"Corwyn J. Alambar" wrote:
>
> Michael S. Lorrey wote:
>
> > Brian D Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > >
> > > >Why? Arcologies are in actuality highly wasteful structures,
> > > >demanding more resources per occupant than a more diffuse
> > > >community.
> > >
> > > Huh? Got a URL to support this? Apartment buildings use much less
> > > resources than individual houses.
> >
> > I guess the reasoning is that operationally they may be more efficient, but
> > building them demands so much more design and labor work, as well as more
> > expensive higher performance materials that the resources used to support that
> > overwhelm those saved in the day to day operations. So long as building
> > efficiencies discount savings beyond 10 years as much as they do, arcologies
> > will always be negative impactors.
>
> You don't build an acrcology for a 10 year lifespan, however. Consider the
> average apartment building - the lifespan is 20-40 years, on average, unless
> there is a dramatic defect. An arcology would be an organic structure, in that
> it would constantly be undergoing small and large changes over time.
Thats right. However, the capital markets don't give a damn. This is the same
reason that alternative energy has never really taken off, because it is so
front end loaded with capital expenses, you have to be a government, using slave
labor, to be able to afford building one. Soleri's Arcosanti does this halfway,
with plenty of highly educated slave labor building it, and operating their
whole fundraising/propagandizing/merchandizing operation to finance gradual
construction. Until conventional building/community planning schemes are forced
to be more expensive by some mechanism, arcologies will always be non-starters
to anyone but a near religious fanatic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:03 MDT