Wednesday, April 25, 2012

An Arcology Proposal

The concept of an arcology is sound.  Create a city within a larger enclosure.  The results saves energy and other resources.  Given the new wave of materials coming out one could create an arcology with an effective carbon footprint of zero.  The troubles with an arcology is that in a free market economy it's a huge risk to basically build an entire city in one go.  Other problems will present themselves as the city fills up and unforeseen problems pop up everywhere.

I was thinking about this when it occurred to me.  Typical of engineers and architects, they aren't really thinking of the people, of the community.  Yes the paradox is that the best way to create an arcology is to create the community before the city.

But how to do that?

Again, an easy answer.  Start the community online.  Create something like second life but with the goal of eventually becoming a real world extension.  Have things like simulators for learning how to use remote control vehicles and robots for construction.  Have contests for various problems and their solution.  Make the environment as much as the finished arcology and you will attract the people that will best fullfill the needs of the community with happiness.

Agree?  Disagree?  Discussion?


  1. I find it an interesting proposal. You have a variety of people getting to do, perhaps, things they've always dreamt of doing in a 'virtual' way with tangible results. I would be a bit leary of actual standards and onsight safety checks, observations of what they are creating in the "to be inhabited world."
    I don't know why it reminds me of the third ship sent out first with all the phone sanitizers and hairdressers from HitchHikers...?

  2. in the "sandbox" of the virtual world there is more lee way on what can and can't be done. As it becomes more real there are three different "branches" that will help safe guard any obvious tom foolery. There are the investors who's money will fund the project, the actual builders/engineers/architects who know what is safely possible, and the citizenry which here to fore has been left out of projects like this in the planning and building stage.

  3. So the 'third' branch, the citizenry that has essentially 'designed' the city they will inhabit, will be superceded by the real builders putting up what has been virtually created, within safety/praticality/budgetary limits. Is that correct?