Random musings (for editing)
The possibilities of Oasis Cities are not limited to reducing consumption and waste and conserving the environment (important as that goal is). They also have the potential to ameliorate many socio-political issues,
e.g., vandalism, crime, anti-social behaviour, bad neighbours, political conflict and polarisation, loneliness, unhealthy lifestyles, obesity, and much MORE
So why is it that the so-called “Greens” and the many celebrity “save the planet” advocates (e.g., Gore with his “Inconvenient Truths”, and Greta “you have destroyed my future”) have never once mentioned, let alone discussed, the environmental benefits of ARCOLOGIES..? Is it because arcologies have always been portrayed as gargantuan hyper-structures that would probably take decades to build and thus be impossibly expensive..? Or is it just a lack of imagination..?
One of the many advantages of a “small” arcology like Deltapolis is that every residents home would be just a short WALK from all facilities, not least of which would be beautiful parkland and sylvan walking trails. Whereas, exiting from the bowels of a typical Soleri hyper-structure would entail a long trek or (more likely) a pod PRT-ride to reach its nature zone. Pod PRT systems, such as at Heathrow T5, are a great idea but expensive to build and operate and perhaps un-necessary in modestly-sized Oasis City habitats where everything would be within an easy walk. There is no logical reason that an arcology (in order to qualify as one) must be so enormous as to house a big city load of people in a single building. But, whenever one mentions “arcology” – assuming the person has even heard about the concept in the first place (and even most architects these days haven’t) – this is the knee-jerk negative reaction one gets. Googling or Pinteresting “Arcology” brings up scores of futuristic-looking mega-hyper-structures, none of which are practical. Its absurd to even think of building such gargantuan structures. A building of 7,500 people under one roof is still an Arcology..! (7,500 is my guesstimation of a minimum population required to provide a good range of services and facilities. It could be somewhat more or less). 4 or 5 OACes like Deltapolis (10 hectare footprint) could be fit into 100 hectares (1km2) and still leave aside at least 50 hectares for landscaping and recreational purposes.
OΔeCitizens residents will trade living space for quality of life and friendlier people..! Who really needs spare rooms (usually full of old junk), garages (ditto), little-used yards and back gardens, etc.? A lifestyle free of mortgage debt, commuting, traffic noise, car expenses, school runs, crime, uncouth neighbours, and the countless other nuisances and inconveniences we tolerate because there seems no other option, other than living on an island.
OACities will be virtual islands
This cruise ship, which accommodates 8,000 people, was built in high wage Finland for $1.5 billion. An Oasis City for 8,000 people would be much less expensive as they wouldn’t need expensive engines, navigation devices, and costly safety features like lifeboats, etc.
Las Vegas treeless sprawl. Car-dependency on steroids..! The central block of about 200 houses (c.700 residents max?) about 300m square, a similar footprint to Deltapolis (7,500 residents) which also has shops, restaurants, school, hospital, and every facility you would expect in a small city.
High population density Car-free Oasis Cities will need to be densely populated so that everything people need will be within easy walking distance. Yet most people claim to hate the idea of high-density places. So why is it that, when those same people take “city breaks” to New York, Paris or Barcelona (all being much more densely-populated than London), they gravitate to the most “exciting” parts, which just happen to be the densely-populated..? Or they visit busy bustling beach resorts, or cruise ships with many thousands of passengers crammed into a small space. Perhaps “high population density” is attractive after all? It all depends on the place, the people, the environment, and the ambience.
OΔeCities will be far more attractive and exciting places in which to live, than sprawling, noisy, polluted, time-wasting, and increasingly crime-ridden OβeCities.
The environmental objectives of Oasis Cities would include….
- Zero waste, a total re-cycling effort where re-usable food and drink containers will be encouraged.
- Self-sufficiency in water and energy (mostly solar and wind)
- 80% less energy consumption per capita than a conventional sprawl city.
- High degree of food self-sufficiency (depending on climate, the availability of sufficient adjacent farming land, and other factors)
- no motor vehicles – or parking provision (rental cars will be available for outside journeys)
- no public transport – all facilities will be easily walkable.
- PRT driverless pods will link adjacent OACity modules
- passive reverse-cycle air-conditioning system
- at least 50% of total site area to be green (of which at least half to be woodland)
- wide nature zone separating each Oasis City module (if more than one on same site).
- COMPACT – COMFORTABLE – CONVENIENT – CONGENIAL – CO-OPERATIVE
- last, but not least, OA-Cities will be BEAUTIFUL buildings and will enhance the landscape
Recent Comments