Arcology city or a quasi-modern shire (RAR!)

[Kingmaker]

If I didn't play as many video game as I did, I'd just read more. While I'm mostly not sorry about the time I've spent playing games, I also wouldn't consider their absence a terrible loss. Frankly, the same is true of a lot of electronic conveniences. My smartphone means I'm rarely lost, but that mostly just means I don't really plan where I'm going. And since I doubt I'd been in much hurry to get anywhere.

Plus, I pretty much grew up in a Shireseque place anyway and went to school in Iowa. The Arcology sounds like a personal heck - you could pay me to live there, but the Shire sounds a lot nicer.

I am currently on a medication which comes with a warning to avoid "too much" sunlight.

People in the Shire literally live underground

[bilateralrope]

Take the place you prefer. Now look at the other place. What would be the minimum that would need to change to make you prefer it instead ?

I am currently on a medication which comes with a warning to avoid "too much" sunlight.

People in the Shire literally live underground

True. But they would spend a lot of time outdoors unless they are willing to isolate themselves from the community. Even time spent in vehicles travelling is time spent in sunlight.

[Zwinmar]

Have to go with the shire. Too many people make me jumpy.

[Adam Reynolds]

Take the place you prefer. Now look at the other place. What would be the minimum that would need to change to make you prefer it instead ?

I would have to go with an unlimited library of books and movies. An arcology is more likely to have something approaching that than a shire.

[Me2005]

... but I'd probably still go with the Arcology...IF my apartment has outside windows.

Huh, just crunched some numbers and drew a 450 story pyramid (Which I'd expect to be no less than 6,750 feet tall, assuming 10' (~3m) floors with 5' (~1.5m) utility/structural spaces with a 45* slope on the outside for a ~2.5 mile base. Even 15' (~4.5m) per story is probably slim for the kind of structure and utilities you'd need). You're actually pretty likely to have around a thousand square feet of exterior wall per person, even with some people getting more and some dedicated to public spaces. You've also got 1,820,677 cubic feet per person - even saying 99% of that goes to utilities and public spaces, you're looking at 18,206 cubic feet of personal space per individual. That's a 1,820 s.f. (~170 s.m.) apartment per person. I suppose I should grant, the outside 8 or so feet of your unit will be unusable because of the pyramid's slope, but that could be balcony and then you're only talking about a loosing few hundred s.f. of space.

For reference, where I live studio apartments are usually 500-600 s.f., one bedrooms are 600-700 s.f., two bedrooms are 700-900 s.f., and three bedroom apartments are 800-1,200 s.f. Any of those would have up to 500 s.f. of exterior wall. Three bedroom single-family detached homes are 1,500-2,000 s.f., and obviously have much more s.f. of exterior wall than any apartment. So this pyramid Arcology gives each individual a terrestrial 3-bedroom detached unit's worth of personal interior space and double the exterior wall of any apartment, and that's not counting the 99% of the rest that's used for public spaces, utilities, food growth, etc. etc. for roaming around in. And that's after I'd subtracted 33% of the total pyramid volume for structure & utilities, so you're talking 0.067% of the pyramid volume yielding 1,820 s.f. per individual. That's a pretty reasonable assumption - the Empire State building lists a 13% usable space/volume ratio.

I suspect Zor may have intended for them to feel slightly more cramped, as is, you might actually have more personal space in the Arcology than the Shire. Sill, I picked the shire as I like the outdoors and being able to modify my personal environment inside and out to suit my tastes.

[Purple]

How's law enforcement in the settings? Like I could imagine that in a place like the shire where people are further apart and probably don't pry much you could get away with a lot where as in the archology you probably can't get away with anything.

[Q99]

How bad is the "cheap" food on the archology? That's my main question. I consider cooking to be a high art and frankly if I have to subside on fast food levels of yuck I'd rather shoot my self right now. So that's the real question here.

I'd think even if it's vat grown, you'd have way more styles of dish in the arcology.


I go Arcology personally, more people means more variety of culture, more stuff within reach, etc..

[Purple]

I'd think even if it's vat grown, you'd have way more styles of dish in the arcology.

