A Reflection on cities that move,
taking the Instant City
series of projects by Achigram
as Case studies
Researcher/Documentor
September - 2025
Introduction:
In the 60s, there was a group of architects (Archigram) who imagined a city that could walk and roam freely and even connect with other cities just like them.
It would host people, thousands of people, and they would know no boundaries.
But why?
In the aftermath of the war, Britain was struggling with a massive housing shortage and the government was trying to solve this by looking at alternative building methods, especially from other industries. But it didn't just need a rebuilding or a housing solution. It demanded bold ideas to inspire the collective spirit.
And all of this set the stage for Archigram and their work was really out there. They seamlessly merge technology with everyday life and created spaces that were dynamic, responsive, and very reflective of the changing social landscape. The heart of their vision was this idea of mobility and flexibility.
Imagine a mobile robotics city roaming freely, trading resources and connecting with other cities that also roam around. This is Walking City. It's a world where people from all over abandon their boundaries and embrace a nomadic lifestyle.
But how would it actually function? To understand this, let's break this down into three key components:
- The moving system
- The structural framework
- The living pods.
The most iconic part of these graphics are arguably the robotic legs, which were inspired by insects
and machinery. And it's these legs are provide the unparalleled mobility across different types of terrains. Even water. but it also has some major challenges, which is why it's mostly remained in the world of fiction.
Some alternative systems include massive Crawler transporters, which were historically used for moving space shuttles and dual layer railway systems like China's prototype for the transit elevated bus, Each system has different implications on how the city is going to function, especially in relation to static existing cities. While these are slightly more realistic, they would require substantial changes to the existing infrastructure and it will be pretty complicated for cities with a more organic layout.
The Line
But if your city shaped like The Line, it could actually work and it could add a whole other dimension to the city. Right now this project slices through three different landscapes. So maybe the people living in the moving section, they could enjoy different environments and different lifestyle. And also they can enjoy different amenities that are specific to each section. Maybe the economy is based on transporting resources from one end to another. Or maybe it's an entertainment economy where they bring concert halls or stadiums.
I don't know how this rigid line is the most conducive structure for the serendipitous meeting of ideas, But by adding this moving section, for specific weeks or months of the year, you integrate a whole new community with their own shops and restaurants and offices and museums, it could be a really great way to organically connect different groups of people, and I think it can actually be really exciting. Like if I lived here, I would wait for this moving city to come all year.
Plug-in City
Walking City concept doesn't really explore this in depth, but we could look at another proposal Plug-in City. it's a massive framework for prefabricated modules. They can plug in an out depending on people's needs while containing all of the essentials of a city. According to Archigram, it's a self destroy self building system. It's easily pushed into the shape people want rather than pushing people into its shape.
This movement has a lot of similarities to another movement that developed around the same time, but separately in a different part of the world:
Metabolism
Metabolism, which embraced similar principles of adaptability and flexibility. But when you look at the Nakagin capsule tower, which is one of the few built examples of the movement, it had a huge amount of problems like poor ventilation and crappy insulation and very high maintenance costs.
It was demolished in 2022 because it was in such a bad condition. Yet replacing the modules were complete out of the question for the residents because it was way too expensive and way too time consuming.
Capsule Homes
Archigram did have a slightly more nuanced approach, in their Capsule Homes project, which were the pods they could plug into the framework of Plug-in City. They broke up the capsules into smaller interchangeable components, meaning you could replace and customize parts of the units. Their living pods project could even function independently and it was equipped with self-leveling legs for different types of terrains, even water.
So it doesn't adapt only to individual needs, but it can also adapt to different environments. The integrated appalling mechanism directly into the core of the structural framework, meaning if you can transport your part to the base of the building, then plugging in is relatively simple and it doesn't require that much additional cost or coordination.
Hmm...
What I found really interesting is how these proposals in a way reflect the differences in culture and thinking between these two countries. I mean, yes, they were super similar in their fundamental philosophy of flexibility and adaptability. But Plug-in City emphasizes individual freedom by allowing people to customize the capsules while Metabolism presents a more collective solution by creating efficient modules that were identical.
I'm not saying that either was better, but by designing them to be adaptive and self-contained, and maybe it could have offered a solution to some of the problems in the Nakagin Tower.
And I think this additional flexibility actually elevates the concept beyond just architecture to a cultural concept that imagines...
nomadic lifestyles and even nomadic communities.
But does anything like this even exist?
