arcologies and urban combat

[Space Cadet]

Originally posted by vegascat:
An arcology 1Km Cubed will have more problems with verticle spaces in the form of air pressure and temperature differences. An expmple of verticle temperature differences would be the Grand Canyon. It is 1000 to 1300 M Floor to rim with about a 30F temperature difference due to atmospheric compression. Elevators and veritcle transport shafts will encounter compression heating/cooling depending on direction of travel, not to mention ear popping could be wicked. Try going to a hospital pharmacy to get something for clogged sinus/ears when you can't equalize pressure. Now think about the problems transporting combat casualties significant verticle distances. Lung collapse, IV fluid pressures, heat problems would just begin the list of problems encountered.

Your assuming of course that the archology is open to the outer atmosphere, if the atmosphere is poisonous or non existant, each level could be pressurized seperately and the elevators could operate in vacuum shafts with their own internal atmosphere contained in each car. The elevator doors would dock with each other much as two spaceship dock to allow transfer of passengers, and there would be no ear popping.

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

Arcologies

 

[flykiller]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />spent 6 1/2 years aboard an aircraft carrier. 15 stories high, 1/4 mile long, 5000 guys, more cabling and more piping and more pumps than you could shake a stick at

But would 5000 civilians with their families be willing to live like that?</font>[/QUOTE]'pends on what you're used to and what you need to do. I'd go for a month below decks without seeing the sun, and then only when walking through the hanger bay. for families I suppose it would have to be about four times larger, maybe no more than that. on a ship there are many work spaces and offices, in addition to berthing and the hanger bay and flight deck, and several TV/radio stations as well, not to mention a live jazz band, boxing matches, interdivisional contests, etc. lots of room both physical and virtual. families could certainly live on a tight arcology with the right attitude and work/school load.

When the reactor needs a 10 year service (or whatever the schedule is) do you evacuate the entire city and tell the people to come back in 6 months when the work is done and the structure restored?

no, you have redundant systems that take over. my ship had two reactors plus a number of emergency diesel generators. it could conduct full ops on one reactor, and could do quite a bit on just the diesels if it had to. I imagine an arcology would have five power plants for every two it needed - two on-line, one being replaced, one that fails for some reason, and another available just in case. locate the power plants adjacent to the arcology skin and removing/replacing them is a breeze (recall, mass and altitude are non-issues).

 

[flykiller]

Generally unban based insurgencies don't bring the full force of the military down on their heads, its more about kicking in doors than knocking down walls, the objective being to defeat the rebels without destroyng the city.

falluja had 100,000 people. by the time the U.S. marines were done with it the electric grid, water system, and sewer system were all destroyed, rendering the town uninhabitable. last I heard.

as for invading an arcology, I'm sure metal structures would hold up better against PGMPs than brick buildings hold up against tanks and artillery, but still it would have to be a very depressing experience for both sides.

 

[Space Cadet]

Why would someone want to live in such a place anyway? The definition seems to be to pack as many people comfortably in as small a space as possible while simultaneously providing all the comforts of home to each resident. Now what would drive people to live this way? It seems the planet Coruscent in Star Wars meets the defintion of being a global Archology, it seems that such a planet city would have a population in the trillions at least. Why would people choose to live in a 1 km by 1 km by 60 story box on a lonely planet?

If there was plenty of space in which to live, why would they pack into such a tight box? To protect the environment?

I enjoy the environment by being outdoors. By being outdoors I get to appreciate the environment and so it seems worth while to protect the environment, but if I lived in an archology and never went outside, and the environment was something I only saw on television and never in person, I probably would care less about my environmental "footprint" as it were. Archologies are also extrememly vulnerable to terrorist attacks, especially if that terrorist has a nuclear weapon. To put in in Asmove Robot novel terms, I'd rather live on the Planet Solaria and in the "Caves of Steel" on Earth.

 

[TheEngineer]

Well, people could live there if
- the environment is somehow dangerous
- they are convinced, that its "the best place to live"
- the are more or less forced to do so
- the society is interested in keep the things going in a long run

Its a bit overstressed, but I might ask, why people do live in New York or Hong-Kong....

Regards,

TE

 

[Pickles]

There's plenty of space here, just across the border - but who'd want to live there?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

1.3bn people can't be wrong...

 

[flykiller]

why people do live in New York or Hong-Kong....

in hong kong, because it wasn't communist. in new york, because it means they're superior. and in both, because that's where the money is and where decisions get made.

 

[atpollard]

I once lived briefly in a rural area of Tennessee surrounded by mountains and TVA lakes. There was one gas station/convenience store (to buy groceries at) within a 15 minute drive. It was a 45 minute drive (except on those few days a year when the roads were impassible) to the nearest town (which boasted a Wal-Mart and a McDonalds). It was 2 hours to the nearest city (some place with buildings more than 2 stories tall). The views were beautiful, but there were few jobs and little to do.

I once lived 9 minutes from the George Washington Bridge (NYC) and in 15 minutes (non rush hour) I could be walking the streets of Manhattan. For entertainment, there were museums, art galleries, movie theatres, and Broadway shows. Jobs were plentiful and varied. If you found yourself in the mood for Pakistan Food at 2 AM, there would be restaurants open.

Now I create gated communities within a mile of brand new 'town centers'. People flock to try to get the best of 'rural' homes and 'urban' shopping. Arcologies could be designed to "pack them in" like the dystopian nightmares of SF books, or they could be designed to carefully piece together the gated community and town center into an internally open glass box that houses suburban neighborhoods in vertical layers.

Large concentrations of people is not always a bad thing from a quality of life perspective.

PS In an arcology, the temperature is always comfortable and it only rains at 4 am (when the misters turn on in the gardens).

