The apps, books, movies, music, TV shows, and art are inspiring our some of the most creative people in business this month
The struggles and triumphs of prominent women in leadership positions
The major tech ecosystems that battle for our attention and dollars
Whats next for hardware, software, and services
Our annual guide to the businesses that matter the most
Leaders who are shaping the future of business in creative ways
New workplaces, new food sources, new medicine–even an entirely new economic system
Celebrating the best ideas in business
An award-winning team of journalists, designers, and videographers who tell brand stories through Fast Companys distinctive lens
How Buckminster Fuller Made A Dome Over Manhattan Sound Sensible
A never-before-published interview with the inventor details how he rationalized radical urban ideas.
Cover Photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Now that radical architecture is thestatus quo in Silicon Valleyand elsewhere, its easy to forget that historic countercultural visionaries once had to wade through plenty of eye rolls as they promoted their ideas.
In 1971, documentarian andVillage VoicejournalistHoward Smithinterviewed inventor and urban futurist Buckminster Fuller about his ideas about urbanism, including wilder concepts like his proposal for a dome covering part of Manhattan. The interview was recently published inThe Smith Tapes(Princeton Architectural Press, 2015), and it gives us a fascinating glimpse into how Fuller pitched his ideas.
It would have been easy to dismiss Fuller as a quack at the time, considering he was expelled from Harvard, his magnum opus was titledOperating Manual for Spaceship Earth, and his rambling writing style was prone to hyperbole and filled with invented terminology, such assynergeticsand theDymaxion World. One of Fullers wildest ideasDome Over Manhattan, c. 1960could have been taken as an April Fools joke. He essentially proposed covering part of New York City to regulate climactic conditions and curtail energy use.
Yet, in Smiths interview, Fullers argument for enclosing Manhattan in a glass bubble reads as completely rational, sound, and even-keeled. Heres why.
The challenge Fuller tackled throughout his career was doing more with fewer resources. He called it a fundamental condition around our planet, and bolstered his solutionwhich was admittedly far-fetchedwith a relatable and logical cost-benefit analysis to support his case:
I invented a way of enclosing space with whats called a geodesic dome, which is very much stronger and more efficient than other ways of enclosing space . . . I began to study how big a dome I could build and see whether if you made them bigger, the economics of it began to be unfavorable, and I found in fact that the bigger they got, the more favorable they were. So I got up to finally calculating one two miles in diameter, how much material itd be and what the size of the members would be, how long itd take to get in place. Having calculated, I found it very economical and would be very advantageous. Id like to see what a two-mile-diameter dome would look like in relation to something that were very familiar with. I found that Manhattan at Forty-Second Street is exactly two miles [wide], so I said, Im gonna then get an airbrush and an aerial photograph and then I can superimpose this two-mile dome to see just what it would look like, and I did that.
Fuller also used a universally relatable visual metaphor to explain those complex structural principles:
[A] sheet of paper, it doesnt have any real structural strength, but you put it in a simple curvature and make a cylinder out of it, it makes a column and has some strength. Put in a compound curvature, you get the greatest strength. Thats why very thin eggshells have such great strength. So you want to get the greatest strength, you go in the spherical, and if you want to get the most volume, you go in the spherical. Thats why a geodesic dome, in the first place, is very economical and very strong.
Then he quantified the benefits and related them to resource scarcityan issue that was beginning to emerge in earnest during these years:
I found that the surface of buildings [that] stood below our dome were 80 times the surface of my dome, which would mean that if you just had the covering over there, youd reduce heat losses in New York 80 times. We would reduce down to about 20% of the amount of energy input youd have to put in today . . . I began to figure out about a dome over Manhattan, finding Id reduced the amount of surface [through] which it could gain or lose heat 80 times. Then I found once the covering was up there and as big as that, the rate of its loss of heat out from the dome to the outer world would be very, very greatly reduced. Therefore, the energies that you would have in your buildings, just for electric lights in New York City, would give you enough heat to take care of absolutely everything, just bouncing lights through the window. You would conserve the whole thing.
While the calculations about energy use in buildings could seem esoteric to the average person, trudging through snow-clogged streets was (and is) annoying for most city dwellers. And for the city, the long-term benefit of saving money on street maintenance is a plus. On the flip side, Fuller doesnt talk about how much maintaining the dome would cost the city:
I found that just the cost of the snow removals under that area thats being covered for 10 years would pay for the dome. Im saying thats pretty interesting.
Then Fuller switched gears, talking about how the dome would help keep the pride of many Americans in the 1970stheir lawns and carsin shipshape:
Time and again in New York City, we have great water shortages, and everybody is asked to stop washing automobiles and sprinkling the grass and all that, and even goes on to turn off your water half the day. During those great water shortages, we have great thunderstorms in New York, and all the rain just goes down the storm sewers. Beautiful rain, but it just goes down the storm sewers and no one can consume it. Once you put a big dome like that up, you have a beautiful guttering around and this all gets channeled off to a holding, to a great reservoir.
Fuller also readily acknowledged that his was an idea whose time had not yet come, which softened the technical unfeasibility of the project:
Anyway, yes, itd be very worthwhile to have cities under geodesic domes, but New York City, if you think about all the different owners of different lands, the controversy about this in my air rights, I dont want a thing over my thing here, I just dont think its going to happen with New York City. But it can happen where you start out in places where energy is a really fantastic problem.
Taken in the context of todays water-starved California, the dome makes perfect sense, and Fullers ideas read as less pie-in-the-sky and more pragmatic. This kind of formal radicalism just needed a few decades to settle in.
Who knows which concepts Silicon Valley will mine for its next wave of corporate office buildings.Perhaps Ant Farms inflatables? They are the ultimate reflection of transparency, after all.
Diana Budds is a New Yorkbased writer covering design and the built environment.
Receive special Fast Company offers.
Unilever transformed its old office park into an ultra-sustainable HQ
Informal workers make up half the workforce of developing cities
This robot could help pollinate crops if we kill all the bees
Study: 82% of MoviePass users go to movies theyd otherwise skip
This startup made a Meghan-inspired wedding gown in size 24
The NBA and NFL offer opposite versions of American brand image
Ideo redesigns the dreaded annual review
Americas design community comes into its own
Meghan Markles coat of arms is the biggest design crime of 2018
States are trying new tech to detect cyber-meddling in elections
AI can use social media to predict when protests will go violent
All 2019 iPhones will reportedly have OLED displays