I don't need much variety as I can make my own. I am quite a good cook. All I need is decent ingredients. And given that in the shire I'd be a landlord that probably means I could have enough land for a garden and resources not to need to have a day job other than tending to it.

[Q99]

I don't need much variety as I can make my own. I am quite a good cook. All I need is decent ingredients. And given that in the shire I'd be a landlord that probably means I could have enough land for a garden and resources not to need to have a day job other than tending to it.

While the Shire is better ingredient wise, it sounds like only the non-vat meat is *really* expensive in the arcology, and most of the cheap food is genetically engineered and thus, by design, almost certainly is going to reach a certain level or people wouldn't use it.


I'd think you could probably do well on veggies and such in the arcology, they'd just eat some of your budget.

[Purple]

by design, almost certainly is going to reach a certain level or people wouldn't use it.

You are seriously underestimating human complacency. As evidenced by the fast food and processed snack empires of modern day people will eat tasteless flavorless processed garbage and even swear by it as the best thing ever. The sheer fact that places such as McDonalds exist invalidates your thesis.

[Broomstick]

Actually, there's a lot of science behind the "tasteless flavorless processed garbage" at fast food places. It's designed to hit the reward centers for fat, salt, and sugar which in the really old days were in short supply for humanity and thus we evolved to crave that shit like a drug. It hits something really primal, which is why people can be so easily trained to suck that shit down.

I mean, I love natural food, vegetables, fruit, lean meat, nuts, beans, seeds... all that really healthy stuff. And I still enjoy the occasional fast-food grease-and-salt meal.

What makes that stuff bad isn't so much what's in it, but how frequently it's consumed. As a once in awhile "feast" it's perfectly OK. As a daily diet not so much.

However, I don't see where an arcology would inherently live on processed and flavored sludge. It was mentioned in the OP they have vertical gardens as well as dirt farming outside the city proper. There is probably a lot of utilization of "pink sludge", sausage-type foods and utilization of less aesthetically pleasing parts of food items for low-cost protein, fiber, and vitamins processed into "cereal" or "food bars" or "sandwich slices" or whatever, but actual vegetables, fruit, beans, and so forth should be readily available to all but the most destitute. Animal flesh would probably be a bit of luxury, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Certainly large animal protein would be a luxury, but eggs, chickens, rabbit, fish (as part of aquaponics), guinea pig, and other small food animals could be surprisingly common. Given the space estimates, people growing a couple plants (presumably via hydroponics although dirt growing wouldn't be impossible) in their living spaces wouldn't be unheard of, either.

Although I'd prefer the Shire, I think I could be content in the arcology as well - over my lifetime I've lived in a variety of places and have been pretty much equally happy regardless of location as long as certain other conditions were met. I'd like about 180 square meters (2,000 square feet) of space for my living/project/garden space, especially if I'm working from home/telecommuting although clearly I have no problems sharing that with a spouse. (Well, no more problems than any other marriage ) I think some kick-ass soundproofing and capacity for privacy/solitude would also be a must.

[Me2005]

...Given the space estimates, people growing a couple plants (presumably via hydroponics although dirt growing wouldn't be impossible) in their living spaces wouldn't be unheard of, either.

Which I may need to revise at some point; Zor's post says the Arcologies are 1.5km (~4,920 feet) tall, not the ~2km (6,750 feet) tall I had imagined it. Frankly though, you probably can't build 450 stories in 4,900 feet without magical materials. You'd be lucky to have 8 foot ceilings and 3 foot structural 'plates'. Wood-framed Residential/commercial buildings with moderate spans (30-50 feet) can have plates that thick. Skyscrapers are a different animal, but usually require thicker floors than wood-frame.

But that still gives each person 1,059,440 c.f., and using 99% of that for support, you'd get a 1,324 s.f. apartment per individual. Married? You get two of those. Kids? More than two.

For reference, Wembley stadium is 40,223,405 c.f.. 30 individuals would share a space that big.

