Introduction
In 1970, I came across an article in the Los Angeles
Times Magazine, West, introducing the visionary
architectural work of Paolo Soleri. This architect spoke
about the City in ecological terms, noting that the physical
form of a city has ecological consequences. He spoke of an
urban ecology inherent to cities.
For Soleri, the city is an instrument -- a sublimely
noble instrument of culture. It is within the city that we
develop and nurture our humanity. Good cities, by design or
accident, allow us to participate in cultural life, usually
because it is physically convenient. "Human scale" is an
attribute of such cities.
Unfortunately, what we normally choose to create are
cities scaled to the automobile. The flat, sprawling cities
with which we satisfy ourselves usually inhibit more than
enhance cultural and social activity. Social opportunity is
severely limited by distance and separation of function.
Adding to the problem is the fact that we do not have equal
ability to overcome those distances. Many of our cities are
humanly useless without a mechanical ability to traverse
significant distances at relatively high speed. Our cities
are out of scale.
According to Soleri, they are also the wrong shape. Using
a biological analogy, flatness as a characteristic is great
for organisms like plants, which benefit from extensive
surface area. But complex social creatures like ourselves
require more than can be delivered by a flat system. We need
complexity, and our cities should accommodate that. Greater
complexity can be delivered by a compact urban form that is
volumetric: a city in three dimensions; a city that is
accessible vertically and diagonally as well as
horizontally. Soleri calls such structures Arcology. The
word explicitly refers to architecture, on the scale of
whole cities, that is ecologically coherent, time and energy
efficient, and accommodating in a cultural sense -- because
culture is the measure of humanity. In short, arcology would
be a good thing in a small package.
In order to test his thesis of arcology, Soleri set out
to build a prototype in central Arizona, called Arcosanti.
In 1971, I attended a construction, err, educational
workshop to help build the fledgling structures. I decided
to major in How To Build Arcologies. Little did I know. I
returned for a second workshop in 1975 and stayed until late
1980, working as Supervisor of the Metal Shop, Librarian,
Tour Guide, and Publisher of a monthy newsletter that ran
for thirty-three issues. I returned again in 1996 as
Workshop Coordinator. Through the years, I have been
involved with work there on various levels, including
management. Altogether, I have spent about seven years in
residence at Arcosanti, and additional time "off-campus",
ruminating on what is necessary to create arcology.
Return to Top
Terminology
Various terms have been used to describe
three-dimensionally compact cities. Generically, they fall
into the class of buildings called megastructures, a
term coined by Fumihiko Maki of the Metabolists. Paolo
Soleri has argued that such structures would be
characterized more accurately as "mini-structures", since
conventional urban forms are often "mega" by comparison.
Soleri himself coined the term arcology to emphasize
the role that the city plays in ecological and evolutionary
terms. Like Soleri, Peter Broberg draws on the philosophy of
Teilhard de Chardin in justifying compact cities but uses
the term regional urbanism. Unlike Soleri, Broberg
does not propose a pronounced verticality to the urban form.
Hyper-building is a term used more recently by some,
including Soleri, to indicate very tall structures. N.J.
Habraken speaks of support structures. I find his
term most plainly descriptive even though I do not
completely embrace Habraken's emphasis on using modular or
prefabricated housing within the structure. Prefabrication
is useful and economical and may eventually be utilized in
private additions by those who so desire but, strictly
speaking, reliance on prefabricated assemblies is not part
of my working definition.
Throughout, I use the terms "arcology" and "support
structure" interchangeably, although with different
emphasis. Arcology speaks to the cultural life of the city;
it considers the structure a "place" that people call home;
it is the structure filled with life; it is a living city.
Support structure (or, more simply, structure) refers to the
edifice itself with all its facilities; it speaks to the
structure's physical capacity to function as a support for
urban life. I wholeheartedly endorse the term arcology but
it does not easily communicate the simple essence of what is
physically required. In fact, the word, arcology, is often
misused by those who do not understand the full complement
of its meaning.
It is normal to think that such structures must be
"completely built" before being habitable. Don't we expect
as much? It may not be obvious that a completed structure
need not contain completed dwellings. The plan must simply
allow for growth and change -- from the very start! Calling
the form a support structure emphasizes its ability to
support growth and modification passively.
Return to Top
A Summary Case Against the
Automobile
There is abundant evidence that the costs we incur with
the use of the automobile are unacceptable. There is the tax
and toll on human life, the environmental impact of sprawl
and pollution, and the monstrous costs of production,
maintenance and support of the automobile-system as a means
of common mobility.
This study does not exist to argue that the omnipresence
of the automobile is harmful. Given the overwhelming
evidence of direct and associated ills, we consider the
automobile tried and judged. We find its use within our
cities (and our total dependence on it for physical
mobility) to be dangerous, expensive, physically and
psychologically unhealthy, environmentally mindless,
socially destructive, and a perilous Achilles Heel of the
national body politic when we are obliged to war in support
of our vehicles.
So we ask, "How can we free ourselves of the yoke of the
automobile?"
First off, we have to realize that cars are like
cockroaches -- we'll never completely get rid of them. Every
major city is designed for them. In many places, it's
impossible to get by without them. How do we reconfigure our
cities? At what cost? For whom? In what time frame? With how
much sacrifice, dislocation, economic upset, political
tugs-of-war? And to what end? What kind of city do we desire
as we tear apart our city? How do we want to end up? What
kind of city should we have in the first place?
This study is about creating the kind of city we should
have in the first place. It is about building in human scale
with human-scaled distances. It is about creating a city
rich with cultural opportunity. It is about creating a city
we can use -- all of us: adults, children, the elderly and
the handicapped -- no one need be denied access to urban
life because of distance, danger or economic disadvantage.
