READING RESPONSE 3
Throughconsidering both Arcosanti and Seastanding, I feel that the designaspect that is most appealing in the Arcosanti is the design aspectthat proposes an economy of frugality as a more equitable andeffective path into the future of a planet that has limitedresources. This is vital as it offers democracy to all individuals.Besides, it is appealing since it is located on a marginal land todemonstrate the viability of a community on such land and the beautyand inspiration that this land creates (McLaughlin & Gordon,2000). In addition, this design aspect is most appealing since ittends to create an extraordinary energy-efficient design thatintegrates the effects of greenhouse, apse, heat sink and chimney. Onthe other hand, in the Seastanding, the design that is most appealingentails building new cities on high seas (The economist, 2011). Thisis critical as it makes use of the unutilized space.
Theadoption of these two approaches faces obstacles. One of the chiefobstacles that the Seastands approach faces entails the feasibilityof creating indisputably self-governing small-states on the oceans.Seastands are likely not to qualify for exemptions like those ofships. The seasteads will face technical challenges since as theyrely on land-based fuel and water supplies, the difficult it will bein achieving the libertarian dream of fleeing the evil ways of theexisting governments (The economist, 2011). In addition, Seastandsface the obstacle of huge risks and costs involved this means theapproach requires giant engineering firms. On the other hand, theArcosanti approach is likely to have a barrier since critics believethat the approach is economically, architecturally, and sociallyfragmented. This may make the approach not preferred by individuals(McLaughlin & Gordon, 2000).
McLaughlin,C. & Gordon, D. (2000). ‘ARCOSANTI:Urban “Arcology”- Ecologically Sound Architecture’ in MalcolmMies,Tim Hall and Iain Borden (Eds). The City Cultures Reader. London:Routledge, 317-319.
TheEconomist (2011). Seasteading: Cities on the Ocean. Retrieved fromhttp://www.economist.com/node/21540395.