Ecodensity Megastructure

[Technocrat]

As many people already know, suburbs comprised of bungalows in the countryside and dependent on automobiles for daily transportation are inherently wasteful of materials, energy, and land. Urban sprawl is an unsustainable urban pattern - we simply don't have the resources to support it anymore.

I've spent many years studying this issue and arrived at a solution. This design was arrived at after literally years of studying urban planning and sustainability:

http://ecomegastructure.blogspot.com

Anyone interested in urban planning or architecture should check it out. Any input is welcome, I intend for this to be an ongoing, semi-open source project.

[Invincible Summer]

How would this fit into the Urbanate idea that you posted about awhile ago?

[Technocrat]

How would this fit into the Urbanate idea that you posted about awhile ago?

This is basically an updated version of it. I took all the information available on urbanates and filled in the blanks with modern urban planning theory.

[Invincible Summer]

Ah yes I read it more thoroughly the third time, and it does indeed appear to be a more updated version of the Urbanate plan.

Very excellent stuff. I'm really impressed with this. I've got some questions, however:

- Do you envision these structures being built in the near future, or even tomorrow?
- What kind of energy source would power such structures?
- What would the larger-scale planning look like? Since each megastructure can hold 36,000 residents, would there just be megastructures built a km or so apart from each other in some sort of pattern? What would cities look like?
- How would these be built, if we could build them tomorrow? Would half a city need to be basically razed?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Interesting project. Dumb question but what happens in the rectangular ground area between the buildings? Is this used as parkland, recreation, or additional residential area?

[FreeFocus]

Cool stuff. How stable are these structures? Would they withstand earthquakes and hurricanes?

[bcbm]

looks a bit spartan.

[Technocrat]

- Do you envision these structures being built in the near future, or even tomorrow?

They could be built immediately as soon as we discard market-based economics - the initial capital investment is too high (too risky) for such projects to be built under a capitalist system.


- What kind of energy source would power such structures?Probably a diverse array of alternative sources like solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc. A separate project would be the construction of an underground DC grid for long distance power transmission, that way it doesn't matter if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing in a particular spot - we can just send electricity across the continent wherever it's needed with a DC system. You get something like 10% power loss over the entire continent with DC. You get the same power loss over 100 miles with AC. In this scheme, DC would be used for long-distance transmission and then stepped down to AC for local distribution.


- What would the larger-scale planning look like? Since each megastructure can hold 36,000 residents, would there just be megastructures built a km or so apart from each other in some sort of pattern? What would cities look like?I think you could group them together, space them maybe 500 meters from each other, and link them with some form of mass transit like monorail or light rail, to build a large city. Or a single megastructure could function as its own town.


- How would these be built, if we could build them tomorrow? Would half a city need to be basically razed?No, you could build them in the countryside - they require so little space that it doesn't really matter where you build them. I envision as people relocate into megastructures that the old abandoned cities will be torn down and salvaged for resources.

[Technocrat]

Interesting project. Dumb question but what happens in the rectangular ground area between the buildings? Is this used as parkland, recreation, or additional residential area?

Not a dumb question, I addressed this in the summary but only briefly: The central area (between the towers; the rooftop of the base structure) would function as a large park. In addition, the rooftops of each of the towers would also function as a park - if you look at the images, each of the towers are connected by skywalks. The very top skywalk would also function as a bridge between the rooftops of the towers, so the tower rooftops would basically be one connected park space.

[Technocrat]

Cool stuff. How stable are these structures? Would they withstand earthquakes and hurricanes?

There's no reason why you couldn't engineer them to do so - the terraced base structure would lend additional stability. These would be steel reinforced concrete structures. The original 'urbanate' design put forward by Technocracy called for meter think concrete for the outer shell, strong enough to withstand a lesser magnitude nuclear explosion. I think that's kind of unnecessary, but we are definitely capable of building structures to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes.

[Meridian]

Not bad. 860 square feet (ca. 80 sq. m) of dwelling space per person (living space), sounds quite good. At the moment I am living in an apartment of that size together with one other person, so it would be an upgrade for me. ;)

My concern would be of "PR". When people see stacked, tall buildings like these they tend to think of monotonous, gray Soviet style buildings.

However, a good counter to that is stressing the open space, park facilities and green areas. You have done so, and I can see f.ex. children's care facilities, sports facilities, etc., fitting in well in the middle. I also really like the rooftops, I'd think a lot of food could be produced in these locations.

Excellent work.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well done for using metric measurements, I'm used to them rather than imperial.

I must ask, why did you abandon the original stepped cylinder design? It was very striking.

Also, how do your designs relate to Arcologies (http://www.orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Arcologies/Arcologies.htm)? What do you think are the fundamental differences?


looks a bit spartan.

That's because the renderings are untextured.

[Technocrat]

Well done for using metric measurements, I'm used to them rather than imperial.

Yep, imperial is still frequently used in architecture for some reason, but I'm pretty sure a Technate would switch to the metric system.


I must ask, why did you abandon the original stepped cylinder design? It was very striking.It was a question of 'use values' and efficiency. With the stepped cylinder design, one of the requirements I was trying to fulfill was giving each housing unit its own private 'outdoor' space. If you recall, in the stepped cylinder design I suggested stacking three-story 'levels' on top of each other, and then building housing units and other structures on each level - effectively maintaining a suburban density on each level, but achieving a high population density by stacking the levels. The goal was basically to preserve a suburban feel on each level but attain a high enough population density to achieve urban economies of scale and high efficiency. After giving it some more thought I decided this was a needless waste of resources. After all, what is the suburb but a costly illusion of a country lifestyle? It isn't the real thing, and doesn't really satisfy the need for nature or country living. The cylinder design is like an imitation of a suburb, which is to say, it's like an imitation of an imitation of a country life. It's two steps removed from the real thing. I decided it would be more efficient to abandon the idea of preserving a suburban feel - with each megastructure occupying so little space, you could surround each one with a generous greenbelt of parkland, which would be more effective at satisfying people's need for nature than a suburban backyard (or in the case of the cylinder design, an imitation of a backyard).


