Vertical cities

[sevenperforce]

1 minute ago, Spaceception said:

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

To some degree. However, it would probably be easier to terraform more of Earth to make it arable than it would be to terraform other worlds.

Not that I don't want us to, mind you.

[tater]

16 minutes 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.

Source?

How much arable land is required per capita on earth? In the US? Looks like the global average is about 1 acre (0.004 km²) per person, and the US is 1.2 acres per person. Right now that would take about the area of the US, Canada, and China to accomplish. That leaves rather a lot of the earth available, particularly if all 7.125B of us were "crammed" into a large suburbia.

I only posted about the density thing to show how little area is actually required. There is no possible way to have an arcology that is self-sufficient, it would require farming the areas that are now freed from habitation by people. All the arcology does is to make the area we all cram into that much smaller. Instead of fitting all of humanity into Bolivia, we'd all fit into Finland with the density of Paris. An arcology might be 10X that density, easily. Then the entire world fits into Taiwan.

Edited April 11, 2016 by tater

[Andem]

Moat people call me a pessimistic jerk when I say this, but humans are the dominant species on this planet. We are the only species to completely rework the environment we live in. We seek complete control. Our food is being controlled and tailored genetically, we can create darkness where we wish and light when we want it. As I see it, we are changing nature to serve us, and where that fails, we will change so nature serves us anyway. Effectively, we are terraforming our own planet to be a utopia for humans. No other life form need interrupt our blissful, man made Eden until a stronger, more controlling life form takes over.

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Source?

How much arable land is required per capita on earth? In the US? Looks like the global average is about 1 acre (0.004 km²) per person, and the US is 1.2 acres per person. Right now that would take about the area of the US, Canada, and China to accomplish. That leaves rather a lot of the earth available, particularly if all 7.125B of us were "crammed" into a large suburbia.

Still not enough. My memory was correct; it was actually 4.1 Earths.

[Darnok]

19 minutes 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.

Then maybe American low middle class person consumption rate is too high?

We still have oceans, seas and hydroponics, so we have 4xEarth lands.

[tater]

Popular science. Right.

Aside from the weak source, that is not showing agriculture. Try again, with just agriculture.

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Popular science. Right.

Aside from the weak source, that is not showing agriculture. Try again, with just agriculture.

Popsci wasn't the origin, just a report point. Here's the original, and here's a BBC news source discussing the limitations and extensions of the figure. And why would I limit it to agriculture? I already said it was based on overall standard of living.

[tater]

The UN says a western diet takes about 0.5 hectares (~1.2 acres, or 5,000 m²) per person. The absolute minimum required (vegetarian diet) would be just below 0.2 hectares (2000 m²).

So again, all of us can easily be fed with the area currently occupied by the US, Canada, and China (that's total area, not arable land, so clearly it would take a bit more, though if you are proposing ar arcology anyway, then that doesn't matter, as the land area could be used for the same type of farming you'd do on a megastructure).

I'm not averse to arcologies, I thought they were really cool back in the day... I'm just trying to provide a benchmark for what kind of areas are needed, and how much of the earth is actually available,

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Popsci wasn't the origin, just a report point. Here's the original, and here's a BBC news source discussing the limitations and extensions of the figure. And why would I limit it to agriculture? I already said it was based on overall standard of living.

You were replying to my post, and I was explicitly only talking about agriculture. 

You in fact said:

Quote

four Earths worth of nothing but arable land

Arable land is not required for mining, energy, etc. Arable means farmable, after all. So you were conflating the two in your reply.

Edited April 11, 2016 by tater

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

You were replying to my post, and I was explicitly only talking about agriculture. 

Arable land is not required for mining, energy, etc. Arable means farmable, after all. So you were conflating the two in your reply.

Well, sorry. But I was talking about more than just agriculture because I think that's too narrow a restriction.

And when you talk about arable land requirements, it's more than just direct food consumption. There is land which used for energy or consumable production which would otherwise be used for food, land which is used for food for the workers who produce goods and services, and so forth. The linked study looked at total carbon footprint and used land area to represent it.

[tater]

No worries, I was mostly putting the density stuff out there to give people an idea of what that might be like.

I don;t live in a large city, but I actually like cities as long as they are "walkable." San Francisco and NYC, for examples in the US. I'm sure for many people on earth, living in an arcology megastructure would be a step up... but I'm pretty sure I'd not like to live there, even if I'd love to visit.

