Ultimate Urbanate Plan

[Technocrat]

Ultimate Urbanate Plan:

Urbanates are new living environments which would eventually replace all cities and towns within a Technate, a Technocratic society. An urbanate is a self contained city under one roof. They are designed to provide the highest standard of living possible without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same high standard of living, or an even higher standard of living.

There is some question as to whether or not an urbanate should consist of one large building, or an assembly of smaller buildings. One large building would provide more space and have several other advantages, such as climate control, that cannot be had with an assembly of smaller buildings. If the urbanate was to be an assembly of buildings or even a large building with an interior courtyard, there would not be enough space in a 1/2 mile square area. You would either have to expand the area horizontally or have buildings more than 50 stories tall. Neither of these is acceptable because buildings that tall would greatly increase the cost of construction per square foot, and horizontal expansion makes it less convenient to walk.

The construction of new compact cities would be less than the cost of providing future transportation to our existing cities. Therefore we should not look at the construction of urbanates as imposing any extra burden on our current resource consumption. Instead we would be using less resources, even during the construction phase, than if we were to continue building cities and towns as we do now.

Determining the size and space requirements of the Urbanate is the first task.

The urbanate would be 1/2 mile wide and house 20,000 people. 1/2 mile is equal to a 10 minute walk, so it would be a 5 minute walk from the center to the edge. This is an ideal walking time because Urbanates would be designed with the needs of everyone in mind, which includes children, the elderly, and disabled citizens. Already in Japan they are following a somewhat similar urban strategy, although it is still controlled by the Price System and is thus anascopic rather than katascopic. Because of Japan's aging population, they have begun a compact city policy where development is concentrated within a 5 minute walk of train stations. There seems to be universal agreement that 5 minutes is the lower limit of a comfortable walk, and 10 minutes the upper limit, for an average individual.

20,000 people is a sufficient population to support all the services and facilities required by a self-contained community. (Emeryville Study: How Many People Are Needed To Support A Full-Service Grocery Store?)

2.5 people per living unit (this is the average based on current demographic data)

8,000 living units are required. (20,000 / 2.5)

6,000 sq. ft. per living unit to allow for each unit to have its own lawns and gardens, and to account for walkways. The actual house/apartment would be 2500. sq. ft. on average. Smaller units could be arranged for those who wanted more garden space. Larger units could be made for those who didn't want any garden. The point is that the "owner" gets to decide how to configure his 6,000 sq. ft. lot.

6,000 x 20,000 = 120,000,000 sq. ft. total needed for residential.

each level is 160 acres, or 6969600 sq. ft.

6969600 sq. ft. / 6,000 sq. ft. = 1,162 living units per level.

8,000 living units needed / 1,162 living units per level = 6.88 - call it 7 levels.

7 levels + 1 level for the service core = 8 levels total

8 levels x 30 ft. per level = 240 ft. high.

240 ft. high / 12 ft. per story = 20 stories tall

Therefore, the urbanate would be as tall as a standard 20 story building. There would be 8 levels, each 30 ft. tall.

The urbanate would have several levels. The ceiling on each level would be 30 ft. high to create a sense of spaciousness and to allow for trees to grow to full maturity. There are several species of tree which have a mature height of less than 30 ft, and these would be planted throughout each level. On each level, houses and apartments would be built. All houses and apartment buildings would be limited to 2 stories in height, as each level in the urbanate is 30 ft. tall. Each house and apartment building would have its own lot with lawns and gardens. Special UV lights can replicate the exact lighting conditions needed for any plant to grow indoors. Light wells could also provide natural light throughout the urbanate.

The urbanate itself would be built of strong materials, while the structures within it could be built of lightweight, soundproof, factory-built components. A flexible method of construction using pre-fabricated and modular components would speed construction and allow for easy remodeling, as well as greatly reducing the cost of construction. On each level, the population density would be just slightly higher than the average suburb today. The average suburb today is 4 to 5 units per acre which is equal to 3,000 to 4,000 people per square mile. On one of the residential levels of the urbanate, the housing density would be 6 or 7 units per acre. However, the population density per square mile would be much higher than a 6 to 7 units per acre suburb following today's urban patterns. This is because on a residential level no space is given over to roads or other activities, all non-residential uses being located on the service level. The effective population density of a level would be around 12,000 per square mile, although the percieved density would be around 6,000 people per square mile, comparable to your average suburb. By stacking several levels, a sufficiently high population can be attained while still preserving a sense of spaciousness. The population density of the urbanate itself is 80,000 per square mile. The population density of a level is slightly less than 12,000 per square mile. The perceived density would be less than 6,000 people per square mile. The total population on all levels is 20,000 maximum.

