Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arcologies: Theory and some Calculations.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arcologies: Theory and some Calculations.

    I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted in another forum, I want to see what you guys take on this.

    ===========================

    Anonymous wrote:
    cities of the future will be much denser than now, and also the agricultural areas!


    Me:
    I disagree. Like I said above, gigantic vertical and fat buildings holding up to 10 million people with comfort (little to no density) is great for human living.

    Lets say America in the future has 1 billion people. To cater for the people you would only need 100 Arcologies.

    Each arcology takes approx 5km in diamter.

    US's land area is: 9,631,418 km²

    5KM x 100 = 500KM

    Oh no, US only has 9,630,918 km² of land left.

    How much distance can we have between each arcology? Well each Arcology can be approx 9,300 km apart.

    Live like a tree not like a weed.


    hmm. I was just doing some calculations.

    If each "apartment" in the arcology had 12m² of space, and the arcology was 10 km², then you would have approx 416 apartments for every floor.

    This would mean, the arcology would need approx 24,000 floors to cater for 1 person per apartment.

    If each apartment had a 2.5 meter high roof, then the arcology would be 60,000 meters high (60km). Keep in mind, that Mount Everest is 8,850 meters high

    Ideally, the Arcology shouldn't really be higher than 5,000 meters.


    ===========
    Another calculation

    If the Arcology were 100km², and each apartment 12m², then you would have 4,166 apartments per floor.

    Now you have only 2,400 floors to cater 10 million people. (remember, this is 1 person per apartment, realistically, it would not be like this, but for the sake of simple calculating, and just to be safe, I will stick to 1 person per apartment).

    2400 x 2.5 = 6,000 meters high. Much better, but not quite good enough. And don't forget, for every 10th floor, you would need a "town" floor, this is a floor that has commercial/educational/recreational buildings catering for the people 5 floors above it and 5 floors below it: about 41,660 people. (Which is actually not that bad.) Of course, these "town floors" would need a much higher roof.

    There would be approx 963km of space between each arcology.

    Now, this is actually quite dense, but consider 2 things: 1 Billion people, and each apartment with only 1 person with considerably large area (12m²) for each apartment.
    ===========================
    be free

  • #2
    If each "apartment" in the arcology had 12m² of space, and the arcology was 10 km², then you would have approx 416 apartments for every floor.


    Ummmm....no
    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
    Stadtluft Macht Frei
    Killing it is the new killing it
    Ultima Ratio Regum

    Comment


    • #3
      While reading this, I was just imagining what it would be like if this were real.

      I guess you could describe them as "Extremely High and Complicated Mountains"


      Ahh.. KH the guy who disputes everything but offers no answers or reasons.

      But you are right, I forgot to square it.
      be free

      Comment


      • #4
        a) 12 m^2 is tiny. That's the size of my bedroom. Let's assume you mean (12m)^2 = 144m^2

        b) This makes your second measurement ambiguus. In the worst-case scenario you mean 10km^2, not (10km)^2. 10km^2 = 10 000 000m^2 = 69444.444 apartments
        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
        Stadtluft Macht Frei
        Killing it is the new killing it
        Ultima Ratio Regum

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sn00py
          Ahh.. KH the guy who disputes everything but offers no answers or reasons.
          And who is always right when he does so. When there is any question as to the validity of my criticism I provide a full explanation.
          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
          Stadtluft Macht Frei
          Killing it is the new killing it
          Ultima Ratio Regum

          Comment


          • #6
            Me:
            I disagree. Like I said above, gigantic vertical and fat buildings holding up to 10 million people with comfort (little to no density) is great for human living.


            Yeah, great. I want to live in a place where I'm separated by more than a kilometer of steel from open air
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment


            • #7
              Seems you're the mathematician, and I'm the artist.

              So of course you are going to be thinking that since you have no imagination.
              be free

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah, great. I want to live in a place where I'm separated by more than a kilometer of steel from open air




                Personallly, I Think that the modern non-North-american city offers the best combination of living in terms of density.
                urgh.NSFW

                Comment


                • #9
                  the air might be a kilometre away but when you get there youve got another 9300000km 2 of land that doesnt have to have cities like birmingham smothering it
                  Safer worlds through superior firepower

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Exactly Snotty.

                    What KH failed to imagine is that Arcologies, (built with far more advanced tech than what we have now), would bring fresh air from outside into every room of the arcology. Also do not forget the indoor parks.

                    All in all, it's better for everyone and every creature. There's no point in killing off the natural habitat just so that you can have a backyard and a frontyard right at your doorstep.

                    If we want to advance, we have to populate, and if we have to populate, we have to make some large sacrifices. Besides, over-population will be the driving force of space-colonisation.

                    It's all written down in Evolutions books.
                    be free

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Once we have tech advanced enough to build arcologies, we will neither need nor want them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sn00py
                        Exactly Snotty.

                        What KH failed to imagine is that Arcologies, (built with far more advanced tech than what we have now), would bring fresh air from outside into every room of the arcology. Also do not forget the indoor parks.

                        All in all, it's better for everyone and every creature. There's no point in killing off the natural habitat just so that you can have a backyard and a frontyard right at your doorstep.

                        If we want to advance, we have to populate, and if we have to populate, we have to make some large sacrifices. Besides, over-population will be the driving force of space-colonisation.

                        It's all written down in Evolutions books.
                        You're right - who wants natural light?

                        BTW, I don't see anything in your calculations allowing for these indoor parks, or any other amenties outside of living space (stores, theatres, schools, etc). Not to mention infrastructure requirements (mechanical, pipes, hallways, some measure of transportation, etc).

                        Good thing you've got that fabulous imagination going, though.
                        "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
                        "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
                        "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think the planet has a critical capacity and that populations will never be high enough to economically warrent such structures. I have no math to back this up, just thought I'd post something in this thread.
                          Monkey!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's simply ridiculous. purely from the perspective of space, we don't need arcologies. We can have 25 billion people living on the planet, and we'll still have abundant natural space with cities built of mid-rise buildings and a heart of skyscrapers.

                            The only real issue is energy demand and raw material demand, and of course if we'll solve the former, the latter will be a piece of cake.
                            urgh.NSFW

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              energy is the key problem...

                              arcologies perhaps on the moon, but not on the Earth, Earth is too nice to live 1 mile from direct access to open space.
                              Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                              GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X