Also, how do your designs relate to Arcologies (http://www.orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Arcologies/Arcologies.htm)? What do you think are the fundamental differences?They are very similar. I think one of the main differences is that the megastructure I've designed has the minimum population necessary to attain maximum efficiency and urban economies of scale, while many arcology designs seek to make the population density as high as possible (which may also decrease its overall efficiency in terms of energy+land+materials).

[Technocrat]

Not bad. 860 square feet (ca. 80 sq. m) of dwelling space per person (living space), sounds quite good. At the moment I am living in an apartment of that size together with one other person, so it would be an upgrade for me. ;)

The average suburban home today is 2500 sq. ft. with an average family size of 2.5 people. 1,000 sq. ft. per person is a little ridiculous - it's too much space to even be comfortable. Another possibility with megastructures is to equip each apartment with a computer/entertainment console that is capable of downloading any media which has ever been recorded, eliminating the need to store physical media. Things like sports equipment and camping gear would be freely available for rent whenever you wanted to use it, so you would no longer need a garage full of stuff. In general, the lifestyle of the society in which these structures would be built would be more 'usufruct' than our current society. Usufruct means that all things other than personal affects (like your clothing or your dwelling) would be free for anyone to use so long as it was returned in an undamaged condition. This means people in such a society would have a lot less stuff altogether. Since people wouldn't need as much stuff, they wouldn't need as much space. 860 sq. ft. per person is quite luxurious when you subtract the need for storage space.


My concern would be of "PR". When people see stacked, tall buildings like these they tend to think of monotonous, gray Soviet style buildings.

However, a good counter to that is stressing the open space, park facilities and green areas. You have done so, and I can see f.ex. children's care facilities, sports facilities, etc., fitting in well in the middle. I also really like the rooftops, I'd think a lot of food could be produced in these locations.

Excellent work.Yep - the central area between towers is large enough to fit several sports fields plus a fair-sized park. I envision this area and the tower rooftops to be a kind of 'city park', with food produced outdoors or in vertical farms located in close proximity to the megastructure. Surrounding each megastructure would be a greenbelt of parkland at least 200m wide. A city of one million people would occupy less than 6 square miles if you spaced the megastructures 200m apart, which means getting to the countryside would still be inherently easy even in a city of one million people with such a design. I estimate that cities of more than a million people will probably become a rarity anyway as the capitalist need for large concentrations of workers will no longer exist and people will resettle according to their individual preferences, resulting in a more even distribution of population density across the entire continent.

[bcbm]

That's because the renderings are untextured.

even with texture it would still be a bunch of concrete slabs in a rectangle around a park. i think something a bit more attractive to the eye could be designed.

[Technocrat]

even with texture it would still be a bunch of concrete slabs in a rectangle around a park. i think something a bit more attractive to the eye could be designed.

It's designed for efficiency and livability, not arbitrary and subjective aesthetic concerns. I experimented with different layouts and found that the rectangle is the most space-efficient shape. Cities didn't evolve to have grid systems by coincidence.

[bcbm]

It's designed for efficiency and livability, not arbitrary and subjective aesthetic concerns. I experimented with different layouts and found that the rectangle is the most space-efficient shape. Cities didn't evolve to have grid systems by coincidence.

yeah, wouldn't want a silly thing like beauty to get in the way of efficiency. :rolleyes:

[Technocrat]

yeah, wouldn't want a silly thing like beauty to get in the way of efficiency. :rolleyes:

What's beautiful to one person is ugly to another. Imposing one person's artistic vision on the rest of the population is elitist and unfair. There's no way you're going to make an artistic design that pleases everybody. So, instead of allowing a building's form to be determined by the artistic whims of a few individuals, why not let the function of the building determine its form? Also, there's no reason why the towers themselves couldn't be architecturally varied, if that's what the population wanted. The model just shows the basic layout, not how it would look when finished.

[Salyut]

I'd use pneumatic tubes for delivery instead of conveyor belts.

[Q]

To be honest this looks like an updated version of the social-democratic architects of the 1920's and 1930's. After the war, when need of housing was high, the Netherlands had several such projects, one of the most known is the Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam:

http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/Bijlmermeer_Air_Small.jpg

While in its day (the 1960's) it was hypermodern, today its considered to be heavily out of date and undesirable in a social sense as mostly low income groups tend to live here, with high rates of unemployment and criminality. Also, in many such projects green space was sacrificed for building more flats, adding up to generally grey concrete atmosphere.

I'm not saying your project would necessarily degenerate to such a level, but I am saying that these projects tend to fail under capitalism as the social factors just don't exist to make it work. Alienation tends to be everywhere in these places, which is something of a paradox as so many people live next to eachother but don't know eachother.

[bcbm]

What's beautiful to one person is ugly to another. Imposing one person's artistic vision on the rest of the population is elitist and unfair. There's no way you're going to make an artistic design that pleases everybody. So, instead of allowing a building's form to be determined by the artistic whims of a few individuals, why not let the function of the building determine its form?

why would it be "one person's" or "a few individuals?" why can't a community determine their own forms of design, aesthetic and space management together?