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />why people do live in New York or Hong-Kong....

in hong kong, because it wasn't communist. in new york, because it means they're superior. and in both, because that's where the money is and where decisions get made. </font>[/QUOTE]Correct - I don't like big cities and consider myself a country boy at heart. But if living in NYC was the only place I could find work to feed my family, I'd be in NYC.

 

[BetterThanLife]

One other point. Remember it is nice to live out in the country as long as you can enjoy the "great outdoors." However, if the only air you can breathe is recycled. Going outside requires wearing protective gear and coming back inside requires full decontamination and/or cycling an airlock. Why would you want to go outside?

Just because it is all enclosed doesn't mean it isn't pleasant. Large green spaces, (Can't grow food in many of the same environments that require a closed environment.) Sunlight, (Piped in or artificial) Sports teams, etc. remember that when you have a larger concentration of people you also get economy of scale. Things get more efficient. Wal-Mart, does better than a local Grocery store as an example. So when you have the concentration of people you also have potential for artists that, for example, don't have to work in a grocery store, so they can produce art. (Actors, Sculptors, Painters, etc.) People can work in professions that suit them better instead of doing one of a few jobs that are available because they are all necessary for survival.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by atpollard:
I have no way to convey the visions of Paolo Soleri’s arcologies, but freed to grow in 3 dimensions, cities have tremendous room for air and light and gardens. In fact, about 80% of the volume of an arcology could be vast open spaces.

Well, you could always post a link to his website or somesuch...

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

BTW, does anybody know some numbers about the living space a typical individual/family has in NY or Hong Kong ?

Regards,

TE

 

[Pickles]

Not exactly sure about this, but the average flat size around here is probably around 50 square metres.

 

[LordVince]

I know that "Arcology" has traditionally been defined as a single, usually massive, building/structure. But I would propose a secondary, or alternate definition for "Arcology" that would include any "enclosed", but NOT subterranean, community. That the thing that defines an "Arcology" is that ALL civil cervices, INCLUDING air quality, heating and cooling, power and water, are all CENTRALIZED, and under the control of the civil authorities.

Thus a domed city could be considered an Arcology; while each building under the dome might be "free-standing" from it's neighbor, they ALL get their air, power, water from City Supply. A "Lunar Outpost" type town of interconnected tubes and quanset huts would be the same; they also get their air, power and water from a centralized source.

 

[Space Cadet]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
One other point. Remember it is nice to live out in the country as long as you can enjoy the "great outdoors." However, if the only air you can breathe is recycled. Going outside requires wearing protective gear and coming back inside requires full decontamination and/or cycling an airlock. Why would you want to go outside?

Just because it is all enclosed doesn't mean it isn't pleasant. Large green spaces, (Can't grow food in many of the same environments that require a closed environment.) Sunlight, (Piped in or artificial) Sports teams, etc. remember that when you have a larger concentration of people you also get economy of scale. Things get more efficient. Wal-Mart, does better than a local Grocery store as an example. So when you have the concentration of people you also have potential for artists that, for example, don't have to work in a grocery store, so they can produce art. (Actors, Sculptors, Painters, etc.) People can work in professions that suit them better instead of doing one of a few jobs that are available because they are all necessary for survival.

Actors and artists unfortunately have to fight crowds and "Get in Line" for anything that is worth while getting or seeing, and in cities, those lines can be very long and very slow. Cities like New York have taxes, taxes, taxes, fees, fees, fees, rules and regulations, fines, license requirements, bureuocracies, lawyers, petty officials, and special police that follow you around to make sure you park nowhere, or they want you to park somewhere so they can issue you a $115 traffic ticket and make their ticket quota for the month. Most problems dealing with traffic or quality of life issues are solved by giving the government more money out of your pocket involuntarily.

I hardly ever go shopping in New York City due to lack of places to park my car where I can be sure I will not get a ticket, and sometimes those places that appear legal, with parking meters and everything aren't, they only apply at certain times, and if you get a ticket, they don't give you your quarter back! Also without a car, you can only buy what you can carry, the prices for things are often higher than what you pay at Walmart, because they don't have WalMarts in New York City. I don't need to see live actors, a movie theater is fine, or I can see it on DVDs. the museums I visit tend to be historical museums that aren't in cities. I like being able to bring my car, park it somewhere, and take my kids without worrying that they may get lost in the crown in the subway, or run over by a car, or kidnapped by some pervert.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Lord Vince:
I know that "Arcology" has traditionally been defined as a single, usually massive, building/structure. But I would propose a secondary, or alternate definition for "Arcology" that would include any "enclosed", but NOT subterranean, community. That the thing that defines an "Arcology" is that ALL civil cervices, INCLUDING air quality, heating and cooling, power and water, are all CENTRALIZED, and under the control of the civil authorities.

Thus a domed city could be considered an Arcology; while each building under the dome might be "free-standing" from it's neighbor, they ALL get their air, power, water from City Supply. A "Lunar Outpost" type town of interconnected tubes and quanset huts would be the same; they also get their air, power and water from a centralized source.

Such is the reality of living on an inhospitable world - if every small leak could kill, safety regulations would be strictly enforced. And centralized life support for the entire arcology is going to be far cheaper than life-support for the individual small habitat, not to mention that most such individual habitats would be quite claustrophobic. Sure, you could seal a lava-tube and use a small fusion reactor to provide life-support for a small group of people, but you'll be spending much more resources oer capita on life support than when living in a large domed city, and still whoever would control the power-source and life-support source would have quite alot of power in his hands.

If you want to be self-sufficient for cheap, go to a frontier world (i.e. with a small population) with a breathable atmosphere.

And on a related note, I think that worlds with an unbreathable atmosphere should give a +DM to their government generation throw.

 

[atpollard]

I think that given Traveller technology, a strong case could be made for a single family homