After a hiatus of more than two years, I'm back. To the blog, that is. I recently visited Arcosanti, but I haven't moved back in.

Originally, I wanted this blog to be about my life at Arcosanti. I've never been much of a diarist, and I come from the trailing edge of a generation that didn't broadcast our every thought (and whine, and embarrassing photo) to the world, so I don't think it could ever be a day-to-day picture of my life.

Lately, however, I've visited a few message boards where people are discussing arcologies. Some of those boards would require me to register before posting, and the conversations are often long-dead. Sometimes I throw my comments in anyway, but I can also post them here.

Tonight I'll try addressing some of the concerns expressed in the comments that follow this post at Spacing Toronto. The post is about Crystal Island, a building designed for Moscow by Foster + Partners.

From the comments:

I do think that most people in modern, industrial societies could stand to spend more time outdoors and less time in artificial climate-controlled enclosures.

Comment by James M

January 23, 2008

James M. - I think you make a good point about the division between our lives and the “natural” world; indeed any shift towards these sorts of mega-structures would imply a clear concession that the division is beyond repair, that romantic notions of human co-inhabitation with or passive stewardship of natural forces are no longer feasible. Such a move would be tantamount to admitting defeat on that front, substituting a fundamentally active and controlling attitude towards the environment instead.

Incidentally, I think this “turning our back on nature” aspect is implicit in Soleri’s work although it is certainly not his intention.

Comment by Duncan Patterson

January 23, 2008

Whose alienated? I don’t feel alienated in big modern architecture. In fact, I find modern buildings, particularly huge concrete brutalist structures often “bring nature in” wonderfully. There’s often lots of glass, or the building itself adapts and complements a natural form (Scarborough UofT campus, Ontario Science Centre).

Comment by Shawn Micallef

January 25, 2008

Whole bodies of knowledge about the natural world, and whole ways of thinking about our relationship to that world, are being lost as we become more urbanised. I would argue that this is one of the root causes of our inability to really deal with the multiple ecological crises we’re facing.

Your point about (certain kinds of) modern architecture “bringing nature in” is intriguing. I’ll have to reflect on that.

Comment by James M

January 25, 2008

My response:

One of the things that arcologies are meant to address is the interface between city and nature. With a sprawl-based city, the tendency is to continue edging outwards until stopped by a natural barrier like a mountain range or the sea. Wilderness, and even rural space, becomes suburban space as the city encroaches. There are many places in today’s world, particularly in the U.S., where you can drive from one city to another without ever seeing open, natural space between them.

An arcology, rather than being placed inside a city, is actually meant to be a city in itself. This way, you have a clear division between urban, rural, and natural spaces. It’s true that you could choose to stay inside the urban space all the time, but you could also reach the natural space much more quickly, because you wouldn’t have to traverse miles of suburban space first.

Concentrating the city into a small, hyper-urban space would allow urban dwellers the opportunity to simply go outside the city, pass the agricultural band that might surround it, and be in a natural space. I know of several organizations that bus inner-city youth out to the country so they can see animals bigger than a pigeon for the first time in their lives. If these kids were able to walk the distance from the city to the countryside, that might not be such an issue.

Yes, the tendency lately is to design arcologies that fit inside a conventional city. In such a situation, there would be several additional zones to cross between the arcology and the countryside, namely urban, suburban, and any remaining rural areas. Still, one of the purposes of an arcology is to reduce the tendency of the city to sprawl out and eliminate every bit of countryside between the urban core and the nearest mountain or ocean.