3 ms·

Nice to see another architect on HN. I only visited Arcosanti once, and in my brief visit (around 2005) I found the intellectual environment to be pretty dogma

by state 12y ago

Nice to see another architect on HN. I only visited Arcosanti once, and in my brief visit (around 2005) I found the intellectual environment to be pretty dogmatic and deeply skeptical of technology. Being an architect with a strong technical background I found this strange. It seemed like if there were a place that could be thinking deeply about how architects can productively use technology Arcosanti would be the place. The environment you describe in your other reply makes me think that perhaps this wasn't always the case. Could you talk a little more about the intellectual climate during your stay? Was there a period where people were able to see Soleri's thinking as more of a springboard than a rigid system?

nkoren 12y ago
The intellectual climate at Arcosanti waxes and wanes quite considerably. It has gone through numerous ups and downs since my time there. I visited for a couple of days last summer and found it to be mid-swing -- couldn't tell if it was on the way up or on the way down -- but when it's up, it can be very diverse and lively, with many seemingly polarised subgroups. Depending on who you talk to, you can come away from Arcosanti thinking that it's a bunch of Žižek-spouting primitivists, Kurzweil-spouting extropians, mildly paranoid right-wing survivalists, or reasonably dispassionate architecture graduates with a somewhat environmental bent who were just looking for a stimulating internship. One of Arcosanti's strengths is that it can accommodate all of these types simultaneously. But tour guides are given/take quite broad latitude in terms of how they present the project, so depending on who shows you around, you can come away with an impression that it's only one of the above subgroups, when in fact it's all of them. From what I could see, that tradition continues today, although not quite as vibrant as during my mid-90s tenure. Although Arcosanti accommodates many different modes of thought, paradoxically it's been relatively hostile to people who want to push on the boundaries of urban planning and design. When I came there, I was quite enamoured of Soleri's "arcology" theory (and today I still am) -- but ultimately, I disagreed with him that cities could be designed as fixed objects; I argued with him that cities were processes, not objects, and that what we really needed to be studying was what kind of processes would lead to arcological outcomes. Soleri, however, was quite defensive and dogmatic about his theory, so I had to leave to pursue that particular thread. Ideas which don't particularly impinge upon the built form are far more welcome there. This has been a shortcoming of the place for decades. I'm hopeful that it will be able to reinvent itself, post-Soleri, to overcome this limitation.
- state 12y ago
  Thanks for the thorough response! I went to visit a friend who fell in the 'reasonably dispassionate' category for a few days. Perhaps that's what influenced my exposure. It is, of course, a beautiful place and I enjoyed my time thoroughly. I remember being constantly paranoid about having a centipede attach itself to my body somehow. What you describe in your final paragraph reminds me of the failures of other significant voices from that generation that I have encountered. It's strange, isn't it, that it's so difficult to get these people to see just a bit past the horizon. Architecture exists at a boundary between writing and listening — it's a response to culture and it shapes culture. It's strange that the titans of the late mid-century became so dogmatic, but we do get to take the good parts and move forward.

by state 12y ago

nkoren 12y ago

The intellectual climate at Arcosanti waxes and wanes quite considerably. It has gone through numerous ups and downs since my time there. I visited for a couple of days last summer and found it to be mid-swing -- couldn't tell if it was on the way up or on the way down -- but when it's up, it can be very diverse and lively, with many seemingly polarised subgroups. Depending on who you talk to, you can come away from Arcosanti thinking that it's a bunch of Žižek-spouting primitivists, Kurzweil-spouting extropians, mildly paranoid right-wing survivalists, or reasonably dispassionate architecture graduates with a somewhat environmental bent who were just looking for a stimulating internship. One of Arcosanti's strengths is that it can accommodate all of these types simultaneously. But tour guides are given/take quite broad latitude in terms of how they present the project, so depending on who shows you around, you can come away with an impression that it's only one of the above subgroups, when in fact it's all of them. From what I could see, that tradition continues today, although not quite as vibrant as during my mid-90s tenure. Although Arcosanti accommodates many different modes of thought, paradoxically it's been relatively hostile to people who want to push on the boundaries of urban planning and design. When I came there, I was quite enamoured of Soleri's "arcology" theory (and today I still am) -- but ultimately, I disagreed with him that cities could be designed as fixed objects; I argued with him that cities were processes, not objects, and that what we really needed to be studying was what kind of processes would lead to arcological outcomes. Soleri, however, was quite defensive and dogmatic about his theory, so I had to leave to pursue that particular thread. Ideas which don't particularly impinge upon the built form are far more welcome there. This has been a shortcoming of the place for decades. I'm hopeful that it will be able to reinvent itself, post-Soleri, to overcome this limitation.

state 12y ago
Thanks for the thorough response! I went to visit a friend who fell in the 'reasonably dispassionate' category for a few days. Perhaps that's what influenced my exposure. It is, of course, a beautiful place and I enjoyed my time thoroughly. I remember being constantly paranoid about having a centipede attach itself to my body somehow. What you describe in your final paragraph reminds me of the failures of other significant voices from that generation that I have encountered. It's strange, isn't it, that it's so difficult to get these people to see just a bit past the horizon. Architecture exists at a boundary between writing and listening — it's a response to culture and it shapes culture. It's strange that the titans of the late mid-century became so dogmatic, but we do get to take the good parts and move forward.