At the ground level of the urbanate would be the service core. Here all the public facilities would be located such as schools, shops, entertainment, hospitals, etc. The service core is accessible in less than 5 minutes by foot and elevator from every dwelling unit in the urbanate. Also located here would be the inter-city train station linking to other urbanates and to popular spots in the countryside, as well as garages for the car-sharing system.

On the roof of the urbanate would be a large park, ~120 acres in size (the roof is smaller than the ground level because the structure is terraced). There would be a 10 ft. (or more) high wall surrounding the perimeter. This park would be within 5 minutes of every dwelling unit, accessible by elevators and walkways. For those disinclined to walk, moving walkways and mass transit would also be available.

The outer wall of the urbanate would be terraced so that the outward facing living units would have an outdoor garden area. If these units were in higher demand they could be reserved for high-ranking citizens. The outer wall would also have publicly accessible balconies in certain areas (the balcony being the roof of the level below).

There are no roads or cars within the urbanate itself. All transportation is easily accomplished by walking, cycling, through the integrated mass transit system, moving sidewalks, and elevators. On each level would be a tram system, with stops located frequently and with one minute intervals between trams. There are several advantages to not having cars within the urbanate itself. First would be the complete elimination of all traffic accidents and fatalities. Currently 50,000 people per year die from auto accidents and countless more are maimed for life. At its peak the Vietnam war claimed 15,000 Americans' lives per year, to put things in perspective. Also eliminated would be the noise and pollution associated with the car, a well-known nuisance to anyone who lives in a modern city. The problem of parking would likewise be eliminated, all cars being stored adjacent to the urbanate in a large garage. Another advantage to eliminating cars lies in the possibilities for the arrangement of buildings on each level. Since automobile traffic is eliminated and all traffic would be by foot or bicycle, this frees up all kinds of possibilities for the arrangement of structures. City blocks become completely unnecessary, as do the hierarchical street systems found in the suburbs. There are no roads at all within the urbanate. Because of this, buildings could be arranged and oriented in more organic, interesting ways. Of course, the people could still choose to arrange things as traditional city blocks if they chose to do so.

Another advantage of the urbanate would be automatic delivery service. In the 1950s we already had factory complexes where supplies were moved where they needed to go with a system of automatic conveyors. Today it would be possible to set up the entire city in a similar way. All things currently delivered by truck and car could instead be delivered by a system of automatic conveyors at a lower cost and at greater convenience to the consumer. Groceries could be delivered directly to your house, as could the mail, packages, hot meals, and anything else that isn't too big to fit on the conveyor. Virtually anything that you can buy could be sent directly to your door via automatic conveyor within an urbanate. Waste disposal could also be handled by this system.

A single urbanate could function as a small town. Several urbanates could be grouped together, interspersed with green space, to function as a large city. Connecting everything would be a high-speed rail network, capable of travel up to 300mph, and with a per-capita fuel efficiency of 500mpge (miles per gallon equivalent).

A network of canals would be built connecting every river and lake on the continent. This would provide several advantages. This network would be capable of generating enough hydroelectric power for the entire continent. It would be capable of reducing flooding in certain areas and channeling water to where it was needed, such as desert areas. The canal network would provide for direct water transportation across the entire continent. Large sail barges would handle freight and would take the place of trucks and highways, reducing the energy currently consumed by shipping to 0. This canal network, the continental hydrology, could also be used by cruise ships for those on vacation, or as floating classrooms. The canals would be planned with the local ecology in mind so as to cause the least possible disturbance to ecosystems. The best and brightest minds in environmental science would be called upon to help with this task. If additional power was needed, concentrated solar thermal plants could be built. Of course, those familiar with Technocracy already know about this, but I thought I would include it here for those unfamiliar.

The cost of building these new urbanates would be less than the cost of updating and maintaining our existing cities. one estimate shows that just to build and maintain new highways and roads to serve future demand for our existing cities would be more costly than building urbanates. In other words, the savings on transportation infrastructure alone (which includes pollution, gasoline, deaths from accidents, etc) would more than justify the cost of building the urbanates described in this article.

From a distance, the urbanate would look like a large plateau 1/2 mile wide at the base with a slightly rounded top, covered in trees and grass. The terraced exterior would also be covered in trees, grass, and vines. One would not see any buildings at all. The urbanates would be in harmony with nature, both aesthetically and ecologically.

All of this is my own speculation, based on years of urban planning research. The concept described here is based to some degree on the ideas found in the book Compact City: Plan For A Liveable Urban Environment by George Dantzig. I took many of the ideas in that book and applied them to the urbanates concept to try to come up with something a little more specific than the descriptions already available. Please note however, that the exact design of an urbanate could only be determined by the architects and engineers of the Technate whenever they come to build one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I must say that this design appears to call for some impressive engineering, effectively 7 small towns/large villages stacked on top of one another, sandwhiched between a service level and a park of the same size.

