1) What is the supposed livlihood of the residents? To function for an extended period, arcologies need capabilities of materials processing, fabrication, research labs, etc., that require employment of personell far beyond retail and entertainment. That this is counter to New Orleans today I realize (what % of economic activity is tourism?), but this is probably the most likely location of America’s first arcology, thus it must characteristic of manufacturing essential to the general concept of arcology.

2). How does zero cars translate to zero CO2 emissions? (I know someone commented upon this above but it needs empasis)

3). How will power be supplied to arcology and how much is required. I very much doubt that next generation solar cells and wind/water turbines can support the expected loads. Will it come from traditional means? This needs to be addressed to move beyond concept phase.

4). Where’s money coming from? Is this a public project, a private one, a partnership? Who is to profit? This is not even touched upon in proposal.

5). Can it fly?

Ok, the last one is a joke but I hope arcology designers do take seriously the first four queries.

As a former resident of New Orleans, that looming sci-fi bit of futurism would evoke resentment in most residents and destroy the visual character of the city. For a good example of how resident have reacted to previous attempts at modernism in New Orleans, just watch “Architecture School”(Sundance Channel) about the Tulane School of Architecture and their low-income housing projects.

I love good modern buildings, but from concept to execution, wrong all around.

Just because you don’t need cars doesn’t make your community automatically carbon neutral. A building like that is going to consume an incredible quantity of energy — arguably far less than the same number of people living in traditional suburbs would, but a lot nonetheless. That energy has to come from somewhere. Unless the plan also calls for carbon-neutral energy generation and would operate completely independent of the national grid, it’s not a “carbon neutral” structure.

Efficient, yes, but carbon-neutral? No.