[Dimentio]

why would it be "one person's" or "a few individuals?" why can't a community determine their own forms of design, aesthetic and space management together?

Actually, I'm in agreement with that sentiment. Everything cannot be sacrificed for the sake of "efficiency". Human beings tend to be more creative in an organic surrounding.

[Technocrat]

I'm not saying your project would necessarily degenerate to such a level, but I am saying that these projects tend to fail under capitalism as the social factors just don't exist to make it work. Alienation tends to be everywhere in these places, which is something of a paradox as so many people live next to eachother but don't know eachother.

I would argue that it was the social conditions (capitalism, poverty) that produced the result you see there, not any inherent property of high-density living itself.

One thing the modernists did was to take advantage of the economies of scale resulting from high density, but then they scrapped all the services that were supposed to come along with it, to achieve maximum profit. The result was the 'projects' - instant slums. In many cases they even cut the maintenance staff and instituted a policy of deferred maintenance! This isn't how it was supposed to work - the higher density was suppose to allow for all kinds of services and benefits to be made available to the residents. But, the capitalists figured out they could just cut the services and move in a bunch of poor people.

These solutions won't work unless built under a new social framework.

[Technocrat]

why would it be "one person's" or "a few individuals?" why can't a community determine their own forms of design, aesthetic and space management together?

Because there is no way that you will come up with an artistic design that satisfies more than 50% of the population, or even a fraction of that. Believe me, I've sat in on several town planning meetings in my day.

It comes down to the fact that aesthetics are subjective. That's why the only fair way to build a structure is to let its form be determined by its function. The only argument I've ever heard against this is the endless drone of art theory B.S.

[Technocrat]

Actually, I'm in agreement with that sentiment. Everything cannot be sacrificed for the sake of "efficiency". Human beings tend to be more creative in an organic surrounding.

Dimentio, did you not read my reply to bcbm? I said that the towers could be architecturally varied if desired. The important thing is the location of activity nodes and the distance of their connections. The model is simply showing the overall layout - the relationship between parts. The blocks themselves could be varied to suit the local geography, resulting in an 'organic' appearance. I envision a look similar to this for the final result - modern, optimistic, and green:

http://www.arcspace.com/architects/kurokawa/technopolis/Photo-1.jpg

Plus, if you will read my complete statement, you'll see that I said that the megastructure is designed for "maximum efficiency and livability". That second word, livability, is the important part. Aesthetic concerns are necessarily a part of that. I imagine there would be lots of opportunities for creative people to apply their talents to megastructure design, especially the interior spaces.

One proposal I left out of the summary was to have each apartment fully customizable prior to move in. The future resident could choose from hundreds of premade layouts or design their own. Design shops could be set up where people could learn about the possibilities and receive assistance in designing something suited to their individual tastes. Therefore it would be possible to have even more freedom in customization and design within a megastructure than is even possible with a suburban house today.

Ignoring all of the above, something is beautiful when form follows function. All of nature and life itself follows this rule, so really it is the most 'organic' way to design anything, in a sense. Nature doesn't just arbitrarily add things where they aren't needed. So if we are going to emulate nature, form should follow function.

[Technocrat]

I'd use pneumatic tubes for delivery instead of conveyor belts.

This was looked into. It wouldn't work well for some things, like delivery of meals or packages. Pneumatic tubes can't handle heavy things very well; they're mainly designed to carry paper (messages) and very small packages. The proposed conveyor system is meant to handle all deliveries.

[RED DAVE]

What's beautiful to one person is ugly to another. Imposing one person's artistic vision on the rest of the population is elitist and unfair.Okay.


There's no way you're going to make an artistic design that pleases everybody.Okay.


So, instead of allowing a building's form to be determined by the artistic whims of a few individualsOkay, not a good idea.


why not let the function of the building determine its form?But that's an aesthetic choice of yours, isn't it?



Objection: "I don't like living in a tall building"

This is just a simple prejudice that people will have to get over. With all the benefits that can only be had by building tall, there is no rational reason to oppose it.What you are saying is that economic rationalization suits the aesthetic, social needs of people. Frankly, looking at the model, it looks like a nightmare version of the housing projects built in the US after WWII. I wouldn't live in something that looked like that on a bet. But I guess I "will have to get over that."

Smacks of Stalinism and the worst forms of bourgeois urban planning. Some people probably have never even read, or lcertainly have never learned from, a liberal screed like Jane Jacobs'.

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

But that's an aesthetic choice of yours, isn't it?

RED DAVE

No, it's a functional choice. You start with a goal that you would like to see accomplished. The requirements are derived from the goal. The requirements tell you what you will need to do. In this case (the megastructure), the requirement was to eliminate car use and reduce the amount of per-capita exposed surface area (in buildings), with the goal of decreasing per-capita resource use while increasing the standard of living (compared to modern cities).

You can think of it this way: many modern racing cars' form is strictly determined by the specifications they wish to achieve (top speed, acceleration, etc). They start with the specifications they want to achieve, and the design is determined by that. These aren't aesthetic decisions, they are functional ones.

[Technocrat]

What you are saying is that economic rationalization suits the aesthetic, social needs of people.

No, I'm saying that arbitrary, aesthetic concerns shouldn't trump practical concerns. The need for a sustainable urban pattern trumps any individual aesthetic preference for a particular pattern.


Frankly, looking at the model, it looks like a nightmare version of the housing projects built in the US after WWII. I wouldn't live in something that looked like that on a bet. But I guess I "will have to get over that."You're just being snide, now. This has been addressed in previous posts. If you read the summary I provided you would see that this proposal is worlds away from WWII era housing projects. Read my reply to "Q".


