look at the Aquarious links I posted above, a settlement mounted on a Pnumatically Stabilized Platform base would fill the bill in most cases probably cheaper than a seabed structure. I like the idea of seabed colonization, I just have had a very hard time finding a good "justification" for them
Randy

I can see two possible cases.
One: some underwater mining operation that uses divers as workers. If it was deeper than about 100m, it would be more practical for workers to live underwater, rather than have to slowly decompress after every shift.
Two: the biggest difficulty with large floating structures is the wave action. Building a large structure on a seabed 30m below the surface may be cheaper in the long run. The water pressure is still manageable, you get decent amount of sunlight and most people would survive swimming to the surface without diving gear in an emergency.

I can see the cases actually and in case number one that's actually a "modern" method for working with saturation divers. I'm just not sure I see it extending to an underwater city

In the second case, one of the nice things about the PSP structures is they automatically mitigate wave action, which not only allows them to avoid the need for a break-water structure but provides power generation as a side benifit

The biggest "issue" I've so far found with the idea of shallow (+/-30m) seabed cities is there isn't really a whole lot of "economics" at those depths to provide a reasoning for establishment.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

You left out "zombie infested arcology."

There's a reason why the zombie apocalypse movies generally focus on cities: because the rural areas would only "suffer" from the zombie apocalyse when and if hordes of *city* zombies got there. Wide open spaces with long shooting ranges, low population densities and lots of people armed and skilled in the use of arms? Not the best breeding ground for a zombie apocalypse, compared to an apartment building.

"zombie infested arcology" = get a chain saw and call it Doom 5

I think I recall someone doing that for "Left4Dead-2"

Randy

 

[aam641]

The biggest "issue" I've so far found with the idea of shallow (+/-30m) seabed cities is there isn't really a whole lot of "economics" at those depths to provide a reasoning for establishment.

I would say that there are no economics for any self-sufficient arcologies, no matter where they are located. Extensive trade seems to be the better way. The only reason to build one is if the need outweights the economy. A space/Mars habitat is one example. It would be ridiculously expensive, but there is no other way to live in space. A floating city would likewise makes sense only if you can't build a regular city on shore or on an island (not enough land, politics, huge oil field under the new city, zombies, etc.)

 

[RanulfC]

As long as the core systems and utilities are built and maintained in depth and easy to get too to maintain or replace you have the basic needs met.

Yeah... until the utilities Union realizes just what kind of stranglehold they have, and go on strike now and again just to demonstrate their power and to extort even more money out of the denizens. Then throw in regular organized crime and a corrupted police force...

And... We have those issues NOW in large cities, in small ones and in rural areas it's not an issue of population density, city planning, or design. On the other hand we have places where these factors are fought against and routed out and at the same time they are large cities, small towns and rural areas. The issues as well as solutions go far deeper and far beyond "simple" answers.

There won't be any loner-pioneer prospectors or single family homesteads on the Space Frontier.

I don't see why not. Right now spacecraft are hideously expensive. But with advanced manufacturing systems - nano-assemblers and other concepts currently stuck in sci-fi, but definitely possible - a spacecraft meant to transport small single-family prospectors around the system might be no more expensive that a wallet full of nanites and some raw materials.

Someday, probably, maybe, as long as we can make the nanites smarter than we are

More likely for the forseeable future we will simply have to accept that it will take a "village" to build and maintian the needed infrastructure to live in space and on other planets. I know quite a few folks who don't even like to consider the idea, but space ain't Earth and until we DO have the capabilty to sow a few "nanite-seeds" and have a fully capable life support spring into being from naked ground we're going to have to have neighbors to help

Unfortunatly the human race has forgotten most of what it knew on how to live in such a community and one reason for an Arcology of any size is to re-learn the lessons all over again.

Uh, yeah... so we can recall the heady days of living in the arcologies of the Olduvai Gorge and the central Asian steppes, the vast mile-high metropoli of Persia and Scandinavia...

