I visited in 1996 and while I thought it was an impressive piece of architecture; I got the distinct impression that even then it had already ossified into a mo

I visited in 1996 and while I thought it was an impressive piece of architecture; I got the distinct impression that even then it had already ossified into a monument to itself. Which is really too bad, because the Arcology idea is quite beautiful and compelling; but to make it work in practice would require a distinct and difficult balancing of the functional megastructure and providing the inhabitants with the freedom to modify the spaces within for their own purposes. I spent many hours poring over the original arcologies book as a child and still think it's one of the better pieces of design science fiction that I've ever read. But the idea of the Arcology, of the city as an organism with a structure to support it to maximise the health and happiness of it's inhabitants needs to break free of the fascistic hero worship that has so far kept it from expressing itself as anything but a heroic monument to it's designers rather than the living creation of it's residents.