Smacks of Stalinism and the worst forms of bourgeois urban planning. Some people probably have never even read, or lcertainly have never learned from, a liberal screed like Jane Jacobs'.

RED DAVESmacks of your typical reactionary, belligerent attitude. I am quite familiar with Jane Jacobs, thanks very much. I've been studying urban planning for literally years - your criticism is way off base and I suspect it has more to do with your personal vendetta against me than anything else (this goes for bcbm, too - I offered you an olive branch and you refused it). Truth is more important than personalities or egos, but I guess not to some people!

[Technocrat]

why would it be "one person's" or "a few individuals?" why can't a community determine their own forms of design, aesthetic and space management together?

I'm going to start a new thread dedicated to this question because I suspect my response will unleash a torrent of off-topic replies in regards to this thread.

[Technocrat]

Here are the considerations essential to the design:

1) The structure will contain all the services and facilities required by a self-contained community: housing, distribution centers, hospitals, schools, cultural and entertainment districts, parks, transportation, waste collection and recycling, production facilities and storage, etc.

2) The structure will house a sufficient number of people to justify a full range of services and facilities - everything required by a self-contained community. Since a full-service grocery store requires about 15,000 people, and since this service requires more people to justify it than other services, we can set our minimum population at around 15,000 people.

3) Certain things like universities, research facilities, ports, etc might require more than 15,000 people. In this case, several megastructures could be built in relatively close proximity to each other and connected by light rail or some similar form of mass transit.

4) The total size of the structure is not to exceed one square kilometer. This is to ensure that everything is within walking distance of everything else.

5) Cost: the design must not be needlessly costly; it must fulfill its functional requirements in the most cost-effective way possible.

The design I put forward is just one way of meeting the above requirements - there are lots of possible configurations, some of which may prove to be more efficient or desirable than the design I've suggested. Aesthetics can obviously vary, but cost is a factor determining this.

[Wolf Larson]

It's designed for efficiency and livability, not arbitrary and subjective aesthetic concerns. I experimented with different layouts and found that the rectangle is the most space-efficient shape. Cities didn't evolve to have grid systems by coincidence.

LOL.....and I wonder how your antidemocratic society would be governed? Pfft.

It would defiantly be governed via efficiency and livability, not arbitrary and subjective aesthetic concerns...... dead people in ditches....who cares how it looks? Eugenics! Sure....it makes scientific sense?


A slave class living under the technate? Why not? They're not specialists anyhow....it's for the greater good. Think of the children. Technocracy!

LOL, thanks for the negative rep :) You fucking frauds. From 43 to 25 in one post!

[Invincible Summer]

LOL, thanks for the negative rep :) You fucking frauds. From 43 to 25 in one post!

Well if you would stop being such a huge goddamn troll maybe people would stop.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

LOL.....and I wonder how your antidemocratic society would be governed? Pfft.

It would defiantly be governed via efficiency and livability, not arbitrary and subjective aesthetic concerns...... dead people in ditches....who cares how it looks? Eugenics! Sure....it makes scientific sense?

Please, for the benefit of everyone who isn't rabidly anti-technocrat, explain how rational planning of living spaces would lead to "dead people in ditches" and "eugenics".


A slave class living under the technate? Why not? They're not specialists anyhow....it's for the greater good. Think of the children. Technocracy!

Would you mind wiping the slobber off your face and telling us what you meant by this statement? You have been told, time and time again, that there would be no economic classes in a Technate.

In fact, the idea that a Technate would hold slaves is an utterly bizarre intepretation of technocracy that I have never heard a self-proclaimed Technocrat advocate.

The very point of Technocracy is to reduce the need for any human labour, for fuck's sake!


LOL, thanks for the negative rep :) You fucking frauds. From 43 to 25 in one post!

If you act like a troll, expect to get treated like one.

[Technocrat]

I made some radical changes to the design after modeling the lighting conditions with the first design and finding them to be less than ideal. You can see the new design here: http://ecomegastructure.blogspot.com/

In the new design, residential towers are connected by "horizontal towers" containing public services and facilities. The megastructure can grow spontaneously without hierarchy while still preserving the balance of residences and services.

I think this is the final conceptual revision.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The rooftops would all be park space. The space between horizontal buildings would also be park space. Since the megastructure would occupy less than 5% of the space that a modern city uses for the same population, vast amounts of land could be restored to nature, or returned to the public in the form of parks or agricultural land.


Primitivist! :D

But seriously, I'm liking the idea that this sort of thing can grow in an organic fashion - after all, real cities grow and shrink, and these structures should be able to grow and shrink with the population.

I did have an idea along similar lines, but this seems much better thought out.

[Technocrat]

Primitivist! :D

But seriously, I'm liking the idea that this sort of thing can grow in an organic fashion - after all, real cities grow and shrink, and these structures should be able to grow and shrink with the population.

I did have an idea along similar lines, but this seems much better thought out.

Thank you for the input. I arrived at this design after modeling the lighting conditions of the first design and finding them to be inadequate, which spurred me to do some further research.

I was also partially inspired by this: http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?id=60&type=. Some of the non-functional elements bother me, but I like the basic idea.

I also acquired an old book on urban planning (partially to resolve the lighting problem) exploring the efficiencies of different forms (mid rise courts, high rise towers, slabs, etc). Apparently the court is the most efficient form for use of space because the spacing required by towers results in a lower density. However, you can solve this problem if you "stack" the towers on top of the courts at strategic locations, like I've done with my new megastructure design. It seems towers + courts is the most efficient arrangement possible.