To give raw numbers, a 45* slope pyramid 1.5 km tall has 158,916,000,246 cubic feet of volume. I've reduced it by dividing it by 150,000 individual inhabitants (1,059,440 c.f.). Then I multiplied that by .01 (10,594 c.f.) to account for 33% floor depth and 66% public/utility space. Then divided that by the 8-foot ceiling height to get 1,324 s.f. per individual.

And then the 137,002,212 s.f. of surface area yields 912 s.f. per individual. At least 1/3 of that would need to be structure, making it a more reasonable 600 s.f.

I'd like about 180 square meters (2,000 square feet) of space for my living/project/garden space, especially if I'm working from home/telecommuting although clearly I have no problems sharing that with a spouse. (Well, no more problems than any other marriage ) I think some kick-ass soundproofing and capacity for privacy/solitude would also be a must.

So, from my numbers anyway, you'd be just shy. With two individuals' living units, you'd have the space you want either way.

Give the building another .5% for soundproofing and it starts to get more reasonable - ~650 s.f. per individual (family with 1 kid to get you to ~2,000+ s.f.). Of course, you can't physically put enough soundproofing in the vertical space given. You'd have one-unit-thick walls for every dwelling unit and (essentially) paper thin ceilings. Unless you also skipped every other story and effectively had only 225 stories (which you could probably pretty reasonably do by honeycombing the units, since I'm now using .5% of the building as dwelling units).

[Crossroads Inc.]

This thread is...Unfortunately...a great example of the misconceptions of just what an "Arcology" is 'supposed' to be. The word is the union of "architecture" and "ecology"

Look up the works of "Pablo Solari" sometime. The big giant cities he envisioned were supposed to live and work in harmony with nature.. Not be the Labyrinthian dark fortress of population we see in Sci-Fi constantly... Those are NOT Arcology's they are just giant cities over run with grim and filth.

From he arcosanti website..

Arcology is Paolo Soleri's concept of cities which embody the fusion of architecture with ecology. The arcology concept proposes a highly integrated and compact three-dimensional urban form that is the opposite of urban sprawl with its inherently wasteful consumption of land, energy resources and time, and tendency to isolate people from each other and the community. Miniaturization creates the Urban Effect, the complex interaction between diverse entities and individuals, which mark healthy systems both in the natural world and in every successful and culturally significant city in history.

Arcology reduces city's dependence on the automobile. Today’s typical city devotes more than sixty percent of its land to roads and automobile services. The multi-use nature of arcology design would put living, working, and public spaces within easy reach of each other and walking would be the main form of transportation within the city.

Pollution is a direct function of wastefulness, not efficiency. In a three dimensional city, energy and resources are used more efficiently than in a conventional modern city. Suburban sprawl mandates a hyper-production-consumption cycle and creates mountains of waste and pollutants.

An arcology’s direct proximity to uninhabited wilderness would provide the city dweller with constant immediate and low-impact access to rural space as well as allowing agriculture to be situated near the city, maximizing the efficiency of a local food distribution system. Arcology would use passive solar architectural techniques such as the apse effect, greenhouse architecture and garment architecture to reduce the energy usage of the city, especially in terms of heating, lighting and cooling.

Arcologies are NOT supposed to be Giant monoliths of concrete and steel.
They are actually meant be open, airy structures full of huge open spaces for parks, trees, farms, places to see the sky.
They ARE HUGE, thats a part everyone seems to get... they just forget the REASON they are so big...

[End Rant]

[Simon_Jester]

I think it's because our picture of city-in-a-building structures is heavily influenced by fictional depictions such as Asimov's The Caves of Steel and Trantor in his Foundation novels, as well as by a variety of other authors (I vividly remember some stories I've read like Concentration City by J. G. Ballard).

So while Soleri (like most actual trained architects) envisions airy spacious arcologies... a lot of people have this notion of cramped ones that merely exaggerate all the properties of a city, rather than improving on them.

[Adam Reynolds]

I think it's because our picture of city-in-a-building structures is heavily influenced by fictional depictions such as Asimov's The Caves of Steel and Trantor in his Foundation novels, as well as by a variety of other authors (I vividly remember some stories I've read like Concentration City by J. G. Ballard).

