Vertical cities

[tater]

Megastructure... I remember thinking it was cool. "Machines for living," etc.

[YumonStudios]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Megastructure... I remember thinking it was cool. "Machines for living," etc.

What happened?

[tater]

It was a small movement in architecture. Do you see any cities in a building anyplace? It never happened. There's a good book, but it's out of print and costs a bit now:

http://www.amazon.com/Megastructure-Urban-Futures-Recent-Editions/dp/0064303713/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460270433&sr=8-1&keywords=megastructure

 

Kenzo Tange Tokyo plan

 

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by tater

[Darnok]

4 hours ago, Spaceception said:

The Japanese might be fine with it tbh.

Chickens are also fine with it

20 hours ago, Atlas2342 said:

I'm pretty sure large horizontal towns would affect the environment greatly...and for other reasons stated by the OP...

I am pretty sure that vertical are worse, for your health and environment, because you have layers of concrete. While in lower and less dense buildings style you have more green and more space.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Darnok

[Darnok]

2 hours ago, YumonStudios said:

But it makes sense, urban sprawl is a serious problem, especially since cities are often located on prime farmland, and ecologically important deltas.

 

What? So its time to build new cities in other ways.

Anyone that thinks you can grow healthy food in huge city is wrong. If you think you can be healthier by running in the morning few kilometers in large city you are very wrong. Making huge zero wild life zone you are harming environment much more that if you would make less dense lower zone where everyone can have their house and small garden.

[YumonStudios]

5 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Anyone that thinks you can grow healthy food in huge city is wrong. If you think you can be healthier by running in the morning few kilometers in large city you are very wrong.

But doing those things are healthier than not doing them.

[Atlas2342]

56 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I am pretty sure that vertical are worse, for your health and environment, because you have layers of concrete. While in lower and less dense buildings style you have more green and more space.

True, but there are a lot of advantages of vertical cities

[Darnok]

18 minutes ago, Atlas2342 said:

True, but there are a lot of advantages of vertical cities

What is more important than health of citizens? We want to fight with fossil fuels because environment health is most important yet we ignore things that are harmful to our own health... this is wrong.

1 hour ago, YumonStudios said:

But doing those things are healthier than not doing them.

What? running near large road and breathing chemicals and concrete dust while you are exhausted is healthier than what?

[YNM]

@ YumonStudios : tell that to people in India. They'll disagree with you. Living in crowd isn't as bad as you think, to be honest. In fact, I slightly hated why I have to move with my parents to a slightly bigger house with slightly more quiet neighborhood, when the previous serves us fine.

And once, I watch how Japanese use every space in their small house cleverly, like foldable learning table on the stair bend (u-turn), a dining table that also serves as a living room and a short table (i don't know the correct word - it's a table that you can sit around without any chair), and a part of that table changes into a bedroom. Just think of that. The average american style housing is space-cavenging to say.

[Darnok]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

 

Quote

Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...]

The common source of these disturbances became most dramatically apparent in the populations of our first series of three experiments, in which we observed the development of what we called a behavioral sink. The animals would crowd together in greatest number in one of the four interconnecting pens in which the colony was maintained. As many as 60 of the 80 rats in each experimental population would assemble in one pen during periods of feeding. Individual rats would rarely eat except in the company of other rats. As a result extreme population densities developed in the pen adopted for eating, leaving the others with sparse populations.

[...] In the experiments in which the behavioral sink developed, infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population.

Something we can hear a lot these days... environment and laws made by us does affect our way of thinking. Building even larger cities for more dense population is wrong direction.

[Atlas2342]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Building even larger cities for more dense population is wrong direction.

Hmm, what do you mean? The way I understand it you are saying that we should build smaller cities for more dense population instead of larger cities...If that is the case, vertical cities are smaller than horizontal spread-out cities....

Plus you did mention that vertical cities are detrimental to our health, I quote " all those layers of concrete " and said that we should build horizontal towns...

Edited April 10, 2016 by Atlas2342

[YNM]

That's apparently not working in Asia, where the main reason for crowded populace is having many child.

Also, I think a bigger problem for 50% increase in global population is : how will we support them ? Food ? Clothes ? Building (materials) ? Medicine ? Oil

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, YumonStudios said:

But just seeing so many people can give the feeling of overcrowdedness. Humans are intended to live in small groups, not huge cities.

If you have played in Fallout or Skyrim, or watched Italian architecture of da Vinci's epoch, you probably can imagine, what can a qualified architectural designer make with a volume.
You can stay in several meters from a crowd and think that you're alone.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

I repeat, think Fuller, as in Bucky, as in Dymaxion.

[RainDreamer]

Can't believe I didn't remember of this earlier:

We already have an example of a small city inside essentially one building, and it isn't a good example: the Kowloon Walled City

 

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Darnok said:

Chickens are also fine with it

Korben Dallas in his personal apartment inside an arcology city.

[YNM]

Ah... Well, if it's just residents on top and commercial zone on the lower part then a lot of buildings here already do the same. Most of the newly build shopping centers here are integrated with apartments and even offices.

Guess we should also talk about what is meant by a vertical city. If you mean a whole city with a few hundres thousand residents... That'll be hard.

[kerbiloid]

34 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

Can't believe I didn't remember of this earlier:

We already have an example of a small city inside essentially one building, and it isn't a good example: the Kowloon Walled City

 

So beautiful... This looks exactly like a dungeon complex in ZX Spectrum game "Saboteur II".

[Andem]

All right. You guys all need to read The Roar. More specifically, the beginning where they describe life behind the wall.

On the subject of future cities, why not floating cities? Plenty of fish, potentially anchored over oil, plenty of wind. The only serious danger would be hurricanes and angry whales, It seems viable to me.

[Bill Phil]

42 minutes ago, Andem said:

All right. You guys all need to read The Roar. More specifically, the beginning where they describe life behind the wall.

On the subject of future cities, why not floating cities? Plenty of fish, potentially anchored over oil, plenty of wind. The only serious danger would be hurricanes and angry whales, It seems viable to me.

Where would you get your metals?

[Andem]

4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Where would you get your metals?

Imports. Floating cities would be hubs of trade, ships could be made to travel shorter distances, which means Moar recources in theory. Moar recources for constructing floating cities.

[tater]

The entire population of the earth would fit into an area the size of India and Mongolia combined with a population density the same as Orange County, CA (mostly suburban, single-family homes). If you were willing to live as densely as San Francisco (mostly low-rise buildings no more than 3 stories tall), you could fit the entire world into Bolivia at the same density.

[Spaceception]

3 hours ago, tater said:

The entire population of the earth would fit into an area the size of India and Mongolia combined with a population density the same as Orange County, CA (mostly suburban, single-family homes). If you were willing to live as densely as San Francisco (mostly low-rise buildings no more than 3 stories tall), you could fit the entire world into Bolivia at the same density.

yes, but you still need food, water, jobs, and things to do though, which is why we should all be vegetarians by 2050, and get our food from vertical farms, it's also why having at least a few vertical and floating cities would be very helpful.

[sevenperforce]

15 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

yes, but you still need food, water, jobs, and things to do though, which is why we should all be vegetarians by 2050, and get our food from vertical farms, it's also why having at least a few vertical and floating cities would be very helpful.

Right. Population density is not an issue, but it would require something like four Earths worth of nothing but arable land to provide an average standard of living comparable to that of the American low middle class.

[Spaceception]

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Right. Population density is not an issue, but it would require something like four Earths worth of nothing but arable land to provide an average standard of living comparable to that of the American low middle class.

Which is also why Moon/Asteroid mining would be extremely helpful, as well as Mars colonies