Sci-Fi Density and Social Justice

by Tony Chavira

Sometimes the best way to create good ideas for how we want our future cities to act and look isn’t by doing projections into the future. Granted, that’s probably the smartest way to approach incremental change, policy shifts or economic trends ... but I’m not talking about details. What I’m interested in here is vision: what kind of utopian future will we choose for ourselves, and what creative ideas and concepts will shape this amazing future in your fair city?

With these questions in mind, I would like to look at five visions of the future from popular science fiction and talk about their pros and cons. Some of these I’ve referred to previously, but I think it’s about time we really thought about what kind of future these projections represent and what we can realistically learn from them.

The Jetsons’ Cyber-Prep Future

Pros: The Jetsons was a retro-futuristic vision of what everyone in the early 1960s thought would be a fantastic way to live, simply because it envisioned an excessive version of the types of communities people wanted in the early 1960s: a large living space with a fantastic view, a robot maid who did everything you wanted, a cushy nine-to-five job with a cheerleader daughter and a genius son. Earthbound autos are passé in such a clean view of the future ... flying cars are the way things will work. How they hovered or were fueled are not even things worth discussing. Why put a park between buildings when recreational areas are sectioned off on top of spheres possibly thousands of feet above Earth? You can just walk your dog on the outdoor moving walkway/treadmill. Same thing, basically. On a high note, it seems that energy is absolutely abundant and that their flying cars have developed some sort of battery capacity system that is impressive enough that it only emits pulses of wasted energy into the environment.

Cons: The Jetsons’ high-rising buildings allow for zero walkability and zero casual urban space. You absolutely need a vehicle to get anywhere; you literally have no choice. A larger issue: with no available public space (lest you fall to your doom), what do you do with your homeless? Do they just sleep on top of other people’s structures? How do they afford to travel from one structure to another? Jump? Hitch a ride? Well, you better hope your friendly driver filled up his space gas tank, or else it’s going to be a long ride to the ground. Also, in a future where hardware sales are still strong enough to support George Jetson’s job selling sprockets, and single structures represent entire communities, mechanics, urban planners and architects would essentially have the exact same job. Although since there’s really nothing to plan (unless you can build something in midair), I’d say that the job of “urban planning” probably doesn’t exist at all in the Jetsons future.

Where would the homeless live? On the ground probably. They definitely wouldn’t be able to float in midair.

Blade Runner’s Cyber-Punk Future

Pros: An incredible cultural melting pot, this futuristic urban design is the most striking version of urban density you may ever expect to see. Cars fly above your head, allowing for the compact street space to be highly walkable and usable to anyone of any socioeconomic class. What’s especially great about the Blade Runner environment is that it is still possible to have interesting, creative architecture and beautifully-designed homes despite the fact that the urban landscape has completely swallowed any semblance of suburbia. It is also a future with a comprehensive, well-organized police system which coordinates strikes to prevent crime over the wider landscape.

Cons: There is nothing smart about the urban density developed by the futuristic Blade Runner setting. Overdevelopment has left the city hyper-compact, and businesses advertise with video supergraphics on buildings so large that you can see them from land or by air. The problem with flying cars in this case is that, since the streets are super-compact, it becomes a problem to find a place to land. And there is a huge class issue involved with who can afford to purchase a flying car and who cannot, as poverty is just as rampant in this future as it is in our present. Another big problem with the Blade Runner future city is that energy still comes from fossil fuels, and the atmosphere has practically rotted away. Acid rain, black skies, and a dark orange tint during the day are all commonplace ... clearly violating any laws enacted by the Air Quality Manager District in Diamond Bar. After all, Blade Runner is set in Los Angeles.

Where would the homeless live? The homeless would either be crammed into the dense surroundings or dead from having to live on the streets and endure the harsh environment.

Star War’s Coruscant World City Future

Pros: Coruscant is a futuristic space city that’s probably closest to New York in the way that it’s planned and organized. Although there are immense areas of urban density, it is generally walkable, and it’s easy for the population to access levels of its environment. What’s amazing about Coruscant is the variety of types of urban spaces: large areas for monuments to Jedis, dense and tall city spaces where the nightlife crowd hangs out, tall hanging park spaces interwoven into the building fabric ... Coruscant has it all. Most important, the universal municipal authority uses Coruscant as its base, which means that industries from around the galaxy consistently feed into the planet’s economy via diplomatic visits. Further, the need for safe spaces for the delegates requires the universe’s most intelligent collective police force (the Jedis) to keep the peace on Coruscant. As the Jedis themselves are from the far corners of the universe, they too feed into the local economy.