[bcbm]

man y'all really like ugly buildings

[bcbm]

thanks for the neg rep :lol:

[jake williams]

To be totally honest, I think this sort of thing is utterly useless. Not large buildings connected with integrated services, but making these sorts of plans now. A small team of designers with basic urban planning and engineering experience could easily come up with such a plan, and mostly with modern technology. It's nothing profound. Plans like these won't need to be made for decades, but when the need arises (and the economic and social conditions which would allow such planning exist) they can be developed readily.

What is far more urgent is innovative solutions to the actual urban problems we have worldwide. Innovative, practical, inexpensive solutions, which aren't tremendously wasteful. There is a massive unused or underutilized suburban and low-density housing stock, and supporting infrastructure, in the United States and elsewhere, making up maybe the majority of urban land use in Canada, the United States and Australia. Worldwide it represents many billions of not trillions of dollars of construction work.

In an early socialist society, especially globally the task of housing everyone will be of a rather immediate concern. And it will be competing against a whole other series of concerns previously largely disregarded in capitalist society - looking after education, healthcare, recreation, the rapid industrial development of undeveloped countries etc. And this will all be in the context of trying to find solutions which aren't just ecologically neutral but which respond to very severe ecological crises in a productive and resource-efficient way.

Short story: in any reasonable-term socialist planning situation, resources - particularly energy, industrial and raw material (on a global level, under socialism, intellectual and labour will be considerably less scarce because of information sharing and because a socialist society wouldn't prevent people from working) - will be extremely scarce. I don't think this sort of thing represents the sort of solution that best meets the needs that will be faced by any society which would have the desire and capacity to implement it.

[Wolf Larson]

Opposing Ideology.

Why would Technocracy probably lead to eugenics? Because you people say yourselves you don't want democracy you want a detached scientific system of total 'efficiency' without the silly meandering of human emotion. We've seen systems such as this spring up in our own history and it lead to things such as eugenics.

Besides that probable scenario I'd like to ask you once more, why does an advanced communist society/world need technocracy?

Negative rep away! It's the only way you can defend your opposing ideology.

EDIT: Which one of you gave neg rep with the comment "http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Stupid and inflammatory"

[Technocrat]

To be totally honest, I think this sort of thing is utterly useless. Not large buildings connected with integrated services, but making these sorts of plans now. A small team of designers with basic urban planning and engineering experience could easily come up with such a plan, and mostly with modern technology. It's nothing profound. Plans like these won't need to be made for decades, but when the need arises (and the economic and social conditions which would allow such planning exist) they can be developed readily.

It isn't useless - people have to know that such solutions exist, don't they? I'm not suggesting a concrete plan, I'm suggesting a general framework. If you're going to sell someone on the idea of post-capitalist abundance (or whatever) you have to have concrete examples of how such could be achieved - that's where I think such concepts are useful. It isn't supposed to be profound - It's supposed to be achievable with today's technology. That's part of the strength of this plan, that it doesn't rely on fanciful, speculative technology.


What is far more urgent is innovative solutions to the actual urban problems we have worldwide. Innovative, practical, inexpensive solutions, which aren't tremendously wasteful. There is a massive unused or underutilized suburban and low-density housing stock, and supporting infrastructure, in the United States and elsewhere, making up maybe the majority of urban land use in Canada, the United States and Australia. Worldwide it represents many billions of not trillions of dollars of construction work. Okay, these solutions don't necessarily conflict with what I've proposed and could be complementary to it. In fact I have suggested such solutions in the past like car sharing, subdividing large suburban homes into multi-family units, and community gardens to make better use of the existing urban infrastructure.


In an early socialist society, especially globally the task of housing everyone will be of a rather immediate concern. And it will be competing against a whole other series of concerns previously largely disregarded in capitalist society - looking after education, healthcare, recreation, the rapid industrial development of undeveloped countries etc. And this will all be in the context of trying to find solutions which aren't just ecologically neutral but which respond to very severe ecological crises in a productive and resource-efficient way. Agreed.


Short story: in any reasonable-term socialist planning situation, resources - particularly energy, industrial and raw material (on a global level, under socialism, intellectual and labour will be considerably less scarce because of information sharing and because a socialist society wouldn't prevent people from working) - will be extremely scarce. I don't think this sort of thing represents the sort of solution that best meets the needs that will be faced by any society which would have the desire and capacity to implement it.The concept I've proposed uses less less than 1/3rd the energy and resources of a modern day city. I proposed it as a potential response to declining resource and energy availability, which is explained in my description.

[Technocrat]

Opposing Ideology.

Why would Technocracy probably lead to eugenics? Because you people say yourselves you don't want democracy you want a detached scientific system of total 'efficiency' without the silly meandering of human emotion. We've seen systems such as this spring up in our own history and it lead to things such as eugenics.

Besides that probable scenario I'd like to ask you once more, why does an advanced communist society/world need technocracy?

Negative rep away! It's the only way you can defend your opposing ideology.

EDIT: Which one of you gave neg rep with the comment "http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Stupid and inflammatory"

Besides being stupid and inflammatory, it's also off-topic.

[Technocrat]

Just stumbled across this: http://www.rex-ny.com/work/low2no

It's very similar to my own proposals - its good to see that these concepts are already being implemented to some degree.

One key difference with their idea is that they propose building the entire structure on top of the existing structures by raising it up on concrete supports. I guess this is a good idea if the structures below are worth preserving. Since this was an infill project for Helsinki it kind of makes sense; there might have been historically valuable structures they wanted to preserve.

