prometheuspan
3/20/2001 8:23 PM 1 out of 23


An ARcology for purposes of this discussion is a house built as a single building for a
tribal group or a hive instead of for a nuclear family. The first size, for no less than 20
and no more than about 2000 individuals, The larger size for as many as billions of
people.

Certain theoretical environments, such as starships are by nature larger size
Arcologies, but we will only explore the smaller size for this thread.

Arcologies were brought to the attention of American Consciousness by a man named
P. Santeri.

A lot of problems are solved socially and economically as well as ergonomically
when you do an Arcology well. A lot of people have a knee Jerk reaction against the
idea but don't really understand that things could very possibly be better in every
concievable way in such a situation.

Taking a City block on which currently resides say 14 houses, and building on 7 of
those lots a structure 10 stories tall, you could house an extraordinary number of
people in avery space saving fashion.

Thats a selling point to a social engineer but nobody else.

Heres a list of advantages.

1. You could give all of those people more room in which to live than they currently
have.
2. You could save on heating, electricity, and frankly all utilities tremendously.
3. Child care suddenly becomes a group collaborative effort, instead of a trying chore.
In a tribal social structure, all the adults take responsibility for the Children.
Thus no one adult is over stressed with tooo many or too much.
4. School, work, and all social functions can happen within the Arcology or on its
grounds.
5. No need thus for automobiles, therefore no more emissions problems.
6. A whole host of social needs that we are not getting met right now would get met.
7. Labor process such as cooking and cleaning could be cut down on significantly.
8. By including sound proofing, theres no reason to believe you couldn't have privacy in
your own space.
9. With the bedrooms on the outside of the building and using an open porch style of
construction, everybody could have their own sunlight and access to tiny, personal
outdoor yards.
10. The problem of urban sprawl would thus be dealt with and our childre n could look
forward to living in paradise instead of ghettos of their parents creation.

So first, I'll design and explain a theoretical 2000 person arcology, and then we will
look at how each of these and more advantages apply.

But before any of that happens, by all means let me have your thoughts and feelings.

for more info, go to "Yahoo.com" and type in "Arcosanti" for the search parameter.




screenqwen
3/20/2001 8:35 PM 2 out of 23

in theory this is good but people are the main trouble. i unfortunetly have lived in many communal situations none of which worked out. for what ever reason, people that close together do not work. i have lived in houses with other people most of who do not clean up or take care of their monetary or chore responsibilities. i'd have to give that some serious thought. i like to garden and require a lot of space for that not some little private thing. people also live different and the space one person needs another does not. it seems a good thing maybe some of it with private housing for different needs.i would like to hear more about it however, maybe i am wrong about the concept.



prometheuspan
3/20/2001 8:47 PM 3 out of 23

n theory this is good but people are the main trouble. i unfortunetly have lived in many
communal situations none of which worked out. for what ever reason, people that
close together do not work.
---------------------
Its a hard answer to apply but it can work. The main problem is that you have to make very real changes in the way you run society at the same time, and thats hard. It has been shown to be feasable in places like China, Japan, and even New
York. The next thing is building them so that they are really really nice to live in, which is I think the main thing.
----------------
i have lived in houses with other people most of who do
not clean up or take care of their monetary or chore responsibilities. i'd have to give
that some serious thought.
---------------
Yes thats the kind of problems you face. This is one of the hardest solutions to face but also one of the strongest. If you do it well its going to be real good for us. If we do it poorly it will of course suck. Its not like some of the other solutions that you just do it and it works. Theres a lot of smaller problems inside of the big problem that you have to deal with in order to make it work right.
-----------------------
i like to garden and require a lot of space for that not some
little private thing.
-------------------
My version of arcology includes self sufficiency, so they grow all of their own food, and that means a lot of garden space.
------------
people also live different and the space one person needs another
does not. it seems a good thing maybe some of it with private housing for different
needs
---------------
Throw your concerns to the wind for a moment and just imagine on the puter what it would have to be like if you solved all of those issues and had something that indeed really did work for you. In other words, think of yourself as queen engineer, and just build it to suit you. Try for 2000 people.
---------

.i would like to hear more about it however, maybe i am wrong about the
concept.
-------------
You are not wrong. This is always the hardest of these solutions to sell to people.




prometheuspan
3/20/2001 8:51 PM 4 out of 23

Just imagine if you will a bedroom 30 feet long and 30 feet wide. All the privacy anybody could need. Plus a small kitchenette and bathroom inside of that same very large room.

Then imagine a huge set of several large living rooms to share with freinds and loved ones, a great big extended family.

There are two or five kitchens and while you can cook if you want to at any time, you don't have to most of the time as there are just a few cooks for the whole community whose job it is to cook for everybody.

You have a porch balcony and a bird feeder, your own smaller private porch garden, and access to the very large and impressive community garden, where you have your own private patch.

Theres swimming pools, saunas, hot tubs, and all kinds of activities to participate in socially, including dance, song, and crafts.





deepeco
3/20/2001 11:35 PM 5 out of 23

the problem that i have with the idea of "arcologies" is that they represent another technological "fix" that would ultimately drive humans further away from nature. while arcologies could be socially "beneficial" for humans, they represent the pinnacle of our anthropocentrism. we continue looking for technological solutions to the ecological crisis, when it is nothing so simple. it is nothing less than a fundamental sickness of the mind. i for one would find no consolation in a giant arcology shut off from all that is natural.



arielmessenger
3/21/2001 12:38 AM 6 out of 23

I talked briefly with Paolo Soleri once many years ago and didn't come away feeling any better about his Archologies. His huge designs weren't feasible structurally and the people who had to live in them were in effect, in Soleri's work of art. Oh, you could individualize some of the ornamentation of your personal dwelling but the overall design was Soleri's creation. One man. How does a group determine what structural design in going to be used if not a single person's or even a group's shared design. The process must involve the group and like others here, my negative experience of communal decision-making makes me want to make sure I never let any group have that sort of power over my personal life. And for sure, I wouldn't want to let any single person determine these kinds of decisions. The natural development of towns and cities may not be ecologically efficient but natural development allows everyone to choose for themselves what kind of living situation they want instead of having all those decisions made beforehand by the Archology architect or the people who joined the Archology first.

Deepeco's objection is also valid. Living in a huge manmade structure high off the ground continues the divorcement of human life from the natural world.

Archologies are made for outer space but on earth they just blot out a large portion of the natural sky and the earth with gigantic artificial construction.



Hatman
3/21/2001 2:13 AM 7 out of 23

arielmessenger, deepeco-
I hope that this board will concentrate its energies around solutions. Although your prior experiences will be extraordinarily valuable in knowing what not to do, I would ask that you share what would and did work, what you liked and disliked, and how you would design an harmonious living arrangement better.

'pan-
I love the idea and the concept, but how would disputes be resolved in a just way that would retain the spirit of kindness? If a person steadfastly refused to entertain the course of kindness, how would the person be expelled--or would they be? How do you envision the social structure? What chores would be shared, and which would be individual? If an individual refused to cooperate in the matter of shared duties(cleaning common areas, for example), how would the situation be handled?
Perhaps, as arielmessenger suggested, all 2000 who had expressed an interest in living cooperatively should discuss how they would like to live--in detail--prior to construction/renovation.
I believe that if one proceeds with an eye to doing justice, loving kindness, and practicing humility, harmony will reign.
Peace-

Hatman



Prometheuspan
3/21/2001 4:26 PM 8 out of 23

hatman, thank you. Folks, lets try our best to see the solutions potentials and hammer out the details. Clearly theres a lot of details to hammer. I am asking a lot I know, but lets just go for the hypothetical here and try to work our way into a spirit of cocreative energy.

deepeco, my ideas about arcologies as stated include each arcology being agriculturally self sufficient. Thats the opposite condition to your percieved objection.

As far as paolo goes, lets face it, hes a genius and on that note deserves our respect. Hes also an egotist who has more or less hijacked a very brilliant idea and who really isn't serving that ideal because he isn't engineering a better society, hes just building big structures.

That said, by all means please just try to think about and write down what you would want the structure to be like in order for you to want to live in it.

Remember we are going for a target community of 2000.




Prometheuspan
3/21/2001 4:33 PM 9 out of 23


'pan-
I love the idea and the concept, but how would disputes be resolved in a just way that
would retain the spirit of kindness?
--------------
It is my belief that if we apply some of the other solutions we have mentioned so far that this won't be an issue. Remember, if and only if a society makes the individual their first priority, THEN each individual will make society their first priority.
That simple relationship and formulae is the key to everything. Right now people are expected to make society their first priority, but lets face it, society doesn't give a crap about me or you personally. Wether you or I live or die is all put up and into terms of wether or not we conform to societies expectations, or instead, become on some level a criminal.

You don't have unhappy malcontents in a society which genuinely seeks to make everybody happy by meeting their needs.
Abe maslow solves the problem before it even starts.
----------
If a person steadfastly refused to entertain the
course of kindness, how would the person be expelled--or would they be?
-------------
Thats a difficult question and I think we would have to go on a lot more particulars of the individual case. The worst case scenario for simple lazyness is I guess yes expulsion.
-----------





Prometheuspan
3/21/2001 4:36 PM 10 out of 23

How do you
envision the social structure? What chores would be shared, and which would be
individual? If an individual refused to cooperate in the matter of shared duties(cleaning
common areas, for example), how would the situation be handled?
Perhaps, as arielmessenger suggested, all 2000 who had expressed an interest in
living cooperatively should discuss how they would like to live--in detail--prior to
construction/renovation.
I believe that if one proceeds with an eye to doing justice, loving kindness, and
practicing humility, harmony will reign.
Peace-
---------------------
These are good questions and they are all social engineering questions.
Clearly such a social structure won't work unless the social climate is itself well adjusted. Those are other solutions than this one however and I think that the best thing to do is take one solution at a time, lest this thread be hijacked into "social
engineering".

The answers to these questions are the Abraham maslow and the instinctual human solutions.






Prometheuspan
3/21/2001 4:46 PM 11 out of 23

To get us started folks, with a 30 by 30 bedroom as mentioned, you end up with
oh, lets see. We do this in rows so we chop to a thousand first, thats 3000 feet long
and with an internal hallway only, 70 feet wide. Since I am going to put the common areas in the middle and give peoples bedrooms outside windows/porches, we increase our width to 120 feet wide, for two widths of bedrooms, two internal hallways at 10 feet wide each, and a 40 foot wide middle for the living rooms and so forth.

Now you can stack this in any number of ways but I would go for a minimum of three stories tall. That takes us down to 1000 feet long.

Six stories would be better in my mind as I am going for expediency. So thats 500
feet long, 120 feet wide, and about 60 feet tall.

The average city block right now is with houses 40 feet cube, plus 20 feet on each
side for about an 80 foot by 80 foot lot. That 80 foot by 80 foot lot serves 2 adults and as I last recall in america, 2.3 kids. (correct me if I make any mistakes.)

So with our arcology, we are taking that 160 foot wide city block that runs say
10 houses long (And two wide) for a total population of 20x4.3 for a rounded up total of only 100.

So now, just think about what we can do with the sourounding 20 blocks.

Can you say permaculture? Can you say Garden of Eden?




Prometheuspan
3/21/2001 4:50 PM 12 out of 23

olympic size swimming pools, and parks, and yards.

Of course right next door we have our industrial section, where we make all kinds of technology toys for ourselves and others.

Instead of covering 20 blocks with houses and having sprawl, and needing more land to farm in order to eat, we cover 1 block with housing, we eat directly off the land around us, and we add in enough peripheral details to make it paradise.

I know its a big huge psychological leap over a wide precipice. I know I am taking about giving up the way that people now live and shooting for something that may even be a bit dangerous. But What we could in theory get back in return is too huge for us to ignore.






Prometheuspan
3/21/2001 4:51 PM 13 out of 23

taking =talking there.



arielmessenger
3/21/2001 9:38 PM 14 out of 23

As an alternative structure, this is what I would like to see: Co-op condominium Eco-castles. Unlike arcologies or condominium apartment buildings, there is one large building design that is almost always welcomed in every society and that is the Castle design. People love castles, always have and always will. No matter what the terrain they're situated in castles always seem "neat" buildings and evoke pleasant responses from almost everyone. Why not create co-Housing (democratized) eco-castles? Castles can be big but they're not so big people get put off by their sheer size as they do the various large apartment complexes including arcologies models. Blending the Co-housing principle with the castle design seems to me a way of getting people to accept environmentally friendly cluster housing arrangements. And because castles have a lengthy history and even though vary from castle to castle, they still have a "traditional" look to them so that they become neutral environmental structures that people living in them can individualize their personal living spaces without feeling they are stuck in some one person's architectural fantasy.



deepeco
3/21/2001 10:28 PM 15 out of 23

prometheus & hatman... i know my response is counter to providing a solution. however, to say that such criticism should not be addressed is ludicrous as long as you are attempting to find "solutions" to the ecological crisis. prometheus you say that arcologies are counter to what i'm saying about separating humyns from nature because they would be agriculturally self-sufficient. i don't see how this solves the problem at all. of course you can put as many plants as you want in arcologies, but that doesn't make it natural or part of the Earth. it's just disturbing to me that such a quick fix to the problem would be considered as a long term solution. you may conserve "resources" and decrease polution, but arcologies are just another step in a long line of misguided technological "solutions" to a problem that begins in the mind.



deepeco
3/21/2001 10:35 PM 16 out of 23

if you want to talk solutions to the problem, we should look at more simplistic levels of organization. i think bioregionalism offers an excellent alternative to the global superstructure of economics and environmental degradation via modernity. we should return to the Earth in its most natural form. different areas of the Earth are distinguished by features that make them unique i.e. the plains, forests, etc. if we would look at the regional level and move into community organization, a lot of problems could be solved arising from a detatched society. when people begin to think of their surroundings as delicate ecosystems they need for food, water, etc., the mindset of indifference cannot last for long. a sense of urgency arises unlike in present society where we can go through our lives indifferent to ecological destruction because we do not know where the majority of what we have comes from.


arielmessenger
3/21/2001 11:36 PM 17 out of 23

Deepeco, now you're getting to it. Bioregionalism, watershed consciousness and climax ecology are the basic awarenesses we humans must develop as a priority. Each bioregion has its own natural climax succession cycle. Each watershed too and if we do not pay attention to those natural climax succession patterns we will continue to screw up the planet. My personal philosophy (now spiritually based as well) is that modern civilization must and is slowly learning how it has been alienated from the natural world that supports it and how it must reforge a new natural civilization paradigm that puts human beings as a responsible steward species in place of human beings as shortsighted exploiters and destroyers of natural ecological systems. Climax Civilization is coming one way or another.



Hatman
3/22/2001 4:32 AM 18 out of 23

arielmessenger-
Love the "castles" idea! We could call them "many mansions", if you like.
'pan-
I don't translate words into pictures very well, but the concept is sound. Do you know anyone who has a website and graphics knowledge where we could go, experiment, and have cool visuals?
deepeco-
I share your concerns. Years ago, I believed(and still do!) that we now have the technology to make virtually anywhere on, under, or even above the Earth not only habitable, but profitable and earth-friendly. I divided the Earth into 7 basic areas: Mountain, Seashore, Riverbank, Plain, Desert, Ocean, and Sky(including space). For each area to be workable, there must be an overabundance of a particular resource, e.g. Wind or Lightning, in the Mountains and Plains, Sunlight in the Deserts, etc. These must be incorporated into the technology, i.e., using the Sun and Sand to make glass products in the desert, and so on.
The main point, however, is that different people love different areas best, and suitable housing(with its attendant energy, water, refuse collection, communication and recreation needs)would need to be designed specifically to function in those environments. When people begin to see themselves as needed, useful, and appreciated, mental health greatly improves. I had always hoped that a society of "pioneers", or multi-task oriented people could be assembled, ones that would be willing to learn to share responsibilities on a rotating basis, such as water purification/sewage treatment, power generation and distribution, emergency medical, CCC(Command, Control, Communications), fire control/suppression, etc. I personally believe that specialization leads to isolation and "clannish" behavior, such as evidenced by the trade guilds of years gone by. It would be much better, IMHO, if everyone was conversant with all the facets of living in a balanced society.
Peace-

Hatman



prometheuspan
3/22/2001 6:04 PM 19 out of 23


As an alternative structure, this is what I would like to see: Co-op condominium
Eco-castles.
-------------------------------
Lovely. Grand Idea. In fact, rather in harmony with another idea of mine, which is open pit rock quarry construction. Earthworks by the way are for all practical purposes forever whereas current construction techniques with wood etc. have single generation lifespans.

