Random musings

 

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 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 advocated, 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 could it simply be a lack of imagination..?  

 
“There is no housing, energy, or water shortage – just a shortage of imagination”  R.Buckminster-Fuller 

I am wary of describing Oasis Cities as “arcologies” because the word conjures up negative images of impossibly enormous buildings for 750,000 people.  (one of Soleri’s designs was for 5 million ppl if I recall)   Even those who hate the idea of “3D cities” would surely agree it would be infinitely more practical – not just from cost and engineering aspects, but also aesthetically – to house those 750,000 people in 100 much smaller (but still very large) buildings of  7,500 people each.  The goal of 750,000 people (if that, or some other number, is to be the goal) could be achieved incrementally by adding more habitat modules as needed.   

One of the advantages of a “small” arcology like Deltapolis is that EVERY resident would be able to live just a short WALK from all facilities, not least of which would be a “sanctuary” or “domain” of beautiful parkland, lakes, and woodland threaded with rustic walking trails.   On the other extreme, a resident of a gargantuan Soleri hyper-structure would have to endure a long trek or (more likely) a pod PRT-ride in order to access its nature zone.  

Pod PRT systems, such as at Heathrow T5, are a nice idea but expensive to build and operate and arguably they would be un-necessary in modestly-sized Oasis City habitats, as everything one needs would be within an easy 10-minute walk.  

There is no logical reason that an arcology (in order to qualify as such) must house a big city load of people within a single building.  But, whenever one mentions “arcology” – assuming the other person has even heard about the concept in the first place (even most architects these days haven’t) – this is the knee-jerk negative reaction one gets.   Googling or Pinteresting “Arcology” brings up images of futuristic-looking impractically enormous hyper-structures.  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 the minimum population required to provide a good range of services and facilities. It could be somewhat more or less).   4 or 5 Deltapolis-sized OACities (10 hectare footprint) could be fit into 100 hectares (1km2) and still leave aside at least 50 hectares  for landscaping and recreational purposes.  

 

Island getaway lifestyle
Oasis City residents will be entirely employed within the building and its immediate surrounds.   However, the pay will be much less  –  as wages are lower on islands

An “Oasis” is a verdant sanctuary surrounded by a dangerous and inhospitable sea of sand, and thus considered a haven of safety and tranquillity.  ISLANDS are another kind of Oasis, even though surrounded by water rather than the proverbial sea of sand.  Everyone loves islands, especially small islands, as they exude the ambience of a calmer and more carefree lifestyle.  Islanders tend to be friendlier and more relaxed than mainlanders, and are rarely in a rush.   There is a lot less noise, fewer disturbances and – although they earn less money – islanders tend to be much more contented and THEY ALSO LIVE LONGER..!

OΔeCitizens will trade living space for quality of life and friendlier people..!   Who really needs spare rooms (usually full of old junk), garages (ditto), lofts/attics (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 as virtual islands

Who can doubt that the dream of living on an island is an irresistible fantasy for most of us..?  Small islands especially so; islands sufficient for 40 acres and a mule, but not much larger than that.  Islands that can be taken in with a single gaze from no great distance.  As “islands in the land” – with a single security-controlled access port – Oasis-Cities will make the dream of an “island lifestyle” attainable for all..!

Cruise ships and Oasis Cities share many similarities – at least in some respects  

This cruise ship, which can accommodate 8,000 people, was built for $1.5 billion in Finland (NOT a low-wage country)  An Oasis City for 8,000 people would be several times bigger, and thus much more spacious.  But also much less expensive as the construction materials would be cheaper.  OA-Cities also wouldn’t need huge engines, navigation devices, double hulls, watertight bulkheads, and other costly safety features like lifeboats, etc.
See the source image
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

 
Life in Oasis Cities will be secure, peaceful, healthy, comfortable, convenient, co-operative and, above all else – VERY FRIENDLY…!