Of course, it need not be all or nothing. Most people already live in urban settings, and in fact, a primary reason why the US uses more resources is that we have a distributed population. Urban dwellers use less of everything as a function of their choice of habitat. We (my family) have to have 2 cars, for example. My wife is on call several days a month. Work is a 20 minute drive at highway speeds (not LA highway speed, actually going fast). There is no possible way mass transit works for us here (not at all for my wife, and it's not plausible to spend hours a day commuting).

Functionally, it means creating a space that not only works (the vertical city/arcology/megastructure), but one that is desirable. Note also that to pay for it, it's likely going to be expensive. I'd certainly not consider moving to a "bad neighborhood" of an arcology, from the side of the mountain I live on right now

If I lived in San Francisco (beautiful city), it'd be a hard sell to move to such a place (or course to live in SFO I'd need a 5 million dollar place, I think, lol).

Edited April 11, 2016 by tater

[AngelLestat]

Cities are the only way to sustain a big population without ruin the ecosystem.

These can be very efficient and sustainable if they are well planned, like vertical farms in the same citie to absorb co2 and reduce the transport needs. 
It is already prove for certain vegetables that it is more cost efficient to cultivate those in vertical farm with even artificial light, than in a field (which consume a lot of water, you need to use a lot of chemicals against pest, etc).
The cost of land each time growth more, and that taking into account that parks or wild life each time lose more terrain.
I guess more sustainable vertical cities should be made (without streets between, all buildings interconnected, each floor can have its own transport rail integrated)
But it reach a point where we need to search another home or not allow more births (which is a extreme measure) if we dont want to ruin our home.

[tater]

The best cities tend to have an organic, unplanned nature. NYC's grid layout is about the only exception to that I can think of. The difficulty would be to create a space that people actually want to inhabit, that is not soul-crushing. That tends to be the problem with such plans, the designers tend to illustrate with people doing what they, the designer, think they should be doing in a given space, and not what people actually do. NYC created setback laws so that buildings would layer upwards, and many have little fountains, etc, out front. Those spaces are not used very well, people don't mill around, they find every available flat space to stop and eat a hotdog (or whatever), and the rest of the space is wasted. 

That is always a risk with a designed environment. The problem is that when it is one of many buildings, people can choose an alternative, if it's an entire city as a single design...

Edited April 11, 2016 by tater

[Nothalogh]

On 4/9/2016 at 9:57 PM, Spaceception said:

The Earth's population is over 7.3 billion right now, by 2050, it'll be more like 10 billion, so in order to feed, water, provide jobs for, and provide energy for, we may have to think, not by building cities across large land masses that could disrupt ecosystems, and create a large carbon footprint, but rather, building cities that go from the ground up, or maybe even the ground down, this is where vertical cities come into play, they could house hundreds, thousands, or even 10s of thousands of people, large land masses would go back to the animal kingdom, and areas that produce our food would grow hydroponically, or aeroponically instead of traditional farming, greatly reducing the amount of land it takes to feed humanity (Fun fact: the amount of land needed to grow food for humanity and livestock is the land area of Africa and South America combined, with a little less than a million miles of excess room). Also, would you be willing to eat lab grown meant? As long as it looks, smells, and tastes like meat?

Water purification systems similar to those used on the ISS will be used (Fancy drinking someones liquid like an Astronaut? )

Wind turbines and rooftop solar at the top will provide (Some) power, while offshore wind farms, solar arrays, and nuclear reactors will provide the rest.

CO2 scrubbers on the building of heavily polluted areas will help take out excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, releasing the Oxygen, and using the Carbon for 3-D printing

3-D printing will turn junk into materials, making the use of (Most) metals obsolete as 3-D printing makes a large amount of materials almost, or as strong as metal, putting less of a strain on the amount of metal used on Earth, put simply, vertical farms, like space colonization, will greatly help reduce humanity's carbon footprint, and allow ecosystems to recover.

Here's some videos to enjoy

 

So my question to you is, would you be willing to live in a vertical city?

If population is your root concern, you have left out one of the most relevant pieces of information.

And that, is the regional distribution of population growth due to births.

 

 

The current practice of dumping resources into the malthusian trap that is the third world is the root of your problem

On 4/9/2016 at 9:57 PM, Spaceception said:

So my question to you is, would you be willing to live in a vertical city?