It is about creating a physical condition that guarantees
one's economic independence (if one so desires). It is about
being able to sit and talk with neighbors underneath a
starry night sky. It is about living a fuller, richer life
than we now enjoy while using less energy and substantially
easing the ecological footprint of contemporary urban life.
This study is specifically about creating arcology.
An arcology is a compact city that is volumetric in form,
as opposed to normal cities that are flat and spread out. An
arcology accommodates life by extending reach in three
dimensions instead of confining it to two. It replaces the
technology of the automobile with the technology of
elevators, escalators, moving sidewalks. People are able to
live, shop, work, participate in events because places are
nearby and conveniently located, not because greater
distances can be traversed at greater speed.
This does not propose to eliminate the automobile in
society. With qualification, the automobile is a useful
technology of transport -- although not well suited in any
sustainable sense as a substitute for walking. This is not a
call to eliminate the automobile, just a conclusion that we
should leave it outside the city.
Moreover, this is not a call to abandon our current
cities. We need to repair our cities. We have them, for
better or worse, and we are responsible for the way they
harbor us. If we try hard enough, over time we can transform
them. But given the magnitude and the urgency of global and
domestic problems exacerbated by the way we live, one cannot
be sure we have the luxury of time to argue out how to
reconfigure existing cities and trust it is enough. This
country is bleeding energy and it needs a real, serious
solution. It is much easier and quicker to create new
infrastructure, making it physically correct and energy
efficient in the first place. Besides, our cities need
relief, why not house new population in a new city? It's an
old idea.
Happily, it is significant to realize that the "The
Problem" can, in fact, be rectified on the scale of whole
cities. If approached on the scale of individual choice to
change (lifestyle, for instance) then the future will pretty
much resemble the present -- people will not choose an
alternative that does not exist. If approached on the scale
of neighborhoods or communities (scattered carfree zones)
then we may expect some respite but are still left with
sprawling inequities and a wannabe success. When we approach
a solution on the scale of whole cities, we are able to
address side issues of alienation, equity,
community...because these issues are linked to our ability
to connect as human beings.
Speaking metaphorically, it is practically impossible to
get the sounds of a piano out of a rebuilt harpsichord. If
we are going to build an instrument -- and the city is,
indeed, a great instrument -- we should make it a good one,
from the ground up.
The following is a lay study of elements involved in
creating arcological cities.
Return to Top
Natural Darkness
We seem to lose a measure of our humanity if we cannot
look up at a clear night sky and ponder the depths of the
universe. Let us hold that an ability to view a clear night
sky be a non-negotiable design element as we build our
cities.
If we eliminated sources of particulate matter from our
cities and managed to live with less gross illumination, our
skies would be darker. And if one is above the light, the
view is even better.
First, arcologies would require less illumination. The
amount of gross wattage necessary to illuminate a compact
city is less than the amount required for a dispersed city.
Instead of lighting miles of wide pavement with high-wattage
overheads, we may light smaller footpaths with inexpensive
low-wattage bulbs. Lights from nearby businesses serve
double purpose by contributing to general illumination. Less
light is needed in total, reducing both ambient light
pollution and a proportional amount of source pollution
(generated in the creation of the electricity in the first
place).
Second, with a volumetric form, it is easily possible to
have gazing-places which are above or away from all light of
the city. Situating them on the outside surfaces of the
structure (especially on the upper levels) is obvious. Light
emanating from the interior of the city can be baffled
appropriately so as not to interfere with a common back-yard
view of the night sky -- assuming we place the back yards
upon a convoluted periphery. A more challenging task is to
create interior spaces that have a starry view. Such a
challenge is similar to, but greater than, getting natural
light into the interiors of the structure.
And third, the sky surrounding the city, the arcology,
would have significantly less airborne pollutant because a
great source that pollution would be parked. The function of
transport and materials handling within an arcology could be
served easily by electric motor technology, which operates
cleaner and more efficiently than the internal combustion
engines we currently employ.
Return to Top
Natural Light
Bringing natural light into the interiors of large
arcological structures is critically important. Even if the
amount of direct sunlight is limited, places must, at the
very least, be able to have views of bright sunlit places.
For instance, even if the location is a quarter mile within
the structure, an arcology would need to provide at least
some view out. That view should include the horizon.
Mirrors and reflective surfaces might be used to direct
light into the structure if care is taken not to blind folks
along the way. Light tubes and glass block offer good
potential. Fiber optic technology, though expensive, has
tremendous artistic potential. Full-spectrum lamps could
fill in as needed. Ultimately, the impression should be that
one is not exactly inside a structure.
Facilities which normally function under artificial light
anyway (department stores, manufacturing, movie theaters)
may be located naturally in those places where there is less
light to begin with, in the lower interiors of the
structure.
Return to Top
Air Circulation
A city must exist in open air. Any conception of a
support structure as an enclosed building is wrongheaded.
The notion that mechanical systems should move air on the
scale of a city is ridiculous. The structure must facilitate
natural air circulation.
If wind is allowed to pass through the structure then
it's especially important to consider the aerodynamics of
the form. Fluid motion studies may be done to reduce the
potential for wind eddies within the structure. Good design
means that the structure facilitates cleaning; it should not
facilitate the deposition of dust and debris. Those places
that tend to collect windblown earth should be made gardens.
In especially dusty locations, one might create special
catchment areas to filter airborne dust. Hill parks and
tree-lined entrances to the interior of the structure could
function in this respect.
Be wary of venturi effects which increase air velocity
(and noise) unless used specifically to intensify and
harvest wind energy. Be wary also of spatial configurations
which promote spiral updrafts -- an aggravating factor in
firestorms.
Return to Top
Rain and Water
The structure will collect an amount of rain equal to
that of a similar-size hill. Designers would do well to
direct the water inward, into cisterns or on to a stream
system. There's no sense in keeping the joy of rain from
those within the structure. Waterfalls would be particularly
appreciated.
