At the Frontier Fork, new methods in civil planning and participation are proposed.
Tournament by Electorate (ToBE)
Tournament by Electorate, or ToBE for short, is a system of preferential voting where before each stage of the election, each voter selects a candidate of his or her choice and pairs up two candidates who they want to see compete. The tournament is formed stage-by-stage depending on the preferences of the voters at each stage. This works as follows:
- Before the first stage, registered candidates are added to a candidate pool until a scheduled deadline has been reached. Then voters may select one candidate of his or her choice and may pair up only two candidates who they want to see compete.
- The first stage of the tournament is created by first taking the candidate with the most votes and assigning him/her to the match-up most requested by voters. Then of the remaining candidates, the one with the most votes is then matched up the same way. This is repeated until there is one candidate or no candidate left. If there is a left-over candidate, that person is out of the race.
- In the first stage, voters repeat the same process. They select one candidate of their choice and may pair up only two candidates who they want to see compete. The winners of each face-off are then entered into another candidate pool. Candidates from this pool are then paired-up in the same way as before. If there is a left-over candidate, that person is out of the race.
- The process repeats for every stage, except at the Finals where the voters have only two candidates to choose from.
- If at any stage a candidate drops out of the race, that candidate's match automatically wins that stage, except at the Finals, in which case he/she is matched with the runner-up with the most votes from the Semi-Finals.
Voters may desire to match political rivals for their own personally-held reasons:
- For example, a voter may match two candidates with opposing political views and/or contrasting character, where the favored candidate is seen by the voter as being very capable of eliminating his/her competitor. (Hypothetical Example: Bernie Paper vs. Donald Rock)
- In another example, a voter may match two candidates who share similar political views he/she agrees with, where the favored candidate is seen by the voter as underrated and the unfavored candidate overrated. Another person with opposite persuasion may decide to match these same candidates in order to eliminate one from the competition. (Hypothetical Example: Hillary Scissors vs. Bernie Paper)
- In yet another example, a voter may match two candidates with similar character, where neither candidate is favored, such that one of the candidates will be eliminated. (Hypothetical Example: Donald Rock vs. Hillary Scissors)
The decision to match political rivals is more difficult than simply selecting a candidate, but an informed voter with a strong preference can easily make this form of decision. This gives informed voters with a strong preference more influence over the outcome of an election.
Alternative Government Models
- http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Smallocracy - Smallocracy (rule by the supermall) is a philosophy that assumes that very large malls offering all the comforts of a small town offer the optimum way to promote economic freedom, social opportunity, a way of political independence, and security of health.
- https://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/aims-and-proposals/ - The Venus Project proposes a system called a Resource Based Economy in which automation and technology would be intelligently integrated into an overall holistic socio-economic design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. This project also introduces a set of workable and practical values.
- http://www.paradism.org/ - Technology can free humanity from the slavery of work and money. Paradism is a political system that will lead humanity safely through the transformations that will give birth to a true paradise on Earth. It is based on new technologies, such as robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnologies. All production, tools, services and resources that can be efficient without the involvement of a human being can be nationalized. The nationalization of all production, services and tools provided by robots renders money obsolete since these products, services and tools can now be free.
The capitalist philosophy provides a perspective that tends to be superior in allocating the factors of production where it will yield large outcomes (quantity). The socialist philosophy provides a perspective that tends to be superior in recognizing aspects of the economy that are more difficult to quantify (quality). The three alternatives, Smallocracy, Resource Based Economy, and Paradism can be thought of as complementary methods appropriate for successive stages of development, where the positive results of both capitalist and socialist philosophies are enhanced by overcoming logistical, social, and political hurdles.
Smallocracy was originally developed by me in the year 2008. It was inspired by the concept of Arcology (Architecture + Ecology) by Paolo Soleri as well as the Victory Cities concept by Orville Simpson II. The content below presents an alternative architecture for Smallocracy different than I originally proposed at http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Smallocracy. This particular design maximizes light penetration, inspired by my increasing preference for a more light and airy design. S.H.O. talk 13:10, 20 October 2016 (PDT)
In algebra, one usually simplifies the problem before solving it. Likewise, if we wish to create a paradise where basic needs are met without toil, it makes sense to organize the habitat in a way that reduces resource and time costs while maintaining quality.
Between Smallocracy, Resource Based Economy, and Paradism, the least radical change is proposed by Smallocracy as it does not ask for changing the social or political situation at the world level. It can exist even if it is applied to only one city. It is therefore more feasible to attain from our current situation. It primarily addresses the challenge of combining transportation efficiency with ample living space and clear views of nature.
In Smallocracy, the leadership will be held in partnerships between real estate developers and municipal corporations with the objective of satisfying both the needs of each. The vision with Smallocracy is to develop a balance between both vertical and horizontal town development which permits the elimination for the need vehicular transportation except when transporting goods or people into or out of each town. The intended results are significant reductions of 90% or greater for common infrastructure-related expenses typically associated with a town, all without sacrificing living space. An article concerning the proposal for a town-in-a-building called Victory City presents list of things which could be eliminated or greatly reduced.
|Above Ground||Under Ground||Fleets of Government-Owned Vehicles||Also 90% Eliminated|
|Title: Smallocracy Project 1.0
Go to http://www.sho.wiki/3d/smallocracy for a full-page view of this 3D Animation!
Under Smallocracy, a municipal corporation's human and capital resources are gradually relieved from the duties associated with very extensive vehicle, road, pipe, and cable infrastructure. The human and capital resources of the municipal corporation are then gradually reallocated to very extensive pedestrian, atrium, and courtyard infrastructure. Significant consideration should be made to increase the access to light that citizens and visitors have while maintaining a sense of privacy, a particular concern since Smallocracy implies significant vertical development.