So while Soleri (like most actual trained architects) envisions airy spacious arcologies... a lot of people have this notion of cramped ones that merely exaggerate all the properties of a city, rather than improving on them.

Another fundamental problem is the popularity of dystopian fiction. Because people on some level think of urban as being tied with dystopian setttings, even Coruscant qualifies in many respects, we don't think of the potential for things to be done in such an environment.

This was a point made in the film Tomorrowland, that we fail to see the potential of things like this when we are obsessed with the possibility of destruction.

[Me2005]

This thread is...Unfortunately...a great example of the misconceptions of just what an "Arcology" is 'supposed' to be. The word is the union of "architecture" and "ecology"

Didn't they actually build one? Smaller than anything in fiction, but still, I feel like I've seen pictures of the original intent. For me, the word got hijacked by Sim City 2000 long before I learned its origins.

Anyway, the *actual* use of Arcology is neither here nor there: Zor specified a certain structure size, population, and setting that is not really conducive to the "true" arcology's form.

Speaking of, if the thing has a population density of 10x NYC's, it has 270,000 people per sq. mile; not 150,000 . The building size specified is ~3.5 sq. miles. The population *should* be 938,129 per building. Doing that really makes the numbers work out (badly for the acology dwellers, as I feel Zor intended):

158,916,000,246 cu. feet /938,129 people = 169,396 cu. feet/person * 0.66 (remove 33% for structure) = 111,801 cu. feet/person / 8 foot ceilings = 13,975 sq. feet/person. 1% of that is 139 sq.ft. - basically a single 10x13 foot (~3x4m) room. You'd probably need more than 1% per person for living space, but I don't think you could creep up to the number from the Empire State building, as transit corridors would take up a lot of interior space. From the raw numbers, each individual could have a single 9x10 exterior wall, but I'm not sure the volume allows that to shake out so there are probably interior units.

So in that case, which would you rather have: A 140 s.f. room in a 3.5 sq. mile building with a million people and all the comforts of a major city but with vat-grown food, or a plot in the shire (probably a few acres and a house of whatever size you want) without the high-tech comforts or people?

And if we're in the other version with only 150,000 people, same height, but fewer floors; you're looking more at a *true* arcology. Large airy spaces, no less than 1,000 sq. ft. of personal indoor space per individual, and probably loads of park like 'outdoor' space. Really, there's probably little reason for that one to have fake food - excepting large meat animals, you could raise chickens and maybe small goats/pigs/sheep on your own (easily 500+ sq.ft.) balcony no problem. There are probably still protein-burgers, but everything else is real. I'd imagine they also have lots of real fish and chicken, and medium-animal meat is available if more expensive than here. Steak and other meat from large animals would be the only thing you'd miss.

[Zixinus]

A question about the Shire setting: how do the farmers work their land? Do they use ecologically-minded, no-pollution tractors? Or do they just use some kind of beast to push the plow? How much of the farmwork is automated, even barring the low-impact philosophy of the pseudo-Shire?

[Zor]

Arcologies are NOT supposed to be Giant monoliths of concrete and steel.
They are actually meant be open, airy structures full of huge open spaces for parks, trees, farms, places to see the sky.
They ARE HUGE, thats a part everyone seems to get... they just forget the REASON they are so big...

Well the idea of such structures goes back at least to 1910 with "The Sleeper Awakes", even if Wells did not use the term Arcologies.

Speaking of, if the thing has a population density of 10x NYC's, it has 270,000 people per sq. mile; not 150,000 . The building size specified is ~3.5 sq. miles. The population *should* be 938,129 per building. Doing that really makes the numbers work out (badly for the acology dwellers, as I feel Zor intended):

Well the density figure was based off of the population density for a single arcology. Each city has numerous Arcologies.

Zor

[Me2005]

Speaking of, if the thing has a population density of 10x NYC's, it has 270,000 people per sq. mile; not 150,000 . The building size specified is ~3.5 sq. miles. The population *should* be 938,129 per building. Doing that really makes the numbers work out (badly for the acology dwellers, as I feel Zor intended):

Well the density figure was based off of the population density for a single arcology. Each city has numerous Arcologies.