While I'm in agreement with not having any roads as such within an Urbanate, I still think it would be a good design to have the interior be at least accessible by motor vehicles, so that it is possible for emergency services to bring large amounts of materials and personnel in quick order anywhere within the Urbanate, without resorting to using elevators or the trams.

Also, what do you think should be the minimum distance between Urbanates? The dimensions you give for the Urbanate make it about twice(?) as large as the Pentagon, meaning I could easily see clusters of Urbanates in the dozens in the place of large cities.

Where would industry be located in relation to an Urbanate? Would it be incorporated into the Urbanate somehow, or in a seperate area? If seperate, how far away would be reasonable?

I also can't see why there can't be different designs for different environments. What sort of environment did you have in mind for this design? I imagine a coastal Urbanate would have a different design to an inland one, as well as variations according to the local climate. Local geography should also be a consideration.

Finally, disasters. I don't know much about architecture, so I have no idea how such a large self-contained structure would weather them. What thoughts do you have in this area?

[Kamerat]

This sounds realy depressing. When i was little i had the same ideas, used to draw bulidings and citys like your describing. But now that i have move to the city i come to hate living in one. Neighbors stareing strait into my little apparthment from across the street and banging on the floor/wall/celling/door when i play System. I feel so traped, no view except what the Neighbors across the street is watching on tv. Have to run/cycle for many kilometers (if you dont know what this is look at buttom of this post :tt2:) to reach the woods when training. I hope that not all have to live in such a prison after the technocratic revolution.


On the roof of the urbanate would be a large park, 160 acres in size. There would be a 10 ft. (or more) high wall surrounding the perimeter. This park would be within 5 minutes of every dwelling unit, accessible by elevators and walkways. For those disinclined to walk, moving walkways and mass transit would also be available.

There will be no sunlight under the park on the roof? Maybe sunlight is not that much appreaciated in other parts of the world. But here in the north we strive to get as much sunlight as we can.


The outer wall of the urbanate would be terraced so that the outward facing living units would have an outdoor garden area. If these units were in higher demand they could be reserved for high-ranking citizens.

:thumbdown: WTF, high-ranking citizens? I dont like this at all.


Another advantage of the urbanate would be automatic delivery service. In the 1950s we already had factory complexes where supplies were moved where they needed to go with a system of automatic conveyors. Today it would be possible to set up the entire city in a similar way. All things currently delivered by truck and car could instead be delivered by a system of automatic conveyors at a lower cost and at greater convenience to the consumer. Groceries could be delivered directly to your house, as could the mail, packages, hot meals, and anything else that isn't too big to fit on the conveyor. Virtually anything that you can buy could be sent directly to your door via automatic conveyor within an urbanate. Waste disposal could also be handled by this system.

Why not pneumatic tubes/capsule pipelines insted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube
I think its more energy efficiently and faster. Already in the late 19th and early 20th century it was used within the major industrialised citys for mail and such. Today its used in hospitals to distribute drugs/medicine and banks to distribute cash and documents.

For a technocrat like you with such futuristic ideas your useing a very backwords and stoneage measuring system. Have you heard of the metric system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system
Most of the world is useing it except 3 nations. Its much easyer to use, you have 1 single unit for any physical quantity and you dont need conversion factors when making calculations with diffrent physical quantities.

[Technocrat]

While I'm in agreement with not having any roads as such within an Urbanate, I still think it would be a good design to have the interior be at least accessible by motor vehicles, so that it is possible for emergency services to bring large amounts of materials and personnel in quick order anywhere within the Urbanate, without resorting to using elevators or the trams.

Small motorized vehicles could be permitted, provided they were designed to be unobtrusive and safe. Because there would not be any space for roads, any vehicles would have to be small and light, like a golf cart or mule.


Also, what do you think should be the minimum distance between Urbanates? The dimensions you give for the Urbanate make it about twice(?) as large as the Pentagon, meaning I could easily see clusters of Urbanates in the dozens in the place of large cities.

I don't know what the minimum distance should be. Probably enough to have a good sized greenbelt surrounding each urbanate, but still close enough to be quickly accessed by the mass transit system or by car (cars could be used outside and between urbanates). Urbanates could indeed be "clustered" to form a larger city, if a larger concentration of people was needed in a particular area, such as for a manufacturing city. An agriculutural town would need just one urbanate.


Where would industry be located in relation to an Urbanate? Would it be incorporated into the Urbanate somehow, or in a seperate area? If seperate, how far away would be reasonable?

I think any non-polluting industries could be located within the urbanate itself. Due to size constraints, things like large factories and power plants would be located outside the urbanate. They would be located beyond the greenbelt of each urbanate, but still within a close enough distance to be reached within 5-10 minutes by train or car.


I also can't see why there can't be different designs for different environments. What sort of environment did you have in mind for this design? I imagine a coastal Urbanate would have a different design to an inland one, as well as variations according to the local climate. Local geography should also be a consideration.

