The Evolution of the Arcologic Ethos
Arcology, a term coined from the words "ecology" and "architecture," is a set of architectural design principles aimed toward the design of enormous habitats or hyperstructures of extremely high human population density. Arcology, it seems, could provide today’s society with a solution to exponential population growth, struggling economies and a general lack of social interaction.
Until now these largely hypothetical hyperstructures known as "arcologies” have been designed to contain a variety of residential and commercial facilities and share a common goal in their strive to minimize an individual human environmental impact. They are often portrayed as self-contained or economically self-sufficient containerized cities.
The concept has been primarily popularized by architect Paolo Soleri of Acrosanti (the invite/members only and cult like “sustainable” community sited in North America) and appears commonly in science fiction as a postulation of the future.
However, After viewing Foster + Partners latest “starchitecture” commission, Moscow’s Crystal Island, I am now very uncomfortable with the arcology theory being put into practice so suddenly and without what seems like proper merit, conviction, necessity or even respect for the city, landscape and or its inhabitants.
On the surface, The Crystal Island appears to hold all the ideals of the arcology theory - built to contain a mix of functions, varying facilities, bring communities together and minimize the human environmental impact on resources - however, when presented with this gargantuan mega structure I can’t help but be reminded of similar past schemes such as the uncompromisingly utopian design of X-Seed 4000, suggested for the docks of Tokyo in 2004. Although only a pipe dream, X-Seed 4000 worried me beyond belief when I first clapped my eyes upon its volcanic form and excessively over engineered structure - was something that resembled Doom Mountain or something from a 1990’s computer game really being touted as a solution to Tokyo’s housing and population issue. Mind boggling. Unlike the architects of X-Seed 4000 the “influential” Sir Norman Foster has a track record of getting buildings built, so the likelihood is high that we will see this striking structure towering over the Kremlin within 10 years time.
Below Crystal Island:
The Crystal Island is not any kind of a solution to the problems previously mentioned but a flagship project and tourist attraction. It will house 900 apartments and 3000 hotel rooms, theaters, schools, Imax Cinemas, retail, catering and offices alongside 16, 500 car parking spaces… to me this doesn't quite add up, not to anything meaningful anyway – it’s supposed green credentials seem to disappear with these "staggering" statistics. Where is all the energy to power these varying and vast functions coming from (how can it be green energy?) and surely the embodied energy required to create them must negate any suggested successful environmental strategy. In a similar way, I feel that by creating this exclusive mini city the architect and client are creating an attitude of
‘What MORE could you want?’
‘Why would you want to LEAVE?’
‘We have EVERYTHING you will or should need here…’
‘Come live in our containerized city… yeah, it’s sort of like a PRISON…but it’s pretty and big.’
The solutions to questions of population densities, resource usage and transportation, social inclusion and everything else that would appear to make up a sustainable idea of modern life lies in how new housing for the masses is planned and built, not in flagship projects of this type. The Crystal Island might serve a purpose in changing the popular conception of architecture or the future of cities, as well providing fodder for architectural jazz magazines, but nothing more.
Has megalomania anything to do with a more sustainable future? No. If I was a resident in Moscow I would be devastated at the prospect of being completely powerless to stop the destruction of a beautiful and historic city. The overpowering shadow and presence of The Crystal Island simply destroys the city landscape; suffocating the sensibility of the city. The Crystal Island is the same Le Corbusier nonsense that is endemic to egocentric designers the world over. It creates crime, it destroys sense of space, and it creates sprawl. It has no place in a future that should be moved in the direction of intelligent, perspective driven, ecological green design.
It does not surprise me that a country like Russia is indulging in such frivolousness. With the baton being passed from Dubai, Shanghai, Chicago and even London, it seems Moscow is trying to re-assert its power and authority within a political and economic landscape by building architecture which stands bold and upright within this current mega tower pissing contest which we find ourselves within. This is not the only hyperstructure being developed by the Russian’s, in the north the Russian’s are reclaiming land from the sea and developing Federation Island… yes, Federation Island. Need I say more?
Below Le Corbusier 'Paris Plan' 1925:
Below X-Seed 4000, Tokyo:
Below London Bridge Tower:
Norman Foster said at the press conference for The Crystal Island, “Crystal Island is one of the world’s most ambitious building projects and it represents a milestone in the 40 year history of the practice. It is the largest single building in the world, creating a year-round destination for Moscow and a sustainable, dynamic new urban quarter. It is a paradigm of compact, mixed-use, sustainable city planning, with an innovative energy strategy and ‘smart’ skin which buffers against climate extremes.” I smell some bullshit.
To be honest though, I would hate to ever place blame solely on the respective architects of such projects but I do feel that “well respected” and “leading architects” such as Norman Foster have a great responsibility to lead by example and act against involvement in these gigantic wastes of money, research, investment and time. It sends out the wrong message to young architects, designers and the public of today about what is an acceptable architecture of the future. We must remember, especially as architects, to strive to achieve the correct solution and be true to our architectural faith… not just see flashing pounds and dollar signs dancing seductively before us.
With all the questions regarding its social and environmental credibility aside it is important for one to address the most obvious failing of The Crystal Island and similar other hyperstructures… it looks like the mountain from The Lord of the Rings. Surely examining architecture built on ideas of movement, motion, social interaction, communication, mobility and shelter around the body or on a smaller scale would be a better catalyst to produce a solution.
However, what I can't help but wonder is will the mega-cities of the world continue to support such massive growth only so far until we have no other option than to allow these hyperstructures to become a hideous reality? What else is there to do when planning for exponential population growth rates? Or will a point be reached where city life becomes so over-crowded, so unpleasant, so containerized, with conditions so squalid, that the "bright lights of the city" are no longer attractive to the masses that are currently being lured from the countryside? Will the Arcology prophesy inevitably be fulfilled?