[Wolf Larson]

Besides being stupid and inflammatory, it's also off-topic.
I'm replying to your fellow technocrats post. You need to go away. No one on this site advocates what you advocate. Socialism is about democracy at it's core. You should be restricted.

[this is an invasion]

I made some radical changes to the design after modeling the lighting conditions with the first design and finding them to be less than ideal. You can see the new design here: http://ecomegastructure.blogspot.com/

In the new design, residential towers are connected by "horizontal towers" containing public services and facilities. The megastructure can grow spontaneously without hierarchy while still preserving the balance of residences and services.

I think this is the final conceptual revision.

Looks like a prison.

[Technocrat]

Looks like a prison.

The proposal shown has nothing to do with aesthetics - I guess you skipped the summary and just made your judgment based solely on the one image I provided? The model shown just demonstrates the relationship between parts, it doesn't say anything about how the parts should look.

It seems that those who object to the design do so on aesthetic grounds, but I haven't proposed anything regarding aesthetics.

It is somewhat irksome to go to the trouble of explaining something and then having someone make such asinine, knee-jerk statements such as yours because they didn't read the explanation.

[Technocrat]

Quoted directly from the summary page (http://ecomegastructure.blogspot.com/): (http://ecomegastructure.blogspot.com/%29:)


The image shown depicts the basic layout, but variations on the layout are possible. The basic pattern is residential towers connected by large horizontal buildings which would contain all the public services and facilities. The horizontal buildings would contain shops, schools, hospitals, cultural and entertainment districts, eating places, offices, etc - enough services so that the residents of such a development could meet all their needs without having to venture outside the megastructure.

An advantage of this plan, unlike plans for some other megastructure proposals, is that it does not all have to be built at once and expansion is possible, so long as the basic pattern is adhered to and a balance of residences and services is maintained. If more residences are needed, a tower can be built at the terminus of a new horizontal building which itself connects to the rest of the existing megastructure. This flexibility in construction also allows for more organic forms and greater adaptability. In general, the height of the horizontal structures would not exceed 10 stories and the height of the towers would not exceed 40 stories, but any height within those limits is possible.

Note how I am just describing the general form of the city and nothing about the individual buildings themselves is mentioned other than height limits. Nothing regarding aesthetics is specified anywhere in the summary.

[this is an invasion]

The proposal shown has nothing to do with aesthetics - I guess you skipped the summary and just made your judgment based solely on the one image I provided? The model shown just demonstrates the relationship between parts, it doesn't say anything about how the parts should look.

It seems that those who object to the design do so on aesthetic grounds, but I haven't proposed anything regarding aesthetics.

It is somewhat irksome to go to the trouble of explaining something and then having someone make such asinine, knee-jerk statements such as yours because they didn't read the explanation.

No I read it, bro. On top of looking like a prison, it sounds like a dreary place to live. I mean, shit, I don't know how it's healthy in any way to have so many people crowded into such a small space, or how that would be even remotely enjoyable.


Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Nah, I'm not really. You're a baby.

[Wolf Larson]

The proposal shown has nothing to do with aesthetics -

Nope, just sterile homogenized pure scientific undemocratic Technocracy. You're right, technocracy has nothing to do with pretty things be it the social construct or the buildings in it.

You are anti democratic and counterrevolutionary. Why aren't you restricted? Because the techno moderators love ya.

You're also petty bourgeoisie...it's written all over your elitist posts. Fucking rich kids. Gotta love e'm.

[Technocrat]

No I read it, bro. On top of looking like a prison, it sounds like a dreary place to live. I mean, shit, I don't know how it's healthy in any way to have so many people crowded into such a small space, or how that would be even remotely enjoyable.


Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Nah, I'm not really. You're a baby.

You may have read it, but you obviously lack the reading comprehension skills to understand it.

900 square feet per person is larger than many suburban homes today. This would provide more per-capita living space than a modern city.

Urban density is what sustainability looks like. You clearly are completely ignorant on this subject. It isn't healthy for individuals or the planet to spread people around in urban sprawls. We cannot achieve a sustainable society without urban density. Go read a book or two on the subject and then get back to me.

[Technocrat]

Nope, just sterile homogenized pure scientific undemocratic Technocracy. You're right, technocracy has nothing to do with pretty things be it the social construct or the buildings in it.

You are anti democratic and counterrevolutionary. Why aren't you restricted? Because the techno moderators love ya.

You're also petty bourgeoisie...it's written all over your elitist posts. Fucking rich kids. Gotta love e'm.

I'm not rich. I go to school full time and work part time. I get financial aid because of my low income status as a student. Not that it's any of your fucking business.

How many different ways do I have to explain it? The buildings can look however the residents want them to look. You would have caught that the first three times I said it if you weren't frothing at the mouth.

[Invincible Summer]

Opposing Ideology.

Why would Technocracy probably lead to eugenics? Because you people say yourselves you don't want democracy you want a detached scientific system of total 'efficiency' without the silly meandering of human emotion. We've seen systems such as this spring up in our own history and it lead to things such as eugenics.

Besides that probable scenario I'd like to ask you once more, why does an advanced communist society/world need technocracy?

Negative rep away! It's the only way you can defend your opposing ideology.

EDIT: Which one of you gave neg rep with the comment "http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Stupid and inflammatory"


I'm replying to your fellow technocrats post. You need to go away. No one on this site advocates what you advocate. Socialism is about democracy at it's core. You should be restricted.


Nope, just sterile homogenized pure scientific undemocratic Technocracy. You're right, technocracy has nothing to do with pretty things be it the social construct or the buildings in it.