And as for that, I'd rather live in a cave

[Northstar1989]

On 4/9/2016 at 4:16 AM, magnemoe said:

Vertical farming makes even less sense, the construction cost is the real killer here, yes its an lack of good farmland, however its far cheaper ways to make it than skyscrapers, ways who has been used in thousands of years. Even standard greenhouses are far cheaper. Energy cost its also an issue, if you have to supply heat and light it cost far more energy to transport the fruit a 1000 km now anything except expensive fruits make zero sense outside of a few settings like fresh salat in space or an base in Antarctica 

Construction costs are indeed the killer- but I think you drastically underestimate transportation costs.  Oil for transportation isn't cheap, and it's only going to get more expensive.  The energy costs of actually growing crops in a vertical or underground farm really are much, much less than the costs of transporting fresh produce into a city at today's transport costs (not to mention the controlled environment drastically reduces your need for pesticides- which also cost energy to produce) the problem is mainly the construction costs being prohibitive, not the ongoing energy costs (which are much, much, much lower than transportation costs to ship food into a city).

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 12, 2016 by Northstar1989

[tater]

The food aspect in terms of shipping costs is actually not a thing. Food distribution is incredibly efficient, and the costs are negligible. 

[Darnok]

Guys it is not about transportation, it is about your time. Cities should be build to save time of its citizens, otherwise it makes no sense at all.

Today using car you can travel 50km in shorter time that travel 10km inside large city, that is why large cities are total nonsense.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Darnok

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

Construction costs are indeed the killer- but I think you drastically underestimate transportation costs.  Oil for transportation isn't cheap, and it's only going to get more expensive.  The energy costs of actually growing crops in a vertical or underground farm really are much, much less than the costs of transporting fresh produce into a city at today's transport costs (not to mention the controlled environment drastically reduces your need for pesticides- which also cost energy to produce) the problem is mainly the construction costs being prohibitive, not the ongoing energy costs (which are much, much, much lower than transportation costs to ship food into a city).

Regards,

Northstar

Transport is expensive if it has to be done fast and in small volumes, Highest is from shop to home. Second higes is to shop from the warehouse or other location. 
Transport is also an factor for fruits and other stuff who has to be handled with care and transported pretty fast, however here labor cost is also an major issue. 
For stock food like grain, corn, rice, potatoes or even frozen products transport cost is far lower than other costs, the real cost here is distributing to shops and selling it as this is sent by ship or trains in large volumes.

 

[AngelLestat]

7 hours ago, tater said:

The food aspect in terms of shipping costs is actually not a thing. Food distribution is incredibly efficient, and the costs are negligible. 

Not sure where do you get that..
But in my country Argentina, the transport of cost average for cultives is 45% of the the productor profits.
Of course then you have another distribution (transport cost) to each market, but those 45% and more is what a vertical farm save. 

8 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

the problem is mainly the construction costs being prohibitive, not the ongoing energy costs (which are much, much, much lower than transportation costs to ship food into a city).

Prohibitive depending the type of cultive and because vertical farms are not yet industrialized..
In case they are, you can have a light vertical structure with all its plastics recipients for each different plants at very low cost. 
Also each vertical farm tower does not need to produce all types of vegetables, they can produce 2 or 3, but if you have one each 100 meters, then it becomes very cheap and effective..  Because their designs will be focus for each kind of cultive.

7 hours ago, Darnok said:

Guys it is not about transportation, it is about your time. Cities should be build to save time of its citizens, otherwise it makes no sense at all.

Today using car you can travel 50km in shorter time that travel 10km inside large city, that is why large cities are total nonsense.

But the car (1300kg to transport 70kg) and streets is our main problem today.. if we live in a 40th floor, and we need to travel 5 km to the 30th floor, we waste a lot of time and energy, first in elevators to the ground, then in traffic congestion (because everyone travels by these small street veins) and then rise again.  But if every 3 or 5 floors we have an horizontal travel system between our infrastructure and buildings which dont need streets between, you save a lot of time, energy.  How to achieve that?  Just with new construction regulation and policies for each new investment that goes in hand with sustainable planning growth.
  

[tater]

In the US distribution is a tiny % of total cost. Single digit. only 11% of the carbon footprint of food comes from transportation, the rest is production.

Part of the issue is that some crops are better grown in some locales. In the US the output per unit area of potatoes is 3-4 times higher in Idaho than Georgia, for example, so it is far more efficient to ship that crop from Idaho than it is to try and grow it someplace vastly less friendly to potatoes. The same is true for many other crops. On top of that, people have become used to being able to get any crop at any time, which could be wrong-headed, but that's a reality.

Local growing is not a bad thing, all I'm saying is that the economics of it is not as simple as "grown nearby is cheaper."

[AngelLestat]

footprint and cost are kinda related in some way but they are different things.
For example tax and profits from the truck driver are not taken into account, plus other aspects.

And you need to make a world average.. for example the transport cost for arid cities and countries? In which many products needs to cross oceans or big distances, in where many different transport companies are involve which each one has its taxes and profits (trucks, train, ship) and some cases need to be refrigerated or storage.

