Post by curmudgeon on Mar 23, 2006 10:59:10 GMT -5
The standard answer when somebody questions the direction that Burning Man is moving in is to say something like "Today's Burning Man is not yesterday's, so just deal with it, pops". Let's try moving past that kind of immature knee-jerk response toward something requiring a little more thought.
Checking this page, we find a population of 30,000 for BRC and an area of 4 square miles. These figures, together, yield a population density of 7,500 people per square mile, roughly comparable to that of some major cities, in what is a very low rise tent city, producing what is, in fact, a much higher effective population density, when one looks at floor space instead of the amount of dirt covered. The population in 2005 and 2006 was considerably higher, without a corresponding rise in area, apparently.
This is not just a matter of burners getting cozy. It strikes at the very rationale for holding Burning Man in the first place. If one has less space to play around with per capita in BRC than one does at home, then the creative possibilities of limitless space are in no way presenting themselves to one, by one being there. Such congestion moves Black Rock City toward an end state of becoming the worst of all possible worlds, presenting the visitor with the hardship of a remote location and the cramped quarters of an inner city location, simultaneously. If this has not seemed to present any problems recently, then let us ponder what would happen if the majority of participants decided that they did wish to fully participate, and suddenly had need for space. There is not enough to go around, as absurd as that might seem.
What to do? Suggestion: Implement what I believe was an earlier proposal by Actiongrl on the old ePlaya. If I'm remembering this correctly, she mentioned the dream of a BRC with over a million people, and pointed to an obvious impracticality in this: there are not the roads needed in the area, to carry that much departing traffic in a reasonable amount of time. Even at 25,000, clearing out of BRC was taking a while.
Solution: Accept that if one wanted huge crowds to attend something like Burning Man, one would need to have more than one event. Odds are, long before one reached the 1 million mark,. the state would insist on this, anyway. Consider the campus meningitis outbreaks of the 1990s. Packing that many people into a small area poses health risks that rise with the size of the population, which will only be worsened by the relatively primitive state of health care in BRC. An EMT is not a physician.
There are already groups of artists that seem to feel squeezed out of BRC by the growth of the raver culture there. Set up a parallel event, same date, far removed location, far enough that attending both events would be impractical. Invite the disgruntled artists to the newer, smaller event. Those looking for "the party, man" aren't going to pass up the big event to check out some art at the smaller one.
Small events don't require as much infraastructure, aallowing for lower ticket prices, which opens the door to more artist participation, given the low incomes typical in the arts community. Smaller population bases also tend to be associated with reduced theft and vandalism problems, among other reasons, because the would-be perpetrators have a greater probability of being caught and probably know it.
Just a suggestion. Let's see if anybody decides that this is flamebait and loses his or her mind, as so many do.
Checking this page, we find a population of 30,000 for BRC and an area of 4 square miles. These figures, together, yield a population density of 7,500 people per square mile, roughly comparable to that of some major cities, in what is a very low rise tent city, producing what is, in fact, a much higher effective population density, when one looks at floor space instead of the amount of dirt covered. The population in 2005 and 2006 was considerably higher, without a corresponding rise in area, apparently.
This is not just a matter of burners getting cozy. It strikes at the very rationale for holding Burning Man in the first place. If one has less space to play around with per capita in BRC than one does at home, then the creative possibilities of limitless space are in no way presenting themselves to one, by one being there. Such congestion moves Black Rock City toward an end state of becoming the worst of all possible worlds, presenting the visitor with the hardship of a remote location and the cramped quarters of an inner city location, simultaneously. If this has not seemed to present any problems recently, then let us ponder what would happen if the majority of participants decided that they did wish to fully participate, and suddenly had need for space. There is not enough to go around, as absurd as that might seem.
What to do? Suggestion: Implement what I believe was an earlier proposal by Actiongrl on the old ePlaya. If I'm remembering this correctly, she mentioned the dream of a BRC with over a million people, and pointed to an obvious impracticality in this: there are not the roads needed in the area, to carry that much departing traffic in a reasonable amount of time. Even at 25,000, clearing out of BRC was taking a while.
Solution: Accept that if one wanted huge crowds to attend something like Burning Man, one would need to have more than one event. Odds are, long before one reached the 1 million mark,. the state would insist on this, anyway. Consider the campus meningitis outbreaks of the 1990s. Packing that many people into a small area poses health risks that rise with the size of the population, which will only be worsened by the relatively primitive state of health care in BRC. An EMT is not a physician.
There are already groups of artists that seem to feel squeezed out of BRC by the growth of the raver culture there. Set up a parallel event, same date, far removed location, far enough that attending both events would be impractical. Invite the disgruntled artists to the newer, smaller event. Those looking for "the party, man" aren't going to pass up the big event to check out some art at the smaller one.
Small events don't require as much infraastructure, aallowing for lower ticket prices, which opens the door to more artist participation, given the low incomes typical in the arts community. Smaller population bases also tend to be associated with reduced theft and vandalism problems, among other reasons, because the would-be perpetrators have a greater probability of being caught and probably know it.
Just a suggestion. Let's see if anybody decides that this is flamebait and loses his or her mind, as so many do.