Water reserves should be maintained on upper levels of
the structure to be used for fire fighting or for release
into streams within the structure for recreational and
aesthetic use. The cost of pumping/recirculating water to
the top of the city structure for such use might seem an
unnecessary expense, but consider that our habitat should be
naturally delightful (justifying the pumping for
psychological reasons), and that the expense is recovered in
the overall electrical efficiency of the compact urban
form.
Return to Top
Fire
Fire -- especially petrochemical fire -- must be
prevented at any cost. Obviously, it is necessary to specify
fireproof materials in construction throughout. Materials
which resist fire but emit toxic gasses when they do burn
should probably be avoided. Ceramics, brick, stone,
concrete, adobe are appropriate materials for surstructures
(sur=above, over); reinforced or tensioned concrete and
steel are the primary players for the superstructure.
Concrete is generally fireproof, but spalls (fractures off)
when exposed to fire. Steel is weakened and deformed in
fire. Taking a tip from a science experiment in which water
can be boiled in a paper cup using flame, one might think it
efficacious to fill structural steel supports with liquid or
gel to dissipate heat, thus prolonging structural integrity.
Or, reinforced concrete columns might be loosely encased in
stainless steel and then the cavity between filled with
water. The water makes the concrete hard and makes the steel
resistant to fire, protecting the concrete.
Fluid dynamic simulations of fire conditions should be
modeled to avoid dangerous updraft conditions. Prevailing
winds can exacerbate fire conditions, though specific
analysis is site-dependent.
Since we are dealing with a volumetric city, we should
not expect to transport fire fighting equipment from place
to place as we do in flat cities. It makes complete sense to
install basic fire fighting equipment throughout the
structure for immediate use. Besides common extinguishers
and fire hoses, water cannons could be mounted in strategic
locations that would allow large amounts of water to be
directed immediately as needed. Since mischief could wreak
considerable damage, operation of such water guns would have
to be restricted to those with "keys". If residents carried
machine readable identification cards, then water cannons
might be activated, for instance, by any two "permissions."
Such identification would insure responsible use. Naturally,
one would train the citizenry in using available fire
fighting equipment -- an all-citizens Volunteer Fire
Department. Such a group would augment city professionals
and be able to react immediately in case of emergency.
Return to Top
Evacuation
The ultimate acceptance of support structures depends on
how safe they are, even if that point of safety must be
pushed to the limit of evacuation. Evacuation deals with
getting people away from a place in a state of emergency.
How can a support structure physically facilitate
evacuation?
Let us distinguish between area evacuation and general
evacuation. The former requires people to leave an area for
an adjacent area; the latter requires people to abandon the
superstructure completely.
Evacuation requires redundant systems. Besides a variety
of fully integrated mechanical systems, other, less
orthodox, possibilities might be explored.
Slides, for instance. People like slides for fun. That
alone is enough to justify adapting the structure to contain
slide parks. Used for recreation, slides become trusted and
familiar. In an emergency situation, slides would have to
deal with high-volume use, and allow for rapid dispersal at
the bottom to avoid untoward results. "Lifeboats" or slide
vehicles could be supplied from special storage within the
structure much like a magazine feeds shells to readiness.
Such emergency vehicles or pods might make evacuation more
controllable and accommodating for those not familiar with
the ride.
Return to Top
Earth Movement
Whether the structure needs to be rigid or resilient, it
must withstand two types of earth movement. The first is the
sudden, jolting, buffeting of earthquake; the second is the
slow but irresistible force of gradual earth movement. The
latter is only significant because of the great size of the
foundations and the long life span of the structure.
Horizontally dispersed cities easily accommodate earth
movement but a support structure would have to bear it as a
unit. In this respect, geologic conditions may mitigate
against very large structures. Structures that are
articulated with shock absorbers, or that are not fixed
directly to the ground (slip foundation -- much like a desk
is able to move upon the floor) might be practical. A huge,
jointed structure would probably creak and groan.
Return to Top
Vibration
All moving parts (including people) will have a tendency
to impart frequencies of oscillation to the structure.
Particularly intolerable in a support structure would be the
propagation of mechanical vibration and its obnoxious
brother, impact sound. Mechanical and acoustical isolation
and dampening must be mandated for equipment (e.g., fans,
pumps, transport mechanisms). Fortunately, it is a
relatively straightforward task to dampen or eliminate
mechanical vibration.
Impact sound may or may not be problematic. The use of
earth as an intermediary could help mitigate this type of
noise. If the superstructure were made to hold earth, then
surstructures could be built upon it with foundations in
that earth. Having earth beds as ground for surstructures
incidentally assures that folks will be comfortable knowing
how to make additions to their property.
Return to Top
Noise
Noise is unwanted sound. It is an insidious form of
pollution which has deleterious effects on our nervous
systems. Especially in arcologies, where people live closer
together, it is important to anticipate ways to facilitate a
peaceful quietude.
There are two types of noise: that which generated by
people or by natural causes, and that which is generated by
machines and electronics. Human noise must be dealt with by
social agreement; it is a cultural thing. Some people,
particularly adolescents, are more excitable than others.
Dealing with mechanical or electronic noise is comparatively
easier.
Generally, we can reduce noise in several ways: by
producing less of it in the first place; by deadening it; by
masking it with other, less intrusive sound; or, in some
applications, by negating it through feedback
electronics.
Arcologies can reduce the gross amount of noise produced.
Anyone with their ears open understands that most urban
noise is produced by our automobiles. Since we will not be
needing these within our city, we may have solved the
problem already. Eliminating the sound of engines, tires,
even the car's whistling passage, will do more than we
realize to bring a quiet peacefulness to our home.
Automobile noise may be traded, albeit not at par, for a
hustle and bustle of human life at the front door, and a
natural quietude at the back door.