I imagined that it would work pretty much anywhere. The design is dictated by the requirements of the urbanate. If something was changed it would make something else not work. Like I could spread out the urbanate in linear way along a transit line which was parallel to the coast, but then it would not be possible for everyone to walk to the service core.


Finally, disasters. I don't know much about architecture, so I have no idea how such a large self-contained structure would weather them. What thoughts do you have in this area?

I think the "shell" of the urbanate would be made of some strong material, like 3 meter thick steel reinforced concrete. That should be capable of withstanding a lesser magnitude nuclear blast. The houses and structures within the urbanate could be built of lightweight materials since strength and resistence to the elements is no longer a concern.

Also, a terraced structure is usually very sturdy, because it is wider at the base (the same reason why a pyramid is a strong structure).

[Lynx]

I overlooked the 'high ranking citizens' remark.

[Technocrat]

This sounds realy depressing. When i was little i had the same ideas, used to draw bulidings and citys like your describing. But now that i have move to the city i come to hate living in one. Neighbors stareing strait into my little apparthment from across the street and banging on the floor/wall/celling/door when i play System. I feel so traped, no view except what the Neighbors across the street is watching on tv. Have to run/cycle for many kilometers (if you dont know what this is look at buttom of this post :tt2:) to reach the woods when training. I hope that not all have to live in such a prison after the technocratic revolution.

Sigh. Neighbors seeing into your apartment is the result of anascopic (bottom-up) planning. It would be easy to design an entire community so that no windows faced each other. It's been done already. Also, "little"? Is 1,000 sq. ft. of living space per person not adequate to your needs? You could have a flat to yourself of up to 6,000 sq. ft. if you didn't want any garden. Of course urbanates would be completely soundproofed, as well as fireproofed, so your concerns about noise are no problem. The view? You can be in a 160 acre park in less than 5 minutes from your front door, that is 20 stories up! Surrounding the urbanate would be nothing but unpolluted wilderness for several miles because the urban sprawl of today will have been demolished and recycled. You really can't get a better view than that. Run several miles to reach the woods? Urbanates are 1/2 mile in diameter, the woods would be accessible in less than 10 minutes from your house, by walking! Of course cars would also be available to access remote spots, and trains could be used to get to more popular destinations.

Of course, for those that insist on living in the country, no one is forced to live in an Urbanate. Farmers living off the land have no effect on the operations of the Technate, so there is no reason to disturb them. However, a Technate would not provide people with the means to live a suburban lifestyle - a personal car and a suburban house. Doing so would conflict with the Technate's goal of long-term sustainability. People living in the country would have to be self-sufficient to some degree, but the Technate might be able to offer them some assistance if desired.


There will be no sunlight under the park on the roof? Maybe sunlight is not that much appreaciated in other parts of the world. But here in the north we strive to get as much sunlight as we can.You did not read what I wrote very thoroughly, did you? Light wells can distribute natural light throughout the entire building, even all the way down to the bottom level. There would of course also be windows on the exterior which let in light.


:thumbdown: WTF, high-ranking citizens? I dont like this at all.Maybe because you are ignorant as to what Technocracy is about. Feel free to ask questions. If there is a scarcity of a certain good, such as outward facing living units, than should they not be reserved for those who have shown hard work and dedication? Or should we give them away randomly by lottery? What is your solution? Technocracy eliminates the scarcity of pretty much everything, but in this case I don't see what to do. I suppose you could eliminate the outward facing units altogether and have them as a common area, similar to a huge balcony around the entire perimeter of the level. That would be nice. Actually, I think I may like this solution better.

Maybe you are just unfamiliar with how rank would be established in a Technate? The system of selection from below and appointment from above means that only those who are capable would attain and keep any position. That's all that is meant by "rank".


Why not pneumatic tubes/capsule pipelines insted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube

I think its more energy efficiently and faster. Already in the late 19th and early 20th century it was used within the major industrialised citys for mail and such. Today its used in hospitals to distribute drugs/medicine and banks to distribute cash and documents.

You cannot use pneumatic tubes for everything, but if a pneumatic system proved to be superior to a conveyor system than that is what would be used. Whatever is the most efficient solution is what will be implemented.


For a technocrat like you with such futuristic ideas your useing a very backwords and stoneage measuring system. Have you heard of the metric system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system
Most of the world is useing it except 3 nations. Its much easyer to use, you have 1 single unit for any physical quantity and you dont need conversion factors when making calculations with diffrent physical quantities.A Technate would probably use the metric system, but I am an American. I use what I am used to. You can do the conversions yourself.

[Dimentio]

Yes me too. I have never read any technocratic document supporting that, neither from Technocracy Incorporated and certainly not from NET.