Zor

Yes; and the density for a 150,000 person 1.5km km tall archology is ~42,857 people/mile, which is 15.8% of the density in NYC. If there are more buildings in the city (some with more industrial/commercial/factory/etc and some more residential) and the average population density is 10x NYC's, the average residential arcology should have way more than 1 million people. If they all basically share duties evenly, the population should be ~1 million per building. Or they can just have a population density of ~42,857/mile and be fairly luxurious. Or they can have that density, but with 99.9% of the space dedicated to support and only 0.1% to living quarters.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Arcologies are NOT supposed to be Giant monoliths of concrete and steel.
They are actually meant be open, airy structures full of huge open spaces for parks, trees, farms, places to see the sky.
They ARE HUGE, thats a part everyone seems to get... they just forget the REASON they are so big...

Well the idea of such structures goes back at least to 1910 with "The Sleeper Awakes", even if Wells did not use the term Arcologies.

Zor

That was my main point, they are NOT 'Arcologies' The term was meant to describe a very refined and specific concept.
Really it's a nitpick for me. I guess if people used terms like "Mega City" or "City Building" or something like that to describe a great hulking monstrosity of concrete, I wouldn't object.

The problem is, as other have stated the term "Arcology" has been adopted to describe ANY "City in a building" type structure, even if it does not follow Pablo Solari's actual guidelines for what an Arcology is supposed to have been.

SO yeah, mostly just a nitpick at the end of the day.

[montypython]

I was actually thinking of an original story idea similar to Zor's OP, albeit in conjunction with a larger interstellar polity like the Systems Commonwealth of Andromeda.

[Me2005]

Interesting side-point: It's actually really difficult to get a building with sides sloped at 45* to yield any kind of useful space on the exterior walls. Trying to draw the building I proposed as likely yielded apartments that are like 10'-0" (~3m) deep - about the minimum width you'd want in a bedroom. It'd be a fun design exercise to try to make it work.

[Purple]

Just make the outside walls glass covered balconies. You don't need much width in a room that's specifically designed for people to sit in and look out. And there is plenty of room.

[Jub]

You can also make the structure run up at a 45-degree angle but have the structure studded with diamond and cube shapes to give some of the outer area more useful floor space.

[Me2005]

Huh, redoing it just now it appears to work better at ~24 feet by 50 feet. How did I get 10 foot unit before? Anyway, the problem is that that would be a typical unit, and it's surface area (while being the entire 24 foot face of the unit) is nowhere the proportion you'd expect - it's like 300 sq.ft of exterior area vs. the 900 I got dividing the building up. Your outer 10 feet of area is either balcony, studded as Jub suggests, or basically unusable.

Just make the outside walls glass covered balconies. You don't need much width in a room that's specifically designed for people to sit in and look out. And there is plenty of room.

That was my initial thought. For a theoretical 10 foot deep unit, you'd have as much balcony as room. The problem is that 10 feet isn't enough for most interior uses - simple galley kitchens are 7 feet minimum, queen beds are 6x7, couches are 7 or so; you'd have a unit that is essentially a hallway with all the fixtures on either side. That's apparently neither here nor there though, I did it wrong earlier and the resulting space is easily configured as a 1-bedroom + den unit (No enough exterior windows on what could easily be a 2-3 bed unit; traditionally you need windows in living spaces and bedrooms). For the cramped units, you're definitely going to have some units with no exterior sides, and all of them are essentially prison cells or 5th-element units - you'd barely have room for a microwave, screen, refrigerator, toilet/shower and fold-away bed. My (admittedly shared) dorm room was bigger, and obviously you'd have multi-individual units that allow some greater flexibility.

You can also make the structure run up at a 45-degree angle but have the structure studded with diamond and cube shapes to give some of the outer area more useful floor space.

That would work, but at some point you loose the pyramid shape. Every unit having a similar stud wouldn't do anything though. Shoot, it might be best to make a stepped pyramid.