Ger is a portable dwelling that's been used by Mongolian nomads for thousands of years.The structure is made of lightweight, collapsible wooden frames that can be transported on pack animals or vehicles, it typically takes about 5 to 15 people between 30 minutes to 3 hours to set it up or take it apart.
In Ulaanbaatar, these tents are not just memories of a nomadic past. They've evolved to become a part of the urban landscape as fixed communities.
Nomadic cultures are actually becoming extremely rare because cities can provide stability and access to amenities that temporary settlements just can't. In fact, nomadic cultures today are kind of ostracized from the rest of society because we have evolved to value things like permanence and stability and having jobs.
Yet the concept of Instant Cities suggests a reversal from static back to nomadic.
why would someone choose to live in a walking city?
There are lots of cities all over the world that are sinking.
So one of the scenarios could be that Walking Cities house people who's been displaced from natural disasters kind of like an ark, you'd have to divide the population and distribute them into smaller walking cities and the city would roam around and search for their new permanent home.
But how would we distribute the population?
It could be by geographic location or by community affiliations or by special needs.So you can be housed in cities with the right infrastructure or care facilities. Or it could be by skill set. I mean, every group needs an architect, right? But it's probably more realistic to assume that we're going to be divided by social or economic class.
If you want better infrastructure and amenities, it costs money and in a survival type of situation, I think it's fair to assume that people with more money will have access to better resources. You could have working class people living in wealthier cities, but probably as the labor force, because even in communities like Burning Man, where the principles include self-reliance and commodification, the influence of money is impossible to ignore. And when you combine the social instinct with a linear moving city, we get Snowpiercer.
Walking Cities might present a solution to global emergencies in an ideal world.
But in the real world, we have to grapple with human nature and how the world operates right now, but I think a city without a defined purpose and its own economy, it just becomes a microcosm and even an amplification of our existing realities (ships, cruise, aircraft carrier,...).
The VLS - a Very Large Structure.
It's a conceptual project, but it uses technology that's available today so it could possibly be buildable. According to the architect - Manuel Domínguez, it works in symbiosis with the environment that it traverses, being able to physically manage it while traveling in it. Cargo is uploaded and downloaded. Buildings are constructed and tested and different territorial policies and infrastructure are implemented and managed with the aim of achieving synergetic updates and paradigmatic changes needed for the 21st century.
Essentially, it's a moving megastructure that moves across large swaths of land, acting as a territorial manager. And although that's the main purpose, it can also hold up to 5000 people. And I think this is a fascinating idea. A moving city designed for a nomadic community. But as it moves around and manages the landscape or restores biodiversity or distributes resources across different landscapes, It would have its own economy, which would be based on environmental management or whatever this moving city is designed to do. People could also have jobs maintaining or operating the structure, but what kind of people would actually live here?
Back to the nomad thingy...
I've always wanted to be a digital nomad, but I don't think it's just me. Ever since the digital revolution, this whole nomadic lifestyle has been so romanticized because there's adventure and there's freedom and you can experience different cultures and meet new people.
But the reality of being a digital nomad seems a little bit different. And the most common struggle seems to be the lack of community. Community is and has always been one of the key ingredients of a happy life.
But a community also can't exist without people who want to stay there for the long run, cause, It's only when the people feel the sense of attachment to a place that it makes them want to give back and want to contribute to the community. But if they don't feel this, they probably won't. It's a pretty simple idea. It's a symbiotic relationship.
So what if, instead of being an individual nomad and moving alone, What if we become a collective nomad where you can enjoy the benefits of a nomadic lifestyle without sacrificing the belonging of a community?
He built his own mobile house and lived as a nomad for three and a half years. But a couple of years ago, he started a new project called Mobile Village, and it's become a community of 120 people. They rented a lot and they built some essential amenities, and they started living together and building together and eating together. And they even hunt together. And it's nothing like the scale of Walking City.
In fact, they are pretty static.
But what I learned is that at the heart of nomadism, it's actually not in the act of moving.
When you go to the essence of it, it's really in in the shared quest for meaning and happiness that questions society's predefined framework for a happy life. It's a hands on investigation for what it truly means to live a good life.
And as we move into this new era of A.I. and this age of abundance, maybe it is time for us to start fantasizing again and reimagining what it means to be a community and a city?
I'm assuming living in an Instant City would require a pretty high level of coordination.
So it would be a pretty tight knit community.
There's probably a big focus on education since it's kind of a living experimental laboratory and culturally it would be super dynamic because we'd pick up traditions and customs from all over the world.
I mean, it's a pretty cool fantasy, but maybe it doesn't have to be just a fantasy.