Until now these largely hypothetical hyperstructures known as "arcologies” have been designed to contain a variety of residential and commercial facilities and share a common goal in their strive to minimize an individual human environmental impact. They are often portrayed as self-contained or economically self-sufficient containerized cities.
The concept has been primarily popularized by architect Paolo Soleri of Acrosanti (the invite/members only and cult like “sustainable” community sited in North America) and appears commonly in science fiction as a postulation of the future.
However, After viewing Foster + Partners latest “starchitecture” commission, Moscow’s Crystal Island, I am now very uncomfortable with the arcology theory being put into practice so suddenly and without what seems like proper merit, conviction, necessity or even respect for the city, landscape and or its inhabitants.
On the surface, The Crystal Island appears to hold all the ideals of the arcology theory - built to contain a mix of functions, varying facilities, bring communities together and minimize the human environmental impact on resources - however, when presented with this gargantuan mega structure I can’t help but be reminded of similar past schemes such as the uncompromisingly utopian design of X-Seed 4000, suggested for the docks of Tokyo in 2004. Although only a pipe dream, X-Seed 4000 worried me beyond belief when I first clapped my eyes upon its volcanic form and excessively over engineered structure - was something that resembled Doom Mountain or something from a 1990’s computer game really being touted as a solution to Tokyo’s housing and population issue. Mind boggling. Unlike the architects of X-Seed 4000 the “influential” Sir Norman Foster has a track record of getting buildings built, so the likelihood is high that we will see this striking structure towering over the Kremlin within 10 years time.
Below Crystal Island:
The Crystal Island is not any kind of a solution to the problems previously mentioned but a flagship project and tourist attraction. It will house 900 apartments and 3000 hotel rooms, theaters, schools, Imax Cinemas, retail, catering and offices alongside 16, 500 car parking spaces… to me this doesn't quite add up, not to anything meaningful anyway – it’s supposed green credentials seem to disappear with these "staggering" statistics. Where is all the energy to power these varying and vast functions coming from (how can it be green energy?) and surely the embodied energy required to create them must negate any suggested successful environmental strategy. In a similar way, I feel that by creating this exclusive mini city the architect and client are creating an attitude of
‘What MORE could you want?’
‘Why would you want to LEAVE?’
‘We have EVERYTHING you will or should need here…’
‘Come live in our containerized city… yeah, it’s sort of like a PRISON…but it’s pretty and big.’
The solutions to questions of population densities, resource usage and transportation, social inclusion and everything else that would appear to make up a sustainable idea of modern life lies in how new housing for the masses is planned and built, not in flagship projects of this type. The Crystal Island might serve a purpose in changing the popular conception of architecture or the future of cities, as well providing fodder for architectural jazz magazines, but nothing more.
Has megalomania anything to do with a more sustainable future? No. If I was a resident in Moscow I would be devastated at the prospect of being completely powerless to stop the destruction of a beautiful and historic city. The overpowering shadow and presence of The Crystal Island simply destroys the city landscape; suffocating the sensibility of the city. The Crystal Island is the same Le Corbusier nonsense that is endemic to egocentric designers the world over. It creates crime, it destroys sense of space, and it creates sprawl. It has no place in a future that should be moved in the direction of intelligent, perspective driven, ecological green design.
It does not surprise me that a country like Russia is indulging in such frivolousness. With the baton being passed from Dubai, Shanghai, Chicago and even London, it seems Moscow is trying to re-assert its power and authority within a political and economic landscape by building architecture which stands bold and upright within this current mega tower pissing contest which we find ourselves within. This is not the only hyperstructure being developed by the Russian’s, in the north the Russian’s are reclaiming land from the sea and developing Federation Island… yes, Federation Island. Need I say more?
Below Le Corbusier 'Paris Plan' 1925:
Below X-Seed 4000, Tokyo:
Below London Bridge Tower:
Norman Foster said at the press conference for The Crystal Island, “Crystal Island is one of the world’s most ambitious building projects and it represents a milestone in the 40 year history of the practice. It is the largest single building in the world, creating a year-round destination for Moscow and a sustainable, dynamic new urban quarter. It is a paradigm of compact, mixed-use, sustainable city planning, with an innovative energy strategy and ‘smart’ skin which buffers against climate extremes.” I smell some bullshit.
To be honest though, I would hate to ever place blame solely on the respective architects of such projects but I do feel that “well respected” and “leading architects” such as Norman Foster have a great responsibility to lead by example and act against involvement in these gigantic wastes of money, research, investment and time. It sends out the wrong message to young architects, designers and the public of today about what is an acceptable architecture of the future. We must remember, especially as architects, to strive to achieve the correct solution and be true to our architectural faith… not just see flashing pounds and dollar signs dancing seductively before us.
With all the questions regarding its social and environmental credibility aside it is important for one to address the most obvious failing of The Crystal Island and similar other hyperstructures… it looks like the mountain from The Lord of the Rings. Surely examining architecture built on ideas of movement, motion, social interaction, communication, mobility and shelter around the body or on a smaller scale would be a better catalyst to produce a solution.
However, what I can't help but wonder is will the mega-cities of the world continue to support such massive growth only so far until we have no other option than to allow these hyperstructures to become a hideous reality? What else is there to do when planning for exponential population growth rates? Or will a point be reached where city life becomes so over-crowded, so unpleasant, so containerized, with conditions so squalid, that the "bright lights of the city" are no longer attractive to the masses that are currently being lured from the countryside? Will the Arcology prophesy inevitably be fulfilled?