We had many high-density population cities over the millennia. Some imploded over a short period of time some lasted centuries, some still exist today. The major lesson we need to re-learn is how to stay human even under stressful circumstances

Randy

 

[Bill Walker]

The major lesson we need to re-learn is how to stay human even under stressful circumstances

Randy

Good advice for life in general, for arcologies, and for reading some posts on some Forums!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Nope - look through the figures I quoted for Torus. Anywhere in the building is accessible within a short walk.

What's a "short walk?" Assume I'm 80 years old and missing a leg.

There are obviously different definitions of civilisation. The fact that the great majority of people - including in the USA, and the percentage is increasing every year - already live in urban areas where it is not safe to loose off a rifle from your back porch, makes your definition irrelevant to the great majority.

Someone who gives up their rights in order to be closer to coffee falls outside my definition of "civilized" into my definition of "pacified."

However, such places are relatively uncommon (in the UK anyway), the vast majority of towns and all of the cities are multi-purpose.

That is due in no small part to Britain being a very small place, with the "frontier" having vanished a millenium ago. Everythign's gotten all mushed together since. The US, in contrast, had a frontier that only closed a little over a century ago, and was building towns from scratch more recently than that.

There hasn't been a British city which has suffered in anything remotely like the way Detroit has.

When was the last time Britain had a city arise out of nowhere, 200 miles from the next city with more than 2,000 people?

A good arcology would have an efficient central organisation

Such can be said of *any* large city. Corruption, ineptness, dirtbaggery, greed, lust for power... all pretty standard among humans.

Such can also be said of a cruise ship. And we've seen more than a few cruise ships where there has been a massive failure of leadership.

Once the Greenland ice cap starts slipping into the Atlantic, these kind of problems will rocket. Add a harsher environment and problems with energy shortages and the efficiency of providing replacement accommodation in a low-energy arcology becomes a lot more attractive.

Actually, geo-engineering makes a hell of a lot more sense if you posit a hypothetical where the Greenland ice sheet magically melts. Adding sulfur compounds to jetliner fuel; adding sheets of floating white reflective material to the equatorial oceans; spraying water into the air to increase evaporation and cloud formation; even salting L1 with dust would all be a hell of a lot cheaper than a single decent arcology, while benefitting the *entire* planet. Building an arcology in that instance would be an admission of failure, a turning ones back to the the world and its problems. Kind of akin to a city where crime is rampant and the city governments solution is to build walled and guarded enclosures for the city leadership, rather than solving the actual problem.

 

[Arjen]

Actually, geo-engineering makes a hell of a lot more sense if you posit a hypothetical where the Greenland ice sheet magically melts. Adding sulfur compounds to jetliner fuel; adding sheets of floating white reflective material to the equatorial oceans; spraying water into the air to increase evaporation and cloud formation; even salting L1 with dust would all be a hell of a lot cheaper than a single decent arcology, while benefitting the *entire* planet. Building an arcology in that instance would be an admission of failure, a turning ones back to the the world and its problems. Kind of akin to a city where crime is rampant and the city governments solution is to build walled and guarded enclosures for the city leadership, rather than solving the actual problem.

I think you are
- overestimating humanity's grasp of climate control, and
- underestimating humanity's ability for inflicting well-intended mayhem on the environment

It would be fascinating to watch the ensuing omnishambles, but preferably from a different planet.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It would be fascinating to watch the ensuing omnishambles, but preferably from a different planet.

The beauty of the geoengineering suggestions I put forth is that they are easily introduced at *small* levels. Build a little, test a little.

If you want an omnishambles, then devote a good chunk of your national economy to building an arcology for the rich, and then watch it implode. Or explode, as the case may be, when the saboteurs get to work. With millions of people all within a brisk walk of each other, one True Believer wearing an extra-heavy spritzing of Eau Du Smallpox would make for exciting times.

 

[The Artist]

I've dug out my copy of Paolo Soleri's book. (Soft cover, so I got it in 1973.) Looking through it brings back memories of trying to read it as a fourteen year-old. Still seems confusing to me today and I should point out that Peter Blake, who wrote the forward to the book, admits within that forward that he doesn't understand Paolo's book. One thing that seems clear to me though is that Paolo's desire was to change Mankind and lead us away from our still current trend toward megacities. He seems to have made the assumption that Mankind is ready to be led into a new social order.

