finding the next city of gold
Jul. 13th, 2009 12:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serynOne of the common concepts in cyberpunk type sf novels was the arcology. There is an idea that if everyone lives in high-rise buildings and those buildings are mostly self-contained in terms of work and activities and services, then it will make optimal use of the land surface of the Earth. It will cut down on commutes and no one will really need cars.
However, after living in multi-story apartments for years, I can tell you that there are serious issues with water quality and delivery. There are noise issues. There are waste disposal issues and plumbing issues. It's just not feasible to stack people's living quarters densely without running into problems where economy of scale is a hindrance instead of a boon.
But the current system of stand-alone houses a markedly unreasonable distance from most workplaces with high-priced lawn services individually contracted--- that is not right. Excessive daily commuting via private car should be actively discouraged. There is no reason society should tolerate people driving 100 miles per day just to get to and from an office.
One of the ideas that's come up in recent years would be really good for young adults just starting out especially. It's a system where the individual living space is tiny, but there are large communal areas and neighbors tend to cook together and share big items like televisions and libraries.
I think sometimes I would like that. I know it would be nice if I could call on neighbors when I need something minor done, but I hardly know my neighbors and would feel uncomfortable asking unless it was truly dire. I also know I would not mind being here to get packages for other people or letting other people's maid service in. I might not mind picking things up from the store for other people while I'm going. And it would be nice if I could get dropped off at the train station (which is near the eye doctor and the dentist both) a couple times per year. It doesn't seem like that would be completely unreasonable.
But that kind of system only works if you're willing to put a little more in than what you're expecting to get back. And the people in my building currently cannot be bothered to follow even the smallest rules about the laundry room.
I do think living in California is not a sustainable proposition for me. Given the kind of lifestyle I want, I should probably have left years ago. I want to be able to drive to things and have an expectation that parking will exist at my destination. I want to shop at stores which have sufficient product on the shelves that me buying something does not mean someone else will have to do without. I want to be able to go places without thinking, "Damn, it's the weekend, everything will be full." On the other hand, the weather is usually clement, the food choices are phenomenal (both restaurant and grocery options), and socially I am considered conservative here--- without changing my views at all, I went from being a doused-in-napalm flaming liberal to a she-must-hate-people conservative. [You should not be equating conservatism with Republicanism, the Republicans representing their party currently have no desire to conserve anything for anyone.]
But in order to have what I like about California in a place where there is still room for people, I feel like I would need to start a company and bring 10-20K people with me. There are vast vast swaths of land in the middle of the US. There are moderate-size towns there that are hurting for employers. If Google said, "Fuck this, we're moving to Nebraska, it would be cheaper for us to build an airport and a whole town and import the necessary infrastructure than it is to expand in Silicon Valley." There are places in the country that would welcome them. But it would have to be a big enough endeavor. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in Missouri or Kansas, for example---unless something was done to protect the human rights of everyone including women. I wouldn't feel comfortable being gay in Wyoming either. So if there were something along those lines, it would need to be a big enough venture that the abhorrent state-level laws could be challenged and hate-crimes prosecuted. Stores would have to be open on Sundays--- which is still illegal in many places, despite it being a blatant discriminatory practice against many other religions.
I think what might be interesting is if we could set up a couple big arcologies in somewhere like Nebraska or Indiana or wherever. These could be given diplomatic status, so women could still get contraception even in the most god-ridden of places, regardless of local laws. It might be expensive, and would require some really phenomenal architecture and structural engineering, but I do think enclosing a complete community and placing it somewhere space is not at a premium could really be an interesting experiment. But it should not be a single corporation's venture lest it be something financially unstable. And I think it would need some real oomph behind it to get the kind of diplomatic status it would need to reassure women and minorities and homosexuals and non-Christians that they could not be killed with impunity.
However, after living in multi-story apartments for years, I can tell you that there are serious issues with water quality and delivery. There are noise issues. There are waste disposal issues and plumbing issues. It's just not feasible to stack people's living quarters densely without running into problems where economy of scale is a hindrance instead of a boon.
But the current system of stand-alone houses a markedly unreasonable distance from most workplaces with high-priced lawn services individually contracted--- that is not right. Excessive daily commuting via private car should be actively discouraged. There is no reason society should tolerate people driving 100 miles per day just to get to and from an office.
One of the ideas that's come up in recent years would be really good for young adults just starting out especially. It's a system where the individual living space is tiny, but there are large communal areas and neighbors tend to cook together and share big items like televisions and libraries.
I think sometimes I would like that. I know it would be nice if I could call on neighbors when I need something minor done, but I hardly know my neighbors and would feel uncomfortable asking unless it was truly dire. I also know I would not mind being here to get packages for other people or letting other people's maid service in. I might not mind picking things up from the store for other people while I'm going. And it would be nice if I could get dropped off at the train station (which is near the eye doctor and the dentist both) a couple times per year. It doesn't seem like that would be completely unreasonable.
But that kind of system only works if you're willing to put a little more in than what you're expecting to get back. And the people in my building currently cannot be bothered to follow even the smallest rules about the laundry room.
I do think living in California is not a sustainable proposition for me. Given the kind of lifestyle I want, I should probably have left years ago. I want to be able to drive to things and have an expectation that parking will exist at my destination. I want to shop at stores which have sufficient product on the shelves that me buying something does not mean someone else will have to do without. I want to be able to go places without thinking, "Damn, it's the weekend, everything will be full." On the other hand, the weather is usually clement, the food choices are phenomenal (both restaurant and grocery options), and socially I am considered conservative here--- without changing my views at all, I went from being a doused-in-napalm flaming liberal to a she-must-hate-people conservative. [You should not be equating conservatism with Republicanism, the Republicans representing their party currently have no desire to conserve anything for anyone.]
But in order to have what I like about California in a place where there is still room for people, I feel like I would need to start a company and bring 10-20K people with me. There are vast vast swaths of land in the middle of the US. There are moderate-size towns there that are hurting for employers. If Google said, "Fuck this, we're moving to Nebraska, it would be cheaper for us to build an airport and a whole town and import the necessary infrastructure than it is to expand in Silicon Valley." There are places in the country that would welcome them. But it would have to be a big enough endeavor. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in Missouri or Kansas, for example---unless something was done to protect the human rights of everyone including women. I wouldn't feel comfortable being gay in Wyoming either. So if there were something along those lines, it would need to be a big enough venture that the abhorrent state-level laws could be challenged and hate-crimes prosecuted. Stores would have to be open on Sundays--- which is still illegal in many places, despite it being a blatant discriminatory practice against many other religions.
I think what might be interesting is if we could set up a couple big arcologies in somewhere like Nebraska or Indiana or wherever. These could be given diplomatic status, so women could still get contraception even in the most god-ridden of places, regardless of local laws. It might be expensive, and would require some really phenomenal architecture and structural engineering, but I do think enclosing a complete community and placing it somewhere space is not at a premium could really be an interesting experiment. But it should not be a single corporation's venture lest it be something financially unstable. And I think it would need some real oomph behind it to get the kind of diplomatic status it would need to reassure women and minorities and homosexuals and non-Christians that they could not be killed with impunity.