Instead of relying on a monolithic building like most city-in-a-building ideas, in the case of Smallocracy, one option is to use steel suspended foot-bridges like the "Drac bridge" and "Ebron bridge" in France which could be used to provide direct horizontal connections. Cost and time of bridge construction could be reduced substantially using drone lifts. These bridges would connect to platforms (20 m x 5 m) every three stories between gate-like twin towers (120 m x 25 m x 10 m) which together with the platforms have a footprint of 500 square meters (25 m x 20 m). These gate-like twin towers would be constructed out of cross laminated timber with no more than two units per side per floor. Area per floor per unit will be limited to 100 square meters (1 are), with larger homes requiring more floors, up to 3. There should be no more than three floors between deck levels and no more than 9 deck levels with a total height no more than 30 stories. Each slender tower should be capable of residential square footage up to 12,000 square meters supporting approximately 60 two-story "Houston-sized" residences or 120 single-floor "NYC-sized" residences, with an estimated combined population of 150 to 300 people, assuming 2.5 people per household. Each tower therefore eliminates between 65 and 130 cars at time, assuming the American average of 439 cars per 1000, replacing them with 9 steel suspended foot bridges. The floor plan of the structure could be rotated by a gradual angle at every deck level to increase architectural variety, and total height should be capped at 120 meters. There should be 4 meters between floors so as to permit vaulted ceilings and loft arrangements in all units. All residential units must have windows on at least three sides and come with a kitchen, a separate dining room, utility room, master suite, and a second bathroom.
There would be private backyards, but all of those would be grouped together at the base of the residences and reachable by a gardened trail connected by spiral stairs to the decks, which are equipped with chair lifts to accommodate the disabled. Multiple garden trails would be connected together by a knee-deep Lazy River and/or other type of amusement track depending on the regional climate. Hardware and garden supplies would be located at ground level off the garden trails for easy access to the private backyards. Large backyards may feature their own guest cottages and greenhouses, as well as swimming pools and game courts. Backyards will be teeming with activity because they will cost extra and be available to any tenant who actually wants one. The philosophy here is that no backyard should go to waste. The municipality covers all expenses for the garden trails, and collaboration will be established between home owners associations and gardeners. Friends and family of tenants may choose to live entirely within tiny homes within single "backyard" plots. To maintain the backyard nature of the area, shelters other than greenhouses and open pavilions may not cover more than 50% of the area of the yard, while greenhouses and pavilions may occupy the whole plot without buffer. The minimum yard size is 100 square meters (or 1 are). Event planning and recreation organizations may rent adjacent backyard plots up to 10,000 square meters (or 1 hectare), large enough for a small cozy ranch, foreign-inspired public spa, or a haunted house. The tile-like backyard spaces or "land apps" will serve the backbone of an informal economy between tenants and create a sense of community.
In close proximity to the slender residential towers, are two similarly-constructed "hub towers", one for non-hazardous manufacturing, warehousing, and other miscellaneous light industrial activities, and another tower for retail, recreational activities, education, and day care. Hospitals and other essential services would be evenly split between the towers. Each would have a slender foot print comparable to five of the gate-like residential towers arranged as an plus-sign for better visibility. The foot print of each "hub tower" occupies five 25 m x 20 m areas for a total of 5000 square meters for both towers. At the bottom of each hub tower, will be an atrial garden, professionally-managed food court, hotels, and theater hall which doubles as a commercial cinema. Retail outlets would line the path from the cinemas to the garden trails which provide connections between greenhouses, hardware stores, maker spaces, and sports venues.
These "hub towers" must be within a 6 minute walking distance for healthy seniors, or about 600 meters, to any residential tower in the district, for a maximum 12 minute walk between any residence in the 1.2 kilometer diameter circle. The hub towers will have a total floor area around 100,000 to 150,000 square meters depending on ceiling height and may support the residents and visitors for around 60 twin residence towers, which will have a combined living area of 720,000 square meters (or 0.72 square kilometers) of living area, for a district population somewhere between 9,000 and 18,000 people. The results in a population density potentially higher than New York City with average residential floor area per person between 80 and 40 square meters, and this doesn't even include the yard space. The gross circular foot print of each hub region including residential towers, hub tower, yards, Lazy River/amusement track, etc. should be approximately 1.13 square kilometers compared to the estimated 0.035 square kilometers of physical building footprint, which provides over 96% of the land within district limits, or about 1.1 million square meters (110 hectares) for non-tower area which may be reserved for yards, gardens, recreation, lakes, ocean, and wild habitat. Six bowling pin-style arrangements may be adopted for the residential towers, which provides the 60 twin residence towers or (1+2+3+4)*6 divided evenly in 6 groups of 10 in six 60 degree segments, with each tower pair being spaced from the other far enough from the other to fit a soccer stadium or one of the aforementioned 1 hectare plots.
Multiple hubs should be connected by a personal rapid transit system similar to SkyTran or SkyWay in order to minimize guideway costs and construction time. Hubs should be separated from each other by a distance no less than 2 kilometers in order to maintain a low impact on the ecosystem.
Further comments: "Sky cars" vs. SkyWay Systems
On this past April of 2017, I stumbled upon a comment on a YouTube channel which stated the following concerning Airbus's new drone-car hybrid "Pop.Up":
both inefficient and not safe even with autonomous drive systems. skytran and rail skyway systems have more safer and efficient alternative. but skytran is more suitable as an elevator system than transportation system, rail skyway systems is even more efficient than skytran.
It turns out that developers behind "Rail Skyway Systems" have various development projects in mind that are in a few ways similar to what I proposed in Smallocracy. See more at the following links:
Vertical Cities Videos