The major cost of vertical farming is the elevated cost for terrains inside a city.
But with clever city policies should not be like that, because each city needs an oxygen source to filter part of the city pollution.
So vertical farming should have tax reductions because it helps to reduce most of city problems and cost.

With vertical farming you dont have climate issues, or crop loses, you increase the crop rotation, plus other benefits already mentioned.

We have a list of 10 or 20 products that are already cheaper this way, with a bit of industrialization and better city planning, most of the cultives can be cost effective.

[tater]

If this concept is cost effective, someone will build it. That's the only way something like this should ever happen, frankly. Some private entity should pony up the money (with zero subsidy) and have a go at it.

[Darnok]

19 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

But the car (1300kg to transport 70kg) and streets is our main problem today.. if we live in a 40th floor, and we need to travel 5 km to the 30th floor, we waste a lot of time and energy, first in elevators to the ground, then in traffic congestion (because everyone travels by these small street veins) and then rise again.  But if every 3 or 5 floors we have an horizontal travel system between our infrastructure and buildings which dont need streets between, you save a lot of time, energy.  How to achieve that?  Just with new construction regulation and policies for each new investment that goes in hand with sustainable planning growth.

  

You are looking at this from wrong perspective.

Why would you want to spend your live in 30-40 floor piece of concrete? You can't even decide there what can be color of your front doors or windows. You have to agree for what majority agrees and live like others wants you to live.

Vertical buildings for living are nonsense, but they are useful for offices, services and shops. Imagine city with only few tall buildings where you can buy everything you need. Costs of transportation of goods to those buildings would be lower, because you deliver goods to few locations, even if those goods are from other side of the country. Trucks, taking large part of road traffic, wouldn't be even needed, because you could build train station near this tall building.

Main reason for us to travel is that we want to buy something... you have to go and buy things, because your goods are single use products that are breaking really fast. Each new product needs box, so there is reason to transport resources for boxes... then you have to drop box and transport garbage etc etc.
Direction where our industry has developed is main reason for huge resources and energy usage (waste) and reason for huge traffic. Changing american-style-of-live (100% consumptionism) into more reasonable way of live would cause less traffic, less resource and energy usage.

Cars aren't issue, its the reason you have to use car to buy milk or tea is problem. Common goods should be sold in local shops, so you wouldn't have to walk more that 20 minutes to buy something for dinner. Then only guy who would use car to transport goods would be shop owner.
While more advanced goods (electronics, furnitures etc etc) can be delivered from tall-vertical building.

Why we are not going in this way? Because your time (your travel time) doesn't cost anything, while employees time costs, so corporation prefer to waste your time instead of their moneys. And allowing for local business to take over some branches (like food distribution) is something that corporations (large markets) won't allow any time soon.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Darnok

[YNM]

I think we should think back again to the OP of the thread. The first promise of a vertical city is to cram as much people's dwellings into one place... For what ? Of course for leaving everything else empty !

There's one problem here - that means you're leaving economy outside the building. It means that, instead of everyone going to a small selection of places - shops, malls, offices, industries - what you're doing is a simple reverse : you're forcing everyone to start from the same place (the massive vertical city) into their jobs far away (shops etc. again). That's not helping at all.

What would be more helping is that if everyone have to commute less. You need food ? Just take anything nearby (no, no Europa Water). You want gadgets ? Well, maybe it's still going to be centralized, but not as centralized as today, where almost everything is made in China, or India, or somewhere in Asia. People will still meet and whatnot, but there's a reason why we can differ tourist from commuters right ? Also, short commutes means no need for heavy machinery for moving individual people - we can go on bikes, NL style.

If you say "no, everything will be within that vertical city" then imagine this : you said yourself that the amount of field needed to feed the world today is as big as two continent. A 100-story building just for that would need to be as huge as 1/100 of those two continents - still the size of small country. That's... expensive. I don't care what you'll say about climate control and no pest but even the Burj Khalifa construction were worrying construction-material-ecology wise. Combined with industrial zone and natural resources which is still spread all over the world your city would looks like just how cities today are, just more... pointy. Not much difference bar the direction of travel in rush hour.

Additionally, I also believe a more spread system would works better energy wise - you can fit solar panels on top of every building !

[Darnok]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

Additionally, I also believe a more spread system would works better energy wise - you can fit solar panels on top of every building !

Not only for smaller buildings you can use different materials than concrete and steel.

[tater]

Yeah, industry is a huge issue, not everyone works in shops or offices. Were's the industrial zone in that parklike setting?