While Paolo states that the Arcologies illustrated are more thought experiments and shouldn't be taken as firm plans, these illustrations are interesting to look at for what they reveal of the level of thinking behind the idea. As with the text, there is a lot of hand waving and assumptions of technologies that still are not in place (as far as I know). We see light shafts that can extend for a hundred meters, or more, using mirrors and/or lenses to split or redirect the light. I remember something from my school days about the inverse square law and about how a small percentage of light is lost for each object it passes through. Then there is the question of wind. Some of the shafts (both for light and those for ventilation) look large enough to run two way vehicle traffic through them. Might these shafts become wind tunnels?

This book presents the results of studies conducted during the mid Sixties - most of it before they learned about the problems with weather around and within the Vehicle Assembly Building. Using the simple line drawing of the Empire State Building as a guide, I see some open interior spaces that are larger than the VAB interior and I can imagine the energy requirements needed to prevent unwanted weather events from happening within those spaces.

Despite all I've just said, these designs are still kind of cool - in a Gerry Anderson's F.A.B. or Bob McCall Floating City kind of way - and those cool designs were why the fourteen year-old me bought the book. I'll try to scan some of those illustrations then post them in a day or two.

 

[Tony Williams]

Actually, geo-engineering makes a hell of a lot more sense if you posit a hypothetical where the Greenland ice sheet magically melts. Adding sulfur compounds to jetliner fuel; adding sheets of floating white reflective material to the equatorial oceans; spraying water into the air to increase evaporation and cloud formation; even salting L1 with dust would all be a hell of a lot cheaper than a single decent arcology, while benefitting the *entire* planet. Building an arcology in that instance would be an admission of failure, a turning ones back to the the world and its problems. Kind of akin to a city where crime is rampant and the city governments solution is to build walled and guarded enclosures for the city leadership, rather than solving the actual problem.

I think you are
- overestimating humanity's grasp of climate control, and
- underestimating humanity's ability for inflicting well-intended mayhem on the environment

It would be fascinating to watch the ensuing omnishambles, but preferably from a different planet.

Yep....the background to my novel is that global warming has reached various tipping points, causing (among other things) a rapid acceleration in the flow of ice from the Greenland ice cap into the North Atlantic and a subsequent rise in sea level (this is already beginning to happen). The large flow of fresh water from Greenland blocks the North Atlantic Drift, causing a drop in temperatures in NW Europe. These changes cause panic among various governments which rush into every climate engineering project they can think of, causing wild swings in the climate over relatively short periods.

This seems to me to be at least as likely a future scenario as anything else. Fortunately I will have shuffled off this mortal coil before the worst happens - I think.....

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ah. So it's a fantasy novel.

 

[Tony Williams]

Ah. So it's a fantasy novel.

Somehow, I could have predicted from your posts that you wouldn't believe that global warming is happening ;D

 

[Orionblamblam]

The fact that you can predict something doesn't mean your prediction will be accurate. Like in this case.

But I guess if you don't believe that the Earth will turn into a replica of Venus, you are a global warming denier. If you do not hold that any effort at geoengineering will cause the stars to become right and the Great Old Ones will wake from their billion-year slumber to clear humanity off of the Earth and make the stars themselves bleed and cry out in eldrich madness, you are a global warming denier.

Am I being too subtle? I can never tell with some people.

 

[Tony Williams]

But I guess if you don't believe that the Earth will turn into a replica of Venus, you are a global warming denier. If you do not hold that any effort at geoengineering will cause the stars to become right and the Great Old Ones will wake from their billion-year slumber to clear humanity off of the Earth and make the stars themselves bleed and cry out in eldrich madness, you are a global warming denier.

Am I being too subtle? I can never tell with some people.

Far too subtle for me - you lost me in the first sentence ???

 

[Grey Havoc]

AHEM! - Back to the subject at hand.

Regarding uses/utility of arcologies, could a (fixed site) arcology be used as the anchor point for a space elevator, do you think? Would have both pros and cons from what I can see.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhoSYvdVJ5w