Noise is also created mechanically. Extra care (and
expense) must be taken to specify that machines are quiet.
Buying higher precision usually means getting a longer and
more dependable operating life, driving down real cost.
Soft surfaces absorb sound; hard surfaces reflect sound;
elipsoidal surfaces focus sound. In a Kaiser Hospital lobby
near Los Angeles, for example, the architect created
ellipsoidal dimples in the ceiling that were eight to ten
feet in diameter and a foot or two deep. They magnified the
sound of speech underneath them. Result? People spoke in
softer voices because they could hear each other better. The
amount of sound that was propagated horizontally was less
than would be otherwise.
Vegetation, trees, groundcover should be used liberally
to deaden sound.
Don't cram things in too closely. The aim of arcology is
cultural facilitation, not mere density, and certainly not
crowding. Spaces must be created that allow separation as
well as closeness. Sound intensity decreases proportionally
to the square of the distance.
Break up sound troughs. Straight lines help to carry
sound. Houses, streets, neighborhoods and districts should
be angled to help break up sound energy, besides making for
a more visually appealing environment.
Running and falling water generates white noise (a mixed
propagation of sound waves across an extended frequency
range). Pine trees also generate white noise in the
breeze.
Noisy processes can be isolated. Manufacturing can be
either confined to special areas of the city or can be
accommodated in special buildings in neighborhoods.
Likewise, activities which typically generate noise (e.g.,
sports events) should also have facilities specially
considered either to absorb noise or direct it outwards,
away from the structure.
Noise can be reduced by agreement. It is conceivable that
a city, district, or neighborhood might want to zone a
section "acoustic only", completely disallowing
electronically amplified sound (via speakers) outside one's
domicile.
One should expect the sounds of construction.
Construction tools are not made to be quiet, they're made to
get the job done. Portable acoustical baffles can muffle
sounds of power tools.
Electromagnetic hums (such as from television sets,
fluorescent fixtures, motors, neon lights) may or may not
not have unhealthful effects, particularly in metal
reinforced structures. Will a collective electromagnetic
aura exacerbate the so-called sick building syndrome?
In the spirit of playfulness and experimentation, let me
suggest that the residents of our as-yet imaginary city
create a special occasion called "The Moment of Silence" (or
some such thing). At a given time (inaugurating the annual
onset of Carnival?), have folks observe a moment of silence,
during which time, shut off all electricity to the city
(except for emergency facilities). All motors, all
fluorescent light fixtures, all the humming contraptions of
modern life quieted each year for one brief moment. Ahh,
true quiet...
Return to Top
Adaptability
Arcologies must be adaptable to modification. This need
not include modification of the superstructure. The
superstructure is the base; what is added upon the base --
the surstructures -- are modifiable.
If the structure is to effectively house a city, it must
be accommodating -- in every sense. Above all, it must
accommodate change: space today for two, tomorrow for three,
and then room for grandmere; a theater today and a cafe
tomorrow; a garden to a fire pit, and so forth.
Return to Top
Multi-purpose
Zoning
The whole idea of arcology is to nurture a rich cultural
environment. This is done by interweaving work, play,
learning, socializing, and other activities. If the physical
plan does not allow for these life activities to overlap
casually then they won't. If something cannot happen then it
will not happen. The physical plan must allow those
activities that are all relatively healthful or harmless to
coexist as desired. Those activities or processes that are
relatively hazardous or otherwise unhealthy (e.g., industry)
should be isolated -- but not without some common life
around them; it is generally undesirable to have isolated
areas devoid of "eyes on the street", as Jacobs has so well
put it.
Civic, institutional and cultural facilities would
naturally be distributed throughout the structure and would
provide social counterpoint within neighborhoods. It is
entirely likely that civic facilities would serve
multi-purpose need at all hours of the day, encouraging
adjacent business (late night cafes, for instance). The
availability of such gathering places creates an aliveness
in the city, and when the city is alive, it is a marvelous
thing.
Return to Top
Energy
Co-generation
Co-generation addresses the potential for utilizing one
or more inputs of waste energy toward a particular end,
e.g., industrial processes pool heat generated individually
to take advantage of a greater combined temperature
differential to...generate electricity?...heat
water?...create a significant updraft...?
Since a support structure allows functions to be aligned
along multiple axes (horizontally, vertically, diagonally),
there is significant opportunity to harness the economics of
this type of co-use by juxtaposing appropriate commercial or
industrial processes. Besides reclaiming heat, there may be
other combinations of processes which, when grouped together
in appropriate symbiosis, would yield a residual potential.
The field of Industrial Ecology examines these potentials by
using principles of biology, ecology and systems thinking to
maximize business performance by all measures -- economic,
social and environmental.
Return to Top
Vermin
In arcology, we must consider that the entire community
cohabits one "house". It would not do to allow that house to
become infested with vermin. How do we deal with the roaches
(or mice, ants, slugs, scorpions…) that we may
anticipate finding at home in the structure?
The problems that actually surface over time will
determine a range of appropriate measures. Animals and
insects are frequently used to control pests but all must
contribute to a balanced ecology of the habitat. I leave the
discussion of biological control to the naturalists and
ecologists.
Simple cleanliness obviously plays a significant role.
Keeping the little buggers from getting a foothold in the
first place saves effort and anguish later on. Still,
vigilance is required and there is no accounting for some
people apparently content to live with insects.
High-decibel ultrasonic sound is a deterrent to some
vermin. Ultrasonic noise generators might be installed to
sweep the structure from top to bottom, periodically driving
hoards of crazed cockroaches into channels and into traps.
Sure. Possible problems: extended use might factor for
resistant (deaf) insects; hearing ranges of various species
(insects, birds, cats) must be known to avoid
over-targeting.