[Technocrat]

Yes me too. I have never read any technocratic document supporting that, neither from Technocracy Incorporated and certainly not from NET.

Okay, I just want to nip this in the bud right here.

If a scarcity of a particular item exists, Technocracy can't do anything with it. At all. Technocracy can only handle an abundance. Therefore for things that remain scarce, a different solution will have to be devised.

A few of the things which will remain scarce in a Techante:

-Passenger space travel for recreation, at least until the space fleet is built to meet the demand

-outward facing living units in an urbanate (if that is indeed how urbanates will be designed)

-hand-made works of art

Now, what is the most fair way of distributing these things? Lottery might be one possible way. Another way is to offer them as rewards to those who have shown hard work and dedication. For hand-made works of art, the fairest solution might be to put them in a public museum where as many people as possible can view them.

[Kamerat]

Sigh. Neighbors seeing into your apartment is the result of anascopic (bottom-up) planning. It would be easy to design an entire community so that no windows faced each other. It's been done already. Also, "little"? Is 1,000 sq. ft. of living space per person not adequate to your needs? You could have a flat to yourself of up to 6,000 sq. ft. if you didn't want any garden. Of course urbanates would be completely soundproofed, as well as fireproofed, so your concerns about noise are no problem. The view? You can be in a 160 acre park in less than 5 minutes from your front door, that is 20 stories up! Surrounding the urbanate would be nothing but unpolluted wilderness for several miles because the urban sprawl of today will have been demolished and recycled. You really can't get a better view than that. Run several miles to reach the woods? Urbanates are 1/2 mile in diameter, the woods would be accessible in less than 10 minutes from your house, by walking! Of course cars would also be available to access remote spots, and trains could be used to get to more popular destinations.

Of course, for those that insist on living in the country, no one is forced to live in an Urbanate. Farmers living off the land have no effect on the operations of the Technate, so there is no reason to disturb them. However, a Technate would not provide people with the means to live a suburban lifestyle - a personal car and a suburban house. Doing so would conflict with the Technate's goal of long-term sustainability. People living in the country would have to be self-sufficient to some degree, but the Technate might be able to offer them some assistance if desired.
Good, i was just discribing how living in a city is. And while Urbanate is a huge improvement from a city its still a city. With, (for some people) some of the drawbacks that a city has.


Maybe because you are ignorant as to what Technocracy is about. Feel free to ask questions. If there is a scarcity of a certain good, such as outward facing living units, than should they not be reserved for those who have shown hard work and dedication? Or should we give them away randomly by lottery? What is your solution? Technocracy eliminates the scarcity of pretty much everything, but in this case I don't see what to do. I suppose you could eliminate the outward facing units altogether and have them as a common area, similar to a huge balcony around the entire perimeter of the level. That would be nice. Actually, I think I may like this solution better.

I think so too.

[Dimentio]

Okay, I just want to nip this in the bud right here.

If a scarcity of a particular item exists, Technocracy can't do anything with it. At all. Technocracy can only handle an abundance. Therefore for things that remain scarce, a different solution will have to be devised.

A few of the things which will remain scarce in a Techante:

-Passenger space travel for recreation, at least until the space fleet is built to meet the demand

-outward facing living units in an urbanate (if that is indeed how urbanates will be designed)

-hand-made works of art

Now, what is the most fair way of distributing these things? Lottery might be one possible way. Another way is to offer them as rewards to those who have shown hard work and dedication. For hand-made works of art, the fairest solution might be to put them in a public museum where as many people as possible can view them.

I think that with scarcity vs abundance really is a very vague concept. NET has worked to make it less vague though. There is no scarcity as EA helps define the borders of consumption capacity.

[Technocrat]

I think that with scarcity vs abundance really is a very vague concept. NET has worked to make it less vague though. There is no scarcity as EA helps define the borders of consumption capacity.

No, it isn't vague. There is just a lot of confusion surrounding the concept which makes it appear so.

Here is how Technocracy views abundance and scarcity:

