Arcologies: Theory and some Calculations.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sn00py
While what VetLegion says is true, it is really up to the architect to design a flexible arcology.

And KH: Your "outside" is not exactly healthy, peaceful and safe, considering all the cars, roads, rubbish and crap.

It is better to do away with countless roads and alley ways, so that you can enjoy fresh air and open space, which is surrounding the entire arcology. And of course, transportation inside the arcology would be comfortable, convenient and quick. So even if you were an unfortunate loser who got the apartment at the very center of the arcology, you would still be able to reach outside in reasonable time, especially compared to travelling from the CDB of New York to the closest park/farmland away from the city.

Have you ever been to some popular national park or forest area? From what I've heard places like Yellowstone aren't always the cleanest or purest of natural settings. Tourists bring with them garbage and other stuff that polutes the area.

Now imagine 10 million people living cramped into a monumental filing cabinet. You better believe they are gonna try and get outside whenever they can. But they don't have cars, so they aren't going to get far. The natural beauty around that 10 million person cancer is gonna be destroyed pretty darn quick. Even if they don't bring lots of trash and picnics are outlawed, just 20 million feet walking around in this pristine natural landscape is gonna do damage.

Also, can you imagine how big a target these monstrosities would be? A war or terrorist act can take out an obscene amount of people with fairly limited effort. One small nuke, properly placed, could take out that whole 10 million person death trap. Emergency stairwells? Fire escapes? Ha, not a chance.

Give me the suburbs any day of the week.

[VetLegion]

10 million figure is a bit much. With current technology, an Arcology housing 100 000 people would be a real feat of engineering.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sn00py
And KH: Your "outside" is not exactly healthy, peaceful and safe, considering all the cars, roads, rubbish and crap.

It's a lot better than being imprisoned indoors.

[:) Smiley]

Paris is one of the densest cities in the world, and does it with few highrises, instead, blocks of 7 to 8 story buildings.

In general, above this height, buildings have to be spaced out further apart if light is to reach the ground, and there is only a marginal increase in density. For example, Hong Kong has giant apartment complexes, but these often border forested areas, and few parts of the city are more than a kilometer deep and wide.

Those looking to solve land shortages should lookat more than just housing, which is relatively easy to highrise. It's stuff such as warehouses, highways, shopping centers, parking, golf courses, airports, etc. that eat up lots of land.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by OzzyKP



Have you ever been to some popular national park or forest area? From what I've heard places like Yellowstone aren't always the cleanest or purest of natural settings. Tourists bring with them garbage and other stuff that polutes the area.

People go to these places to get away from the city and the fact there is no where else to go because sprawling suburbs are taking up the natural habitat.

Now imagine 10 million people living cramped into a monumental filing cabinet. You better believe they are gonna try and get outside whenever they can. But they don't have cars, so they aren't going to get far. The natural beauty around that 10 million person cancer is gonna be destroyed pretty darn quick. Even if they don't bring lots of trash and picnics are outlawed, just 20 million feet walking around in this pristine natural landscape is gonna do damage.

Today, yes, we do not have the technology or the best system for reducing waste, which is why I said more advanced tech would be required.
I have no doubt in my mind, with simple rules/regulations and a slight change of culture coupled with efficient, clean and convientient inventions and surpreme architectual design, I'm sure the entire arcology would be a lot more clean than your bedroom.

Also, can you imagine how big a target these monstrosities would be? A war or terrorist act can take out an obscene amount of people with fairly limited effort. One small nuke, properly placed, could take out that whole 10 million person death trap. Emergency stairwells? Fire escapes? Ha, not a chance.

I have thought about this too, but if a nuke hits any city, its screwed, I don't care how distant you are from the CDB, the bigger the city, the bigger the bomb you are going to want to use. The trick is not to escape the explosion, but to destory the weapon before it explodes - again, requires more advanced tech.

But think how easy it is for anyone of us to bring a bomb into the center of a major city, or any city, and not be detected. Now think how damn hard it is to get a bomb inside an arcology, considering all the monitoring, sensoring, and entrances you would have to pass through.

Give me the suburbs any day of the week.

I like suburbs too, but for major sized cities, (including its suburbs), they need need to start sprawling upwards instead of outwards. So if you like surburbs, live in a smaller city.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




It's a lot better than being imprisoned indoors.

What is impisoning to you?

If you ask me, New York is one massive prison, with a "time-out" park in the center of it for all its prisoners to enjoy.

An arcology would not be a prison, infact, its a solution for freedom for big cities.

[Jon Miller]

why build up? why not build down

and it gets you closer to *renewable* energy also

and it is much more environmental...











Mole People, Mole People, Mole People, Mole People..


JM

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sn00py
While what VetLegion says is true, it is really up to the architect to design a flexible arcology.

And thank you Sn00py for making MY point

The notion they're having is that an acrology absolutely must be built in an all-or-nothing shot: No room given for future expansion. This simply isn't the case just like buildings today can't be changed once built. There isn't a rule saying arcologies have to be designed into a corner. That is simply a result of failure of imagination. We have much more modern building materials now than Le Corbusier or even Soleri had in their day. We aren't limited to wood, concrete, glass and steel. We have plastics and composites now that open up construction options we just don't have with older materials. For example, I can well imagine a superstructure made with standard steel and concrete for its framing, but utilizing plastic and composite modular subunits to reduce the overall weight of the building, strain on the superstructure, and vastly increase the design configurations of the building. I figured out this idea years ago, only later finding out that Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa had built something similar (much smaller scale) using concrete subunits in the 60's. Kinda like hanging ornaments on a Christmas tree, there isn't a set pattern you have to follow and you can switch out different elements.

[Vince278]

Arcology = Really huge terrorist target.

[DRoseDARs]

Breathing US Citizenry = Really huge terrorist target.

*sigh*

Vince, you're using one of the same cop-out arguements against rebuilding ANYTHING on ground zero of the WTC. While technically correct that bigger targets make juicier targets, the fact that we draw breath is reason enough for the terrorists to wish us dead. With arcologies, if the concern is that great, the building can incorporate much greater security defenses like AA guns, no-fly zones, remote (meaning distant) parking, and screening for radiological, chemical, and biological agents at all entry points, something exceedingly difficult to do with a city.

[Guynemer]

I'd sooner cut off my own balls than live in something like this.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I'd sooner cut off my own balls than live in something like this.

I agree. I'd sooner cut off your balls than live in something like that.

[Guynemer]

That's awful big of you.

[KrazyHorse]

I've always been willing to sacrifice other men's testes for my own comfort.

Don't thank me; it's just who I am.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Breathing US Citizenry = Really huge terrorist target.

The growing number of people who are offended at my breathing never cease to amaze me.

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Vince, you're using one of the same cop-out arguements against rebuilding ANYTHING on ground zero of the WTC.

How about an Arcology?