Using modern techniques such as cement, and metal reinforcment, you could build some very awesome castles.
------------------------------

conserve "resources" and decrease polution, but arcologies are just another step in a
long line of misguided technological "solutions" to a problem that begins in the mind.
-------------------
deepeco, I am listening to you but not following you. Perhaps you could give us your own problem definition... make a thread of it even. The fact remains that arcologies are an incredibly wise use of space and human resources, and force us to solve a whole horde of social probelms that we are just avoiding right now.
There isn't a better solution in the whole batch. Its not a "Quick fix" its a long term solution for any number of reasons.
------------------
if you want to talk solutions to the problem, we should look at more simplistic levels of
organization. i think bioregionalism offers an excellent alternative to the global
superstructure of economics and environmental degradation via modernity. we should
return to the Earth in its most natural form. different areas of the Earth are
distinguished by features that make them unique i.e. the plains, forests, etc. if we
would look at the regional level and move into community organization, a lot of
problems could be solved arising from a detatched society. when people begin to
think of their surroundings as delicate ecosystems they need for food, water, etc., the
mindset of indifference cannot last for long. a sense of urgency arises unlike in
present society where we can go through our lives indifferent to ecological destruction
because we do not know where the majority of what we have comes from.
------------------
You haven't adressed one simple fact. I agree with bioregionalism and I think that trying to let nature take back over the world is a grand plan. But people are going to live in something and we are not going to change that fact. The only question is, is it better for people (and the environment) To live in nuclear family houses or in tribal size arcologies? The answer is clear. By the way, people don't realize this right now, but the modern "City" is really a sprawl nightmare HIVE.



prometheuspan
3/22/2001 6:08 PM 20 out of 23

eepeco, now you're getting to it. Bioregionalism, watershed consciousness and
climax ecology are the basic awarenesses we humans must develop as a priority.
Each bioregion has its own natural climax succession cycle. Each watershed too and
if we do not pay attention to those natural climax succession patterns we will continue
to screw up the planet.
------------------------
all true and all completely seperate issues to the one that we have on the table.
How do we house humanity? City hives? Or TRibal arcologies? I think the answer is clear.
----------------------
My personal philosophy (now spiritually based as well) is that
modern civilization must and is slowly learning how it has been alienated from the
natural world that supports it and how it must reforge a new natural civilization
paradigm that puts human beings as a responsible steward species in place of
human beings as shortsighted exploiters and destroyers of natural ecological
systems.
--------------------------
I couldn't agree with you more. We are in the process of coming back to nature.
Theres a whole lot of aspects to that.
-----------------------
Climax Civilization is coming one way or another.
------------
Not sure what you mean by this.




prometheuspan
3/22/2001 6:11 PM 21 out of 23



arielmessenger-
Love the "castles" idea! We could call them "many mansions", if you like.
'pan-
I don't translate words into pictures very well, but the concept is sound. Do you know
anyone who has a website and graphics knowledge where we could go, experiment,
and have cool visuals?
-----------------
Yes, Arcosanti has some. TRuly, I don't personally like his designs, and the pictures are not exactly revealing of what things look like on the inside, which I think is very important.
-------------

This other stuff is a completely different topic. Who wants to start the thread?
I suggest "Naturalized bioregions" And "Watershed Protection"
Just ideas tho.



arielmessenger
3/22/2001 10:12 PM 22 out of 23

For anyone who wants to know more about "Climax Civilization" they can check it out in the Climax Civilization pages of my website at abc.11net.com/climxciv.html
What I called Climax Evolution Theory was and is my philosophical explanation of social change I discovered in 1975. But since my religious conversion experience in 1979 it has been incorporated into my religious beliefs and my communitarian and environmental activism stemming from my religious beliefs. It's all in my online book in progress at abc.11net.com.



prometheuspan
3/23/2001 4:40 PM 23 out of 23

Creating our own centers of art and our own forms of entertainment. With a community of 500, several
musical groups, from rock to folk to classical to jazz, could emerge, and at that scale, having our own movie
theatre (and making our own movies!), theatrical groups, and perhaps even radio and closed-circuit
video-tape stations can become a real possibility.

Our basic concern for ecology and the ecological use of technology within the village will heavily influence the
general standard of living. Every "home" will not be fully equipped with the latest gadget for homemaking
convenience; there will be no two-car families. Rather, walking and bicycling will be the principle modes of
transportation within the village. Centralized Laundromats and large walk-in freezers will avoid costly duplications.
Fully equipped centralized kitchens and bathing facilities will reduce individual needs to a minimum. High quality
stereo equipment, photographic equipment, fine tools, and music studios will be available to all through cooperative
use.

With all this variety, our village will be a real center for life, combining the natural joys of country living with the
cultural opportunities and diversity of people so often missing in going back to the land.
------------------
This is a great site everybody, by all means go check it out!