Return to Top
Agriculture
American cities rely on the marketplace to supply food.
The connection is borne of economics, not politics. The
modern city is not normally concerned politically with how
to feed itself.
Nevertheless, cities should have a more direct connection
with their source of food. The more a city is able to feed
itself, the more self-reliant it becomes. Although it is
completely unrealistic to suggest that existing cities
should feed themselves, it is not unrealistic to suggest
that new cities consider integrating agriculture into their
plan. This is especially realistic with arcology.
Sometimes open field agriculture is not practical because
of land or climatic conditions. In such cases, urban
planners may set aside land area for eventual reclamation
and development for agriculture (as practiced in the
Netherlands), or create urban greenhouse systems as Soleri
has suggested.
At the very least, there should be provision for
composting kitchen refuse on a household or neighborhood
scale. Besides being an ecologically responsible activity,
composting reduces the burden on waste disposal systems and
helps maintain local gardens within the structure. It is
entirely possible for arcologies to export topsoil as part
of its economic base.
Return to Top
Vista/Siting
It's important that an arcology be sited well within a
wide boundary of open, natural landscape. It's important
that people have an unspoiled view of the world around their
city. Urban density is more tolerable if the individual can
walk to heights of the city and look out upon miles of
natural terrain. The more that vistas surrounding the city
include development -- especially auto-centric development
-- he less salubrious they are. One finds more repose in
natural patterns than in gridded development. Life within an
arcology will be especially vibrant and active. Urban
intensity within must be counterbalanced by natural
landscape beyond, though this is not to say that vistas of
agriculture or of areas developed for recreation would not
be suitable.
Return to Top
Urban Landscaping
This element is critical: it is absolutely necessary to
bring earth up into the structure. Without incorporating
gardens, parks and trees, a megastructure will not be a
coherent ecosystem. People want to live surrounded by
natural vegetation.
Creating a support structure primarily as an open
landscape, upon which we may build as we please, allows us
to reduce initial construction costs dramatically. Such an
approach also reserves options for future modification and
development. This approach places substantial emphasis upon
the contributions by the Landscape Architect-team, whose
responsibility is to replicate a natural ground environment
within the three-dimensional context of the structure.
Microclimates created within the structure will make for
a rich urban ecology and substantial biodiversity.
Return to Top
Parking
People and freight will arrive in cars and trucks; busses
will serve the city; there may or may not be rail service
(it may be economical to construct rail service to the site
at the start). Since the city itself cannot and will not
accommodate vehicles, they must be parked away from the main
structure. Parking structures will have to be differentiated
to serve different purposes (visitor parking, long term
storage, shipping and receiving).
Parking structures should be located a considerable
distance from the main structure for three reasons. First,
we are making the effort to create an environment which
removes the automobile from our lives; let's not stumble
before the finish line by parking them at our feet.
Second, creating a parking "event" infuses arrival with
the psychological element of "approach". It is important
that we approach a place and not just arrive. We need to get
out of the car, stretch our legs and look around, pause to
consider new surroundings, and enter the city as people for
thousands of years have entered cities: on foot. A slow,
pedestrian approach offers us time to reflect on where we
are and what we're doing here -- metaphorically speaking.
Speaking non-metaphorically, a protracted approach allows
visitors to become acquainted with appropriate
announcements, etiquette, or laws of the land, as need be.
Wide footpaths should be augmented with both slow-speed and
rapid-assist mechanical transport for those who are
physically impaired. Moving sidewalks, light rail, even
electric carts are several alternatives that may be
available, as long as the route is kept primarily
pedestrian. Line the approach with trees, flowers, benches,
fountains (both drinking- and aesthetic), restroom
facilities. Arcology is about making places for people to
stop, relax and be sociable. The approach to the city should
reflect a slow, unhurried attitude.
Third, parking structures should be located at a distance
from the main structure for reasons of security. We don't
want to provide convenience for car bombs and other
machinations of deranged minds.
A final note about parking structures: make them useful
for something besides just parking cars. As hill-shaped
buildings, they can be used as hills for numerous events,
for instance, bicycling, skateboarding, snow sports (weather
permitting), picnics, a water park. If a classic
amphitheater were incorporated, it would help get people out
into the countryside. Not all the best views are from the
city out; views toward the grand structure will be equally
impressive.
Return to Top
Shipping and
Receiving
Since the city rises above the ground, all goods coming
and going must pass through ground-level facilities. This
operation must efficiently direct mail, food, building
materials, chemicals, medical supplies…in short,
everything. It makes sense to know what's coming in and
going out, especially when it comes to hazardous materials.
Few people realize the extent of a city's "normal"
consumption of flammables, acids, solvents/VOCs,
pesticides/herbicides, photographic chemistry, etc.
At the very least, engineers want to keep a running
account of how much load is on the structure. Materials in
and out need to be weighed, at the very least.
Return to Top
Materials Handling
Even pedestrian cities must have mechanical transport
systems for moving goods (groceries, building materials,
furniture, appliances) besides people. Such systems must be
as efficient and convenient as autos and trucks are in flat
cities. There must be a variety of means to move heavy or
bulky things around the city for quick and efficient
delivery.
We may separate materials handling systems into three
categories: track, non-track, and articulated.
1) Track. Included in this category is rail of any kind
(monorail, narrow gauge, "toy" trains), cable car,
elevators, escalators, roller track, pneumatic tube,
chutes/slides. Electrically supplied buses are a hybrid
example. Pure track systems are easily automated and can be
relatively easy to maintain. Unfortunately, failure of a
part usually affects the system.
2) Non-track. The automobile is a non-track system -- it
goes wherever you want. Such a system is usually time
efficient. Other non-track examples are the shopping cart
and its progressively larger kin found in building supply
stores. Fork lifts, golf carts, horse and wagon are more
examples of non-track systems. Non-track types can run out
of control more ways than track types. To its advantage,
failure in one unit has little effect on the overall system.