Abundance economics deals with situations where there are more than enough resources for everyone (i.e. an abundance). Such a situation (as in digital content) is termed a post scarcity economy.
Technocrats believe that classical economics cannot properly deal with abundance, since it only deals with the distribution (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1263301) of scarce (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/10961032) resources. The Technocracy movement is of the opinion that, if faced with a situation of potential abundance, the Price system will practice Artificial scarcity or face economic collapse.
In classical economics, scarcity is said to exist because human wants are unlimited, but resources will always be limited. Therefore, wants can never be completely satisfied; using this model, abundance can never be achieved.
Under a Technocratic system, however, abundance and scarcity are not defined by human wants, but rather the ability of human beings to consume. While it is theoretically possible under a standard economic system to "own" any amount of goods, there is still a limited amount that a person can actually physically consume. For example, there is only so much food a person can eat, only so much time they can spend travelling (and given any existing set of technology, only so far they can travel per time period), only so much education they can partake of, only so much time spent in recreation, etc. Given these limits, it then becomes theoretically possible to satisfy all these needs and desires.
A closer look at the example of transportation can better illustrate this idea. Under a classical economic system, it is theoretically possible to own any number of cars, airplanes, and/or boats as a person can pay for or otherwise acquire. Thus, it is possible that they will never be able to own all that they want to have. Under a Technocratic system however, the entire transportation industry would be designed to provide every person with the maximum amount of service possible given available technology and resources. Thus, a person living in such a system would have access to various modes of transportation any time they wanted, and for whatever time period they would like. Travelling between cities (see Urbanate) could be easily accomplished with a high-speed rail system. For faster travel between points, air travel could be accessed when desired as well. For travel in less common ares or routes (such as off-road or camping sites), personal vehicles would be made available and could be "borrowed" when needed. However, no person would ever "own" a car, train, or aircraft. So while their ownership "wants" under classical economics remain unsatisfied, their transportation needs are completely fulfilled.
It would be the job of the Technate (or Technocratic administration system) to provide these services. It would use a resource-based method of accounting (such as Energy Accounting) to determine the exact needs and desires of the populous by carefully measuring the consumption of these services. It could then determine the most resource-efficient way of providing these services while keeping production up with consumption and avoiding waste. It is this concept that is central to Technocratic thought and the meaning behind its symbol, the Monad (Technocracy).
The only remaining question after this is whether or not a given area (such as the continent of North America) has the resources and technology to provide such an abundance. This was the point of the research performed by the Technical Alliance, and was called the Energy Survey of North America.

[Dimentio]

No, it isn't vague. There is just a lot of confusion surrounding the concept which makes it appear so.

Here is how Technocracy views abundance and scarcity:

Abundance economics deals with situations where there are more than enough resources for everyone (i.e. an abundance). Such a situation (as in digital content) is termed a post scarcity economy.
Technocrats believe that classical economics cannot properly deal with abundance, since it only deals with the distribution (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1263301) of scarce (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/10961032) resources. The Technocracy movement is of the opinion that, if faced with a situation of potential abundance, the Price system will practice Artificial scarcity or face economic collapse.
In classical economics, scarcity is said to exist because human wants are unlimited, but resources will always be limited. Therefore, wants can never be completely satisfied; using this model, abundance can never be achieved.
Under a Technocratic system, however, abundance and scarcity are not defined by human wants, but rather the ability of human beings to consume. While it is theoretically possible under a standard economic system to "own" any amount of goods, there is still a limited amount that a person can actually physically consume. For example, there is only so much food a person can eat, only so much time they can spend travelling (and given any existing set of technology, only so far they can travel per time period), only so much education they can partake of, only so much time spent in recreation, etc. Given these limits, it then becomes theoretically possible to satisfy all these needs and desires.
A closer look at the example of transportation can better illustrate this idea. Under a classical economic system, it is theoretically possible to own any number of cars, airplanes, and/or boats as a person can pay for or otherwise acquire. Thus, it is possible that they will never be able to own all that they want to have. Under a Technocratic system however, the entire transportation industry would be designed to provide every person with the maximum amount of service possible given available technology and resources. Thus, a person living in such a system would have access to various modes of transportation any time they wanted, and for whatever time period they would like. Travelling between cities (see Urbanate) could be easily accomplished with a high-speed rail system. For faster travel between points, air travel could be accessed when desired as well. For travel in less common ares or routes (such as off-road or camping sites), personal vehicles would be made available and could be "borrowed" when needed. However, no person would ever "own" a car, train, or aircraft. So while their ownership "wants" under classical economics remain unsatisfied, their transportation needs are completely fulfilled.
It would be the job of the Technate (or Technocratic administration system) to provide these services. It would use a resource-based method of accounting (such as Energy Accounting) to determine the exact needs and desires of the populous by carefully measuring the consumption of these services. It could then determine the most resource-efficient way of providing these services while keeping production up with consumption and avoiding waste. It is this concept that is central to Technocratic thought and the meaning behind its symbol, the Monad (Technocracy).
The only remaining question after this is whether or not a given area (such as the continent of North America) has the resources and technology to provide such an abundance. This was the point of the research performed by the Technical Alliance, and was called the Energy Survey of North America.

We agree by this. What NET has worked on is to continue to try to box in the definition to actually be usable in mathematical terms.

Oh, how I wish Technocracy Incorporated could stop writing "technocracy" with a capital "t", as if you were the only technocracy organisation around.

[Technocrat]

We agree by this. What NET has worked on is to continue to try to box in the definition to actually be usable in mathematical terms.

Oh, how I wish Technocracy Incorporated could stop writing "technocracy" with a capital "t", as if you were the only technocracy organisation around.

