HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
51
ships and balances. This introduces another ecological oddity into the
designing of “artifacts” for human occupance.
Fitch does a commendable job of attacking traditional architectural
methods of meeting the first problem, that of the individual building as
a human environment. The field of architecture is less fortunate with
respect to the second ecological problem, that of integrating buildings
into a common environment such as a city. There are, however,
prominent practitioners who are touted as meeting the second challenge.
Noteworthy are Paolo Soleri and Buckminster Fuller. Soleri has even
invented a term, “arcology”, to signify that his work is a blend of
architecture and ecology.
Soleri (1969) describes architecture as “in the process of becoming the
physical definition of a multilevel human ecology. It will be arc-ology.”
He defines arcology as a redefinition of urban structure, its transformation and miniaturization into a “metropolitan solid, saturated with flux
and liveliness”. The realization of this is in monumental uni-structures
of colossal scale, housing whole cities within their skins and (by his
admission) the instrumentation of the “real”, the reduction of the
human environment to “an efficient plumbing system for contemporary society”.
Many of the assumptions on which Soleri bases his formulations and
designs seem strongly anti-ecological. These include the size and scale,
the lack of touch with the earth, the self-containment and potential
isolation of the structures. Jellinek (1972) has even suggested that
Soleri combined the wrong end of the two words: “ecotecture would
have been [more] to the point”. He further suggests that Soleri’s
creations attain an inhuman scale and a form “essentially hostile” to
man. Soleri’s superstructures do seem to ignore the way cities have
grown and changed in response to human whim and need, imperfect as
that may seem. His break with successional change is very abrupt.
(Reference should be made here also to the essay on Soleri’s arcology by
Skolimowski (1971) and the comment it generated in a later issue of
Architectural Association Quarterly; see Scott et al., 1971.)
Fuller (1963, 1969a, b, 1970) is also an advocate of “ecological”
solutions to human design problems, focusing on a kind of technological
synergy”, defined as an “omnirational coordinate system”. The key to
Fuller’s universe is triangulation, “stabilization through minimum
effort”, with the minimum possible system being the tetrahedron. He
concentrates on the whole (synergy above) then works from an understanding of this “universe” to the individual parts, the latter dependent
on a grasp of the former. His mastery of these will be attained by way of
control of fundamental natural laws through technology, what Paul
Shepard (1972) denounces as “a feverish emphasis on increase, bigness,
L <
51
ships and balances. This introduces another ecological oddity into the
designing of “artifacts” for human occupance.
Fitch does a commendable job of attacking traditional architectural
methods of meeting the first problem, that of the individual building as
a human environment. The field of architecture is less fortunate with
respect to the second ecological problem, that of integrating buildings
into a common environment such as a city. There are, however,
prominent practitioners who are touted as meeting the second challenge.
Noteworthy are Paolo Soleri and Buckminster Fuller. Soleri has even
invented a term, “arcology”, to signify that his work is a blend of
architecture and ecology.
Soleri (1969) describes architecture as “in the process of becoming the
physical definition of a multilevel human ecology. It will be arc-ology.”
He defines arcology as a redefinition of urban structure, its transformation and miniaturization into a “metropolitan solid, saturated with flux
and liveliness”. The realization of this is in monumental uni-structures
of colossal scale, housing whole cities within their skins and (by his
admission) the instrumentation of the “real”, the reduction of the
human environment to “an efficient plumbing system for contemporary society”.
Many of the assumptions on which Soleri bases his formulations and
designs seem strongly anti-ecological. These include the size and scale,
the lack of touch with the earth, the self-containment and potential
isolation of the structures. Jellinek (1972) has even suggested that
Soleri combined the wrong end of the two words: “ecotecture would
have been [more] to the point”. He further suggests that Soleri’s
creations attain an inhuman scale and a form “essentially hostile” to
man. Soleri’s superstructures do seem to ignore the way cities have
grown and changed in response to human whim and need, imperfect as
that may seem. His break with successional change is very abrupt.
(Reference should be made here also to the essay on Soleri’s arcology by
Skolimowski (1971) and the comment it generated in a later issue of
Architectural Association Quarterly; see Scott et al., 1971.)
Fuller (1963, 1969a, b, 1970) is also an advocate of “ecological”
solutions to human design problems, focusing on a kind of technological
synergy”, defined as an “omnirational coordinate system”. The key to
Fuller’s universe is triangulation, “stabilization through minimum
effort”, with the minimum possible system being the tetrahedron. He
concentrates on the whole (synergy above) then works from an understanding of this “universe” to the individual parts, the latter dependent
on a grasp of the former. His mastery of these will be attained by way of
control of fundamental natural laws through technology, what Paul
Shepard (1972) denounces as “a feverish emphasis on increase, bigness,
L <