You are anti democratic and counterrevolutionary. Why aren't you restricted? Because the techno moderators love ya.

You're also petty bourgeoisie...it's written all over your elitist posts. Fucking rich kids. Gotta love e'm.

Yeah it's just a huge fucking Stalinist-Trot-Technocratic-Reptilian fucking conspiracy right? I'm surprised you aren't banned for being such a huge goddamn troll.

Many of the users sympathetic to Technocracy have explained and defended it to death, but your ignorant fucking "Prolier than thou" ass is too self-righteous to even absorb an iota of it.

We all get it - you don't like Technocracy. You've made that more than abundantly clear. I fucking swear, tendency wars don't get this ridiculous, with douchebags like you constantly harassing people left right and center, making it a point to bring it into any thread remotely dealing with Technocracy.

Why don't you just fuck off like you did before? Maybe get doused in napalm or contract encephalitis, I don't give a fuck.

[bcbm]

Maybe get doused in napalm or contract encephalitis, I don't give a fuck.

yeah. suggesting people suffer horrible injuries or die over silly internet disagreements is pretty cool. go chug bleach!:thumbup1:




:bored:

[this is an invasion]

Yeah it's just a huge fucking Stalinist-Trot-Technocratic-Reptilian fucking conspiracy right? I'm surprised you aren't banned for being such a huge goddamn troll.

Many of the users sympathetic to Technocracy have explained and defended it to death, but your ignorant fucking "Prolier than thou" ass is too self-righteous to even absorb an iota of it.

We all get it - you don't like Technocracy. You've made that more than abundantly clear. I fucking swear, tendency wars don't get this ridiculous, with douchebags like you constantly harassing people left right and center, making it a point to bring it into any thread remotely dealing with Technocracy.

Why don't you just fuck off like you did before? Maybe get doused in napalm or contract encephalitis, I don't give a fuck.
Ya'll technocrats seem to be a pretty cantankerous bunch.

[x371322]

your ignorant fucking "Prolier than thou" ass is too self-righteous to even absorb an iota of it.


Fuckin' Amen to that. He's one hell of a hypocrite to be calling anyone elitist. I suggest we simply ignore his posts. He's proven himself to not be worth the effort. No matter what we say, he only ends up twisting our words to make his little strawman arguments. It's not worth it. And ya know, I don't know much about the whole Tyrlop situation, but I know there's a whole thing going on about his being banned. Anyway, if someone like him can be banned for trolling, then how in the holy shit piss is Wolf boy still around? I mean, it's one thing to have legitimate debate, but he's clearly not interested in any of that. What he's done in this thread is a clear example of trolling.

[RED DAVE]

Yeah it's just a huge fucking Stalinist-Trot-Technocratic-Reptilian fucking conspiracy right? I'm surprised you aren't banned for being such a huge goddamn troll.I'm surprised that your anti-revolutionary ideology isn't relegated to Opposing Ideologies.


Many of the users sympathetic to Technocracy have explained and defended it to death, but your ignorant fucking "Prolier than thou" ass is too self-righteous to even absorb an iota of it.What you and your ilk have dmonstrated is that Technocracy is a nonrevolutionary ideology the death of which occurred sometime in the 1930s. For some reason, probably having to do with the popularity of zombie movies, the corpse still lurches around.


We all get it - you don't like Technocracy. You've made that more than abundantly clear. I fucking swear, tendency wars don't get this ridiculous, with douchebags like you constantly harassing people left right and center, making it a point to bring it into any thread remotely dealing with Technocracy.Zombies on Broadway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombies_on_Broadway)



Why don't you just fuck off like you did before? Maybe get doused in napalm or contract encephalitis, I don't give a fuck.I though that wishing someone (as opposed to a tendency) dead is an infraction. Actually, Technocracy died of atherosclerosis.

By the way, here's European Technocracy's view of socialism. Note the depth, power and originality of the presentation and its clear, revolutionary outlook.


The three dominant ideologies in Europe and in the European off-shot cultures, have historically been liberalism, conservatism and socialism. Without going in-depth about them, we could state that they share some inherent similarities. What a lot of people tend to forget, is that all three of those ideologies are based on assumptions of human nature. Liberalism and socialism both stress a belief in progress and enlightenment, and share an optimistic view on the human being, while conservatism has generally viewed people as children in need for fatherly and paternal guidance (in some sense, that view is prevalent in marxism-leninism, social liberalism and social democracy as well).http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:technocracy-government-over-machines&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

I'm surprised that your anti-revolutionary ideology isn't relegated to Opposing Ideologies.

What you and your ilk have dmonstrated is that Technocracy is a nonrevolutionary ideology the death of which occurred sometime in the 1930s. For some reason, probably having to do with the popularity of zombie movies, the corpse still lurches around.

Zombies on Broadway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombies_on_Broadway)


I though that wishing someone (as opposed to a tendency) dead is an infraction. Actually, Technocracy died of atherosclerosis.

By the way, here's European Technocracy's view of socialism. Note the depth, power and originality of the presentation and its clear, revolutionary outlook.

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:technocracy-government-over-machines&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

RED DAVE

This is off-topic trolling.

Post it in another thread if you really feel the need to.

[RED DAVE]

This is off-topic trolling.

Post it in another thread if you really feel the need to.Considering that your entire ideology constitutes trolling, why don't you go somewhere you'll be appreciated, like http://www.crank.net/

RED DAVE

[Technocrat]

I suggest we simply ignore his posts. He's proven himself to not be worth the effort. No matter what we say, he only ends up twisting our words to make his little strawman arguments. It's not worth it.

