 The First Arcology, Around the corner? |
  |
 May 4 2007, 03:00 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 17-March 07 Member No.: 11,248  |
|
 |
 
|
|
May 4 2007, 03:08 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 28-July 05 Member No.: 7,526 |
things like this just look like big bomb targets to me now :(
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 03:23 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 17-March 07 Member No.: 11,248 |
Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I read about it... :(
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 03:34 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Paranoia isn't exactly healthy, you know?`;)
As for the design, it looks pretty rugged... |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 04:05 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: 21-December 06 Member No.: 10,416 |
Looks like something by Paolo Soleri. Hard to find pictures of his designs though. He had designs for buildings that could house a few million people and were on the scale of this thing.
There are problems with buildings of this size beyond terrorism. First is that mounts of material needed for it. It was estimated that a building smaller than this one would consume the entire world production of steel for several years. Internal traffic flow, especially in an emergency would also be a problem. One unexpected problem was revealed in a recent big building in either Japan or Taiwan. The building was so heavy that it caused ground deformation which aggrevated a nearby faultline causing an increase in activity. A thing this size, orders of magnitude than the building I just mentioned, would certainly cause trouble. Now, Paolo Soleri did have a number of smaller designs that would house several thousand people. A series of those in small area, each semi-independant in terms of water supply and sewage as well as basics like daily shopping needs, wouldn't be a bad idea. Populations could still be concentrated but be much harder to take out in one attack or disaster. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 04:24 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
Arcosanti
I had the pleasure (if not joy) of hearing Soleri speak last year. The man is a f*cking genius when it comes to megamonumentalism. So far the only problem that really stops an arch. from happening is the willingness of people to commit to it. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 05:46 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, i think discovery channel had a program about that one, or something similar to it...
hmm, the problem with it consuming all that steel is that steel is a finite quantity. already most steel used is recycled, and if this baby eats up as much steel as is estimated, there will be less to go around overall... however, one could potentially replace steel with carbon nanotube based materials i guess. if there is anything there is much of its carbon :P still, the economy and time needed to finish something like that, even if one is able to move people in after only a couple of floors is done and keep building above them, will be insane... |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 06:10 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Yep, the real trouble will be making the economics work. I have complete faith that with the right resources and ingenuity, people can build pretty much anything. But you still have the all-important, million dollar question to answer: when does a project like this really become worth doing? For a mega-arcology to ever truly be feasible, it'll have to be more than just competitive with contemporary housing, it will have to outstrip it in so many ways that it can eventually overcome the incredible initial investment. Look at the Channel Tunnel; it's an amazing feat of engineering, to be sure, but at the end of the day, it still has to compete with other forms of transportation. And those other forms of transportation don't have to contend with the debts that come with being a multi-billion dollar project. Someone's got to foot the bill at some point, and you can bet somebody's going to want some money back. I could also easily imagine a mega-arcology becoming somewhat outdated in many ways before the dang thing is even completed.
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 07:29 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
You'd use a similar amount of steel building enough skyscrapers to fill a similar volume.
The big advantage of an arcology is efficient use of real estate, which is the whole point of skyscrapers in the first place. The problem is that in order to build a larger skyscraper you also need a larger footprint. This fact really makes huge arcology-type buildings the single most space-efficient design. As for potential bomb targets, it is possible to construct a skyscraper that can withstand a conventional bomb of any arbitrary size, as well as airplane strikes. The fact is, the World Trade center was such a building, which is why everyone knows that the government deliberately demolished it and made it look like a terrorist attack in order to justify an invasion of Iraq. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 07:39 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 28-July 05 Member No.: 7,526 |
the plane in the CIA building seems counter-intuitive, though. . .
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 07:46 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
to draw away attention. no-one thinks the killer will shoot himself ;)
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2007, 08:09 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: 21-December 06 Member No.: 10,416 |
True. However, you could build smaller building that wouldn't have to be as strongly built and thus use less steel. By building them to work with the land rather than against it, you get pretty much the same end. One thing that is overlooked about arcologies is that not everyone is all that high minded. Crowding people together is just asking for trouble as can be seen in cities around the world today. Cram all those people into a single large building that they never really have to leave anyway, and that is really going to create problems. Of course, we could do like Arthur C. Clarke had it in 3001 (Yes, I mean 3001. It took place 1000 years after the first novel) where there were towers that reached into orbit. The people inside were Star Trek, but the people outside were Mad Max. Coudl be a very effective means of crime control, threaten to literally throw them to the wolves. You can build a building to resist attack, but that takes ever more resources, increases expense and weight. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2007, 08:40 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...The WTC was deigned to withstand a strike from a 707 sized jetliner (smaller and less fuel load than a 767-300), and not while travelling at cruising speed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2007, 02:15 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Actually, both towers survived the impact quite well; however, for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, FIRE MELTED STEEL!!!11one*.
*Technically, the fires probably didn't melt the steel, as metal weakens and loses its ability to support weight long before it becomes a puddle on the floor. That's probably what happened to the overpass out in CA... the fire was hot enough to MELT STEEL!!!1 from the tanker truck, but rather than melting away the overpass overhead, it probably just softened it until it couldn't support the weight of the concrete. Of course, any steel that fell into the inferno as a result of that probably melted. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2007, 04:08 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 470 Joined: 2-January 05 From: Quebec Member No.: 6,924 |
Also, it was the Pentagon. Not the CIA building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 10:02 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.