There is clearly an open field for the development of a
non-track, personal materials cart/system (for baggage, not
necessarily for riding) that is designed specifically for a
pedestrian population in "hill" country.
3) Articulated. A "Cherry Picker" (mechanical arm) and
cranes of different types are good examples of articulated
systems. Overhead cranes are a variation on the track
system.
Numerous mature, reliable systems exist to move people
and materials in a 3-D environment. Even the auto companies
may adapt to the market, since they are in the business of
moving people anyway.
Return to Top
Defense
Historically, urban designers have considered form as it
relates to defense and protection. We may do the same with
support structures.
How can we configure a structure to stand in passive
defense against hostile action? What can be done physically,
structurally, to protect a resident population from harm?
Most importantly, how is this achieved without dividing,
partitioning or otherwise segregating the resident
population?
Consideration of physical fortification to withstand
military or paramilitary force is beyond the scope of this
study, except to say that the deliberate creation of major
strategic positions within a support structure can work for
both sides and is not endorsed since it can alter the scale
of defense.
Unfortunately, we have terrorism to consider. At the very
least, there must be security gates and scanners at ground
entrance to the city. Given the precarious nature of the
modern world, I doubt there will be much resistance to the
idea of security checkpoints to scan everyone and everything
entering the structure -- though a well mannered society
might dispense with such inconveniences.
Engineering structural redundancy would allow the
building to withstand a range of potent shocks or blows.
Still, the best protection is to minimize the ability to
deliver the blow in the first place. All vehicles should be
physically prevented from approaching the structure.
Transfer of goods and materials must take place in shipping
and receiving centers away from the structure. These centers
should be considered ports of entry and must be secure.
Since sewage systems would likely be tied closely to
local agriculture, there is the potential for poisons or
biological agents to be introduced through the plumbing
system. Assuming that the city need not concern itself with
the intentions of its residents, a separate plumbing system
for public use would be able to isolate events of this type.
In practice, effluents may be managed as a combined lot or
separated if necessary. There may be research potentials for
monitoring foreign effluent separate from domestic
effluent.
Return to Top
Security
Keeping strangers away from one's back door is a
significant design consideration. This problem can be solved
topologically by dividing the structure into separate
concourses -- one public, one residential -- which
intertwine throughout the structure but never connect
directly. Separating (or should I say, connecting) the two
zones are the basic residences, acting as a semi-permeable
membrane along the length of the connection. The front door
of the residence/shop opens onto the public concourse; the
back door opens onto the residential concourse. Without
invitation (or force) "foreigners" would never gain access
to the back yards and private parks of the residential half
of the city. Handled adroitly, the visiting public might not
even be aware that a division existed, satisfied with its
own public parks and facilities. Even if residential areas
were in public view, non-residents might not realize there
was no way to get there.
Both concourses should have their separate parks,
playgrounds, and other public areas. The residential
concourse should be contiguous, allowing one to walk to any
other residence without crossing the public concourse. If
the residential concourse is gated to disallow access to
other residents, then the designer has set up conditions for
social segregation, antithetical to a whole, healthy
community. The public concourse need not be contiguous. Both
concourses should be multi-linear, in other words, multiple
paths leading in different directions.
Return to Top
Passive
Architecture…the non-electric arcology?
During a seminar with Soleri some years ago, I asked his
opinion of creating an arcology which could be used
passively, in case there should be a failure of electricity.
This would mean creating spaces which are lit naturally,
using escalators which become simple stairs, providing for
alternative means to pump water (by engaging wind driven
mechanisms if need be), and so on. He answered that
electricity is here to stay and that any consideration of
doing without it was nonsensical. I agreed that a society
would not willingly abandon the benefits of electricity, but
there was no accounting for system failure. He dismissed the
idea that an arcology should be prepared to function without
electricity.
I remain unconvinced that a support structure does not
need to be able to function without electricity. Masterful
architecture facilitates. There is no good reason for people
to inhabit a structure that is not as usable without
electricity as normal cities. Beyond an obvious need for
back-up generators, the structure should be designed to
passively provide light, ventilation and access to all
areas.
Return to Top
Plumbing and
Utilities
According to Soleri, arcology is a complex plumbing
system. We should ensure that it is a good one. Utility runs
must be easily accessible and modifiable. This doesn't mean
they have to be in full view. Plumbing, especially, needs to
be configured in efficient branching patterns.
For the sake of economy, utilities can be stubbed into
the basic residential units. Owners may furnish the money
required for choice of fixtures and final hookup.
Besides plumbing for fresh water, there are several
effluents which should be piped separately: greywater,
sewage and industrial effluent.
1) Greywater. Greywater is produced by non-septic
domestic consumption (e.g., bathing, food preparation).
Greywater effluent is eminently reusable for vegetation. It
can be easily routed into earth beds within and throughout
the structure. If greywater is to be reclaimed from
commercial source generators then a more centralized,
technological solution is indicated and should be operable
from the start.
2) Sewage. For practical acceptance in the United States,
a water-borne system is anticipated, although dry compost
systems (for instance) should be permitted to individual
households as requested. People who would purchase
self-composting systems are the kind of people who literally
and figuratively turn the earth. These people are important
in society. There should be open consideration of
alternative technologies as they develop.
A rationale for separating domestic and public sewage is
presented elsewhere and may or may not be at issue.
3) Industrial effluent. Major industrial processes are
likely to be grouped at ground level, perhaps even at a
distance from the main structure. Industrial effluents must
be treated differently from sewage and differently even from
each other. If residential units are permitted to use
industrial chemicals (e.g., hobby photography) then special
provision must be made to collect and reprocess spent
chemistry. It must not be allowed to contaminate common
sewage. The problem here is keeping everyone honest about
where they dump the waste. The real world is rife with
deceit and obfuscation surrounding the handling and
disposition of hazardous materials. All chemicals should be
tracked as they enter the city.