Cons: The downside to a planet that is completely city is that all raw goods and materials have to be imported. The high amount of traffic this type of trade requires makes the skies of and outer space near Coruscant dense with terrible traffic that can be thrown into chaos when some Jedis decide to turn a floating highway into their battleground. Further, the interwoven tapestry of Coruscant would be so difficult to change over time that it would become limiting to the space people living there. Because there is little if any available open, unused space on Coruscant, the only choice for developers would be to build higher and higher. That said, a city with as much political organization as Coruscant would surely be a difficult place to get a development approved ... especially when there would be so much impact on the surrounding area. Granted, since the entire planet is covered in skyscrapers, there is surely a system to streamline construction. Overall, though, staring at an all-city planet makes you wonder how few peopley own property who haven’t had it handed down dynastically over thousands of years.

Where would the homeless live? On the streets. There are plenty of little nooks and crannies to hide in, and there are only so many urban spaces on a dense planet city you can see before they all start looking the same.

Star War’s Tatooine Rural Future

Pros: Tatooine, being a remote trading post, is an especially rural and agrarian community where groups on the planet primarily trade with each other. Since it’s a desert environment, water from moisture farming is the best-selling local commodity. But because of organized crime there are several thriving local trade posts and a high demand for expensive goods. This being the case, Tatooine is generally a financially stable environment with a generally stable climate. Further, although most technology on the planet is outdated, equipment and machinery can be purchased cheaply, and it’s easily customizable and generally open-source. This technological advantage allows those who do not have much to begin with to exist on a generally even playing field with those who do. Lastly, Tatooine has many public events that allow the residents to retain a strong sense of community though they may be at a far corner of the galaxy.

Cons: Tatooine has very few natural resources aside from sand and water. The indigenous “sand people” are violent and roam around in packs with weapons with few in authority to stop them, which makes it dangerous to be outside at night (or during the day in some cases). On top of that, there is really no centralized authority on the planet aside from an area that is deliberately sectioned off for an international mafia family. Similar to the way “thug life” is structured, the Hutts give back to the community it exploits, and runs the planet like a fiefdom. Because of this, and as there is little possibility for economic growth deriving from the planet’s natural resources, it is a very difficult and harsh environment to live day-to-day.

Where would the homeless live? In Mos Eisley, since it’s the closest thing to a place where they might get services. Or else they work for or leech off of Jabba the Hutt.

Futurama’s Distance-Free Future

Pros: The future in Futurama is decidedly closest in style and structure to the present (despite being in the year 3000), and it has a few notable advantages. First, intergalactic trade is persistent, and centralized around Earth. Planets and galaxies pool often their collective resources, and engage in intergalactic business often enough that space travel is something everyone can access. The reason I called this a “distance-free” future is that space is no longer a barrier in the Futurama future. Ships can take you from planet to planet, solar system to solar system, or galaxy to galaxy with little to no effort and minimal time spent waiting. Since this is the case, physically strenuous tasks like walking, skateboarding, and biking aren’t transportation necessities. Since everything hovers above the ground, there’s also no need for street or façade maintenance, as there’s no wear and tear to the physical landscape. Lastly, because there are no limits to what parts of the universe one can travel to, many on many planets are well-traveled, multicultural, multiracial, and built into very well-integrated living areas.

Cons: There is a wide range of access to technology, where some have full access and others have none. Martians, for example, have traditionally had very limited access, while those from the Robot Planet would depend very much on theirs. But this is only a small facet of the larger problem with Futurama’s future spaces. As denizens tend to congregate in urban spaces and can travel directly to their destinations, the idea of maintaining rural spaces between cities seems less and less appealing. In fact, we often see images of the deserted wasteland between New New York and Los Angeles. The moon has a theme park on it, and nothing else. Half of Mars is owned by one family, and completely deserted. No one lives there because there is just nothing there. No longer is anyone restricted to live in a place they do not prefer, and because there are thousands of rural and urban areas throughout the universe, there is no need to build a community you want any longer. Instead, you can pack up and head to surroundings more to your liking. This does not help people develop strong ties to their communities.

Where would the homeless live? Everywhere. They’re all over the place. Dr. Zoidberg paid for their hot dogs once in an upscale neighborhood on Earth. They also travel on trains with jetpacks through space, so they could be anywhere. Otherwise, they live on that homeless planet Bender visited in that one episode. Remember that?

Comments

Comments closed.