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Well, capitalizing it does avoid confusion, because "Technocracy" is different from "technocracy". I try to use "Technocracy, Inc." because I am aware that there are other organizations, but that gets cumbersome.

Any other thoughts on the urbanate design? (trying to not get sidetracked)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Small motorized vehicles could be permitted, provided they were designed to be unobtrusive and safe. Because there would not be any space for roads, any vehicles would have to be small and light, like a golf cart or mule.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of stuff like fire engines and ambulances rather than personal vehicles. I suppose you could have a sprinkler-type system in case of fire, but I would feel more comfortable if there were a handful (or however many is necessary) of fire engines for redundant safety.

[Technocrat]

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of stuff like fire engines and ambulances rather than personal vehicles. I suppose you could have a sprinkler-type system in case of fire, but I would feel more comfortable if there were a handful (or however many is necessary) of fire engines for redundant safety.

Hmm. I dunno if such a thing is really necessary. I mean, even on foot you can get to anywhere within the urbanate within 10 minutes. If you had redundant emergency facilities located on multiple levels (maybe every other level) you could easily have a 5 minute response time, which is better than today.

Also, structures would be made of fire-proof materials, so it is unlikely that fires would be a huge problem.

A fire engine or ambulance would pretty much necessitate the need for roads (and much more space), but that doesn't mean that something similar couldn't be designed to perform the same function. Hell, why not robots equipped with hoses? Or just something small?

[al8]

Currently 50,000 people per year die from auto accidents and countless more are maimed for life. At its peak the Vietnam war claimed 15,000 lives per year, to put things in perspective.

The Vietnam war claimed more lives a year than that. Total deaths of belligerents were close to 1,5 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war) and the civilian 4,3 million. You might be confusing overall deaths with the small number of 15.000 US Army casualties (us army casualties never went above the 16,592 c. in 1968). It sounds extremely bad that the lives of the invaders only count as lives. I doubt that was your intention, but you are now corrected.

[Technocrat]

The Vietnam war claimed more lives a year than that. Total deaths of belligerents were close to 1,5 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war) and the civilian 4,3 million. You might be confusing overall deaths with the small number of 15.000 US Army casualties (us army casualties never went above the 16,592 c. in 1968). It sounds extremely bad that the lives of the invaders only count as lives. I doubt that was your intention, but you are now corrected.

Apologies, of course I was referring to U.S. Army casualties.

[ComradeOm]

I have to ask: why? Certainly there is scope for rationalisation in existing urban settlements but a project of this scale - effectively reshaping every urban settlement of note and landscaping an entire continent - cannot possibly be more cost effective than existing urban patterns


The concept described here is based to some degree on the ideas found in the book Compact City: Plan For A Liveable Urban Environment by George DantzigDoes Dantzig support this thesis with mathematical models? If so I'd be interested in the details. His counterparts in the Soviet Union, who had a lot more experience in managing urbanisation and labour flows, quickly learned that there were very real limits to the economies of scale gained by concentrating industry and population

[Dimentio]

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Well, capitalizing it does avoid confusion, because "Technocracy" is different from "technocracy". I try to use "Technocracy, Inc." because I am aware that there are other organizations, but that gets cumbersome.

Any other thoughts on the urbanate design? (trying to not get sidetracked)

Igor Srdôc and Jure Sah has tried to form a workable embryo model for energy accounting within the framework of distributed systems. I am sure they could be more helpful. Test to contact them at http://en.technocracynet.eu

[Technocrat]

I have to ask: why? Certainly there is scope for rationalisation in existing urban settlements but a project of this scale - effectively reshaping every urban settlement of note and landscaping an entire continent - cannot possibly be more cost effective than existing urban patterns

Actually, completely replacing all cities with the urbanates described would be less costly than just paying for the future transportation infrastructure for our existing cities. In other words, urbanates could be justified through the savings on transportation infrastructure alone, which includes expenditures on gasoline, road maintenance, pollution clean up and global warming, and deaths from auto accidents.

People really underestimate just how costly, wasteful, and inefficient our current urban patterns really are.


Does Dantzig support this thesis with mathematical models? If so I'd be interested in the details. His counterparts in the Soviet Union, who had a lot more experience in managing urbanisation and labour flows, quickly learned that there were very real limits to the economies of scale gained by concentrating industry and populationYes, he uses mathematical models to support all of his claims. In case you are unfamiliar with Dantzig, he is the mathematician who became the inspiration for the movie Good Will Hunting. This man solved a math problem that went unsolved for decades and which even stumped Einstein, after just looking at the blackboard while cleaning the floors (he was a janitor at the time). After solving the problem he submitted two sheets of paper with his answer on them, and they were accepted as his thesis. His "simplex method" for solving complex problems has become one of the single most widely used algorithms in the past 60 years. In the book, he uses a "total-systems approach" to planning.