Return to Top
Intent
Whole cities normally do not just happen, even if
communities the size of small cities do. Historically, a new
and separate settlement might be created for political or
military purpose, or because a group simply decided to live
apart from current neighbors. Cities develop at sites of
natural resource or opportunity (e.g., fertile land,
geological shelter, trade routes, timber, ore). A city must
provide opportunity or it will not flourish; it must be a
resource and a refuge for its inhabitants. If there is to be
any real consideration of creating arcologies, there first
must be economic incentives for doing so, aside from the
philosophical and ecological reasons for creating such
structures.
Especially for initial structures of this kind -- which
will exist as veritable wonders of the world -- tourism will
be a major economic component. It is reasonable to
anticipate significant cash flow from tourism, at least
until such structures become commonplace.
Return to Top
Economic Equity
Since we have decided to create urban form as we please
then we may as well create a physical basis for economic
equity. We do this by providing every household with a place
to do business. By providing retail space along with a
developable plot as the property "purchased" for residency
and citizenship, we may ensure a common basis for economic
security. The scenario is cheap, easy and simple:
A new owner buys a plot which consists of raw space and
an area that may be developed. That raw space -- perhaps on
the order of twelve hundred square feet -- may be used for
either residential or commercial purposes, or both, as
desired. Initially, the new owner would likely occupy the
space as a residence while undertaking to extend, and
possibly separate, additional housing upon his or her
"land". Depending on the actual topologistics of the
structure, the developable space can exist behind, above, or
below the provided multi-purpose space. There is little
sense in allowing non-contiguous development. In other
words, one's "shop" is on one's property, not across town
from it. This scenario provides a basic shell for a
residence and an opportunity to fish in the economic stream,
or not, as the household desires. Thus a physical basis for
economic independence is secured, whether, when, or not, a
household chooses to take advantage of the opportunity.
The scenario does not assure economic success, it merely
allows everyone to get started with the same leg up and
provides a baseline safety net for economic survival. If we
may assume that a premier structure of this kind would be
world famous, then we may expect that the economic stream
thus created would be considerable.
It is significant to note that existing cities cannot
create this opportunity for its citizens without
extraordinary disruption of normal affairs. Fortunately, it
doesn't matter. By building new, we can physically organize
3-space into true facility for life and livelihood; we can
create what we need from scratch.
Return to Top
Recycling
Economy means not using more than necessary; recycling
manages to return something to a reusable state. There is
great economy in not wasting in the first place; there is
some remedy in recycling -- by way of an expense -- for
having wasted or otherwise spent an object to begin
with.
When we produce something, we invest time, energy and
resources. There is always some waste produced, dependent on
efficiencies of transformation. Sometimes we want our
products to last a very long time, sometimes we wish them to
die, and sometimes -- woefully often -- we simply do not
care what happens to them.
Once an object has outlived its intended usefulness,
there are a variety of options available. A common option is
to discard the object, writing-off the energy and resources
that went into its manufacture, and to forget about it,
except for a final eight-cylinder send-off to the local land
fill. Alternatively, we could recoup what we can of our
investment through recycling.
Many objects outlive their usefulness superficially.
Often these items are passed between people as
trash-to-treasure. Support structures can physically
facilitate this common form of recycling by creating and
assigning spaces in each neighborhood as potential Free
Stores. Such depots could be located at transport hubs or
along materials handling routes. If the locations are not
naturally convenient, the facilities will be under-used.
So-called "useless" objects can be dealt with a number of
ways. The Highest-and-Best-Use-Principle of recycling
suggests a hierarchy of actions:
- Repair and reuse the object as intended.
- Adapt it to an alternate use.
- Deconstruct it into usable parts, including use as
educational material and instructional aids.
- Re-manufacture and/or reprocess it.
- Transfigure it into art. (Some would say that the
highest and best use of an object is to use it to
transfigure our consciousness, to be a milestone on our
cultural path, a beacon for our vision. Art transcends
value.)
- Use it for amusement.
- Burn it.
- Bury it.
Return to Top
Population size
Historically, the issue of what constitutes an ideal size
for a city has been considered since Plato described his
Republic. In all cities, the social dynamic varies with
population size. As cities grow from small settlements,
there are increasing benefits from greater diversity, more
options, more opportunity. As cities grow, benefits
eventually diminish in relation to increasing problems. The
balance point between the two can not be exactly discerned
because so much depends on the culture of the people and the
uniqueness of their city. Still, historical opinion
overwhelmingly agrees that cities approaching and surpassing
one hundred thousand population are appreciably less
pleasant than cities in the twenty- to fifty thousand
range.
Support structures must be designed for a predetermined
population range. Actual population capacity is a cybernetic
phenomenon. Humanity is relatively compressible, depending
on inherent cultural factors. In physical terms, a support
structure can theoretically accommodate X number of people
and store Y amount of things. Storage capacity acts as a
buffering variable since the structure may accommodate
people at the expense of things, or vice versa.
A population range is grossly determined by how much
expansion of private space is allowed. For instance, let us
allow 3.2 people to live in 1200 square feet of space. If
one is given 1200 square feet of floor space that is 32 feet
high, then one may house about ten people by adding floor
space inside. By making additions and improvements, one
might be able to increase possible floor space to, say, 7500
square feet, to accommodate about twenty people (if not for
a family then perhaps as a hotel). This means that an
arcology with an initial (base) population of twenty-five
thousand could grow to one hundred and fifty thousand or
more. It's likely that not all units would be built to full
capacity.
It is entirely possible that arcologies might be viable
only within a relatively narrow population range. With too
small a population, the costs of providing a megastructure
outweigh real benefits; too large a population and the
frictional effects of urban compression could outstrip
gains.