I agree - the same goes for Red Dave and his ilk. There is simply no way to get through to someone who only wants to argue, so there's no point in trying.

[RED DAVE]

I agree - the same goes for Red Dave and his ilk. There is simply no way to get through to someone who only wants to argue, so there's no point in trying.Problem is, with your crypto-stalinist, crypto-fascist ideology doesn't belong here in the first place.

Class struggle involving workers and peasants is taking place around the world; antiwar movements are marching; the struggle against racism goes on; and where is Techncracy? Nowhere or holed up in dad and mom's basement planning for a post-revolutionary society that they will have nothing to do with accomplishing.

I have demonstrated that from (1) your failure to pay any attention to class (or any other kind of) struggles, (2) your notions of capitalism as a price system, (3) belief in nonworking class control of production, (4) fetishism of technique, (5) distortion of the composition of the working class, just for openers, Technocracy is a nonrevolutionary, elitist, petit-bourgeois ideology.

All this has been argued before and amply documented.

I would like to see a list of union actions, antiwar actions, antiracist, antifascist actions, etc., that either North American or European Technocracy has been involved in over the past five years or so. Remarks that Techncracy is educational rather than engaging in action beg the question. Refusing to engage in action, abstention, is a form of action, nonaction, which lets others do the "dirty" work.

RED DAVE

[x371322]

Rabble, rabble, rabble

I'm sorry, what was that? Were you saying something?



All this has been argued before and amply documented.
Nope.



I would like to see a list of union actions, antiwar actions, antiracist, antifascist actions, etc., that either North American or European Technocracy has been involved in over the past five years or so.

As if these organizations owe you anything, Lord almighty God "Red" Dave. It doesn't even matter to you that these are political activities, and the groups you're bashing aren't political groups.

You have a personal vendetta (and apparently way too much time on your hands for someone so deeply involved in revolutionary organizing)... nothing more. Give it up, and get the fuck over yourself.

[RED DAVE]

I'm sorry, what was that? Were you saying something?Not surprising you can't hear with shit in your ears and more flowing from your fingertips.


Nope.Yep. Others and I have put Technocracy through the blender and poured the result down the drain. And if you want to refute my criticisms, go ahead.


As if these organizations owe you anythingThey own me nothing. But since their adherents see fit to post on a left-wing, revolutionary website, they owe us all an explanation and demonstration that their ideology is both left-wing and revolutionary. This of course can't happen because, as demonstrated, Technocracy is, at best, a version of liberalism or social democracy and, at worst, has shared some elements of a common culture with fascism.


Lord almighty God "Red" Dave.I do not expect deification until I pass unto the next plane.


It doesn't even matter to you that these are political activities, and the groups you're bashing aren't political groups.To paraphrase Orwell, the absence of politics in an organization is politics.

Technocracy stays away from public politics because any deductions from its ideology into the political arena will expose it for the non-revolutionary bullshit that it is.


You have a personal vendettaStuff and nonsense. You obviously can't tell the difference between political opposition and personal vendetta.


I(and apparently way too much time on your hands for someone so deeply involved in revolutionary organizing)...nothing more. On weekends, while I work full-time as a home aide, in between writing chapters of a book, I post here on a variety of subjects.


Give it up, and get the fuck over yourself.Get the fuck over Technocracy.

RED DAVE

[x371322]

Get the fuck over Technocracy.

No.

[Technocrat]

No.

Don't feed the troll :rolleyes:.

Seriously though, once people start hijacking threads and deliberately de-railing them with off topic aggressive posts, isn't it time for a moderator to step in?

If someone wants to bash Technocracy, go start a Technocracy bashing thread or post in one of the many Technocracy threads that have already been hijacked by Red Dave et al. This thread is for discussion of urban planning and megastructures, not Technocracy.

The very fact that Red Dave has hijacked this thread to bash Technocracy is evidence of his vendetta.

[RED DAVE]

Revolutionary program of European Technocracy. Note the revolutionary terminology and belief in the role of the working class. What the fuck business does this belief system have at RevLeft.


The mission of EOS is to achieve the aforementioned vision with reference to:

1. To investigate unconventional socio-economic and political paradigms, employing scientific methodology as the prime tool.

2. To allow a community for the critical examination and development of the underlying philosophy of present potentially new social, economic and political paradigms.

3. To perform the aforementioned in light of the contemporary challenges of energy availability, climate change, aging population, health and economic disparity.

4. To elucidate means of socially, economically and technically implementing sustainable reforms in a practical and realistic manner.http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=180&Itemid=96

RED DAVE

[Wolf Larson]

Yeah it's just a huge fucking Stalinist-Trot-Technocratic-Reptilian fucking conspiracy right? I'm surprised you aren't banned for being such a huge goddamn troll.

Many of the users sympathetic to Technocracy have explained and defended it to death, but your ignorant fucking "Prolier than thou" ass is too self-righteous to even absorb an iota of it.

We all get it - you don't like Technocracy. You've made that more than abundantly clear. I fucking swear, tendency wars don't get this ridiculous, with douchebags like you constantly harassing people left right and center, making it a point to bring it into any thread remotely dealing with Technocracy.

Why don't you just fuck off like you did before? Maybe get doused in napalm or contract encephalitis, I don't give a fuck.
you should not be moderating a revoloutionary socialist website.obvious...... and your anger is making me laugh.

the whole 'troll' neg rep thing isnt working either....the posters on this site see what you're doing. doesnt that make you angry? lol why dont you guys simply go form your own website?

[Decolonize The Left]

Thread closed. Holy christ eating oatmeal this thread is terrible - some people take the internet way to seriously.

- August