If you like, I can post some of the calculations from the book.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Cool idea, I've had similiar ideas recently. One thing I figured is you could use this idea on a large scale to inhabit areas like deserts, where cares to live.

[ComradeOm]

Yes, he uses mathematical models to support all of his claims. In case you are unfamiliar with Dantzig, he is the mathematician who became the inspiration for the movie Good Will Hunting. This man solved a math problem that went unsolved for decades and which even stumped Einstein, after just looking at the blackboard while cleaning the floors (he was a janitor at the time). After solving the problem he submitted two sheets of paper with his answer on them, and they were accepted as his thesis. His "simplex method" for solving complex problems has become one of the single most widely used algorithms in the past 60 years. In the book, he uses a "total-systems approach" to planning.

If you like, I can post some of the calculations from the book.Actually I'm quite familiar with Dantzig and the field that he (well, along with Kantorovich) pioneered, which is why I asked. Its also why I pointed out the extreme complexities faced by the Soviet planners when they set themselves to plan, on a much much simpler level, urbanisation patterns and the like. I might look into the book itself if I have the time

(Incidentally Dantzig was a student and not a janitor when he solved those problems. I'm also not sure what Einstein was doing studying statistical problems...)

[Technocrat]

Actually I'm quite familiar with Dantzig and the field that he (well, along with Kantorovich) pioneered, which is why I asked. Its also why I pointed out the extreme complexities faced by the Soviet planners when they set themselves to plan, on a much much simpler level, urbanisation patterns and the like. I might look into the book itself if I have the time

(Incidentally Dantzig was a student and not a janitor when he solved those problems. I'm also not sure what Einstein was doing studying statistical problems...)

I think what the Soviets were doing was somewhat more complex in a sense because they were trying to lay the ground rules for what would still essentially be an anascopic building process. The strategy proposed by Dantzig is katascopic, everything is planned ahead of time and built at once. Maybe I am unfamiliar with what the soviets were doing, but I don't think they took the top-down approach quite so far.

The book unfortunately is out of print, but you can find a used copy online for real cheap.

Well, the Einstein thing could just be a legend. There is a lot of myth surrounding the guy. But I don't think its entirely impossible. He is a brilliant mathematician.

[Technocrat]

The proposed Urbanate design has a width of 0.5 miles (2640 ft). The population is 20,000. The total area on all levels is 1.81 sq. miles. The estimated cost in 2008 dollars is $4.3 billion. This will be shown to be a bargain.

In all cases, I have gone with high estimates rather than low estimates in order to be conservative. Calculations are in 1970 dollars, because that's when the book was written. I have adjusted for inflation at the end.

55,756,800 sq. ft. x $3 = $155,555,300 "land" ($3/sq. ft.) "land" here refers to the concrete slabs used for each level. It is assumed that mass production techniques for producing these slabs could be developed, similar to equipment used to make highways.

2400 sq. ft. x 8,000 living units = $192,000,000 housing ($10/sq. ft.)

land+housing
$247,756,800

service core estimate: $200,000,000. Housing is usually the single biggest expenditure in a city, so the estimate for the service core will be slightly higher to be conservative. The total cost for this is difficult to predict but it is likely that it will be less than $200,000,000.

$447,756,800 total. Call it $450,000,000

multiply cost by 5.4 for inflation (1970 to 2007)

2,430,000,000

Or, 2.4 billion dollars for an urbanate housing 20,000.

Per capita: $121,500- It's a bargain! Remember that this doesn't just cover the cost of housing, it covers the cost of everything used by the individual. This includes shops, schools, hospitals, recreation facilities, public parks, etc! One should also consider that the cost spent on transportation is reduced to almost nothing, and the cost for utilities is greatly reduced as well. In a person's lifetime, they will easily spend at least that amount on their transportation alone with our existing urban patterns!

Let's say a person buys 3 cars, $25,000 each, during their lifetime. Those are pretty cheap cars. That's $75,000 right there.

12,000 miles driven on average per year.

25 miles per gallon is slightly higher than the average fuel efficiency.

480 gallons consumed per year. (12,000 / 25)

$1,200 spent on gasoline per year, with gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Gasoline prices will likely be even higher in the future.

$1,200 spent on insurance per year (this is a low estimate)

Let's say the individual drives for 40 years, from the time they are 16 to the time they are 56. Most people drive for a lot longer than this.

$2,400 combined yearly cost for gasoline and insurance x 40 = $96,000.

$96,000 + $75,000 = $171,000.

This is a very conservative estimate, and does not even include the cost of lost time spent in traffic, the cost of pollution cleanup, the cost of building and maintaining the roads themselves, or the cost of deaths and injuries resulting from auto accidents. In reality the total would be far higher than $171,000.