For example, a city -- that is to say, a village or town
-- of five hundred or five thousand population can manage
quite well being flat, notwithstanding an increasing
ecological footprint. The expense of creating a support
structure for so small a population probably would not
justify the amount of land area saved, depending on need and
environmental conditions. At the level of the village, human
scale is easily maintained with conventional living patterns
and construction; cultural access is inherently limited and
may not be significantly enhanced with a megastructure.
A city of thirty thousand can remain flat and
conventional and still be human-scaled and offer a rich
cultural milieu. Strictly speaking, a megastructure is not
required at this size either, although economic benefits
would accrue by way of reduced operating expenses and
convenience. Certainly, the quality of life would be
uniquely altered -- an essential point in the argument for
creating arcologies in the first place. Flat conurbations
still face the issue of containing growth and sprawl -- the
problem we started with.
As urban populations approach a half-million and more,
our psychic and emotional ability to encompass the city
diminishes. Human scale disappears with distance and there
is increasing isolation and alienation. Especially in these
larger contexts, can support structures define physical
space such that a sense of community is promoted in spite of
gross numbers and increased population density?
There is reason to think they can. Years ago, visiting
the aviary at the Los Angeles Zoo, we were informed that a
great many more kinds of bird coexisted comfortably there
than normally would in the wild. This was because the
environment kept birds from seeing and hearing each other.
The complex habitat of the aviary provided visual privacy,
and the liberal use of falling water masked bird noise.
Notwithstanding our differences from birds, it's reasonable
to think that creating similar features in support
structures could create an equivalent effect, allowing us to
overlook certain effects of gross density and to focus our
attention on cultivating responsive neighborhoods.
Ultimately, the issue turns to maintaining a sense of
human scale within the city. If a person does not feel
comfortable with the city as a whole, then that city is
simply too big. That holds true for arcologies as well as
flat cities. At this point in time, the question of size is
hypothetical. Both an optimum operating range and a
practical operating range must be determined
empirically.
Return to Top
Insurance
Partnering
Discussing the concept of arcology and its land
requirements with a realtor, I learned that, in Arizona,
parcels on the order of five thousand acres and larger are
held typically by insurance companies. This seemed somehow
auspicious because land, structure and population are all
tied to insurance. An entire population, under one roof as
it were, could insure itself as a group in its own best
interest. An arcology would be inherently safe and healthy:
people are completely secure from endangerment by
automobiles; they walk as a matter of course, they breathe
cleaner air; they have access to geologic scale vistas
(psychological health), street crime is reduced because
people can casually observe activity; there is even the
opportunity of reintroducing the Doctor's House Call since
people are located so conveniently. Such a city-group might
expect that insurance rates would be considerably less than
in normal cities. An insurance corporation would have an
easier time keeping folks healthy in an arcology. A common
plan could be tailored to the common good at reasonable
price. In short, there exists a symbiosis of purpose between
people, land and facility -- namely an urban facility,
especially one that is safe and salubrious.
Return to Top
Business
Opportunity
It is a temptation to anticipate the creation of
businesses out of thin air, as if success could be assured
in every case, but that kind of thinking only goes so far.
Yet one can easily see advantage for the establishment of
certain kinds of enterprise. Buyers' Co-ops, for instance,
would be a likely success in an arcology. They could serve
small neighborhood outlets for all manner of goods and
perishables. There would be a natural return of the Mom and
Pop store through the power of bulk purchasing, connected
with the fact that everyone has a store front if they want
it.
Still, there will need to be involvement by large,
conventional commercial concerns: factory outlets,
department stores, building and industrial supply,
supermarkets, hotels…even auto parts and repair. Many
of these businesses will want to be in place at the
outset.
Especially for those first structures created as whole,
ecological cities, it is likely that residents would be
predisposed to caring for their home, their neighborhood,
their district, their city. One would expect that an
ecological city would attract those who are
ecologically-minded. Environmental groups and arts
organizations might very well choose such a place as their
headquarters -- making for a lively and interesting resident
population.
Return to Top
Governmental
Participation
State and federal participation in such a venture is
possible, although not likely until the viability of such
structures are established in time. Without a clear, broad,
public realization that arcologies are practical and
economical, governmental agencies will be stand-offish.
Until that time, such structures will likely be underwritten
by private enterprise.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development could
undertake to subsidize living units for low income
occupancy, although one's status could be affected by a
built-in ability to establish private business and create
wealth.
In the long run, if such structures establish themselves
as desirable in the minds and will of the nation, federal
construction funds could be justified constitutionally. The
United States Constitution mandates the establishment of
post offices and post roads. Conceivably, a support
structure could be considered as a huge, complex postal
road. Granted, this is a stretch of credibility but, then,
all manner of things are justifiable given the will of the
people to proceed. Besides, we freely spend tax dollars on
the support of highways; why limit subsidies to only
transit-related technologies?
Return to Top
Miscellaneous
Thoughts
Architecture should never be created expediently, it
should not present simplistic solutions to the complexities
of life. The more that architecture considers these
complexities, the more it accommodates life, and the greater
and more valuable it is.
A note about my propensity to speak about "structural
facility". Structural facility deals with designing
architecture to save maintenance work. Architecture
structurally facilitates life when it builds in solutions to
erstwhile problems: a sloped concrete slab facilitates water
drainage and saves the manual work of squeegeeing; built-in
ledge access to a high window saves the need to store and
carry a long ladder; a convenient water spigot saves having
to drag hoses, etc.
Cities are instruments of culture, as they are
instruments of commerce. In commerce, we make what we can of
ourselves; in culture, we make what we can of our species.
The city is home to our humanity; we trust it to shelter our
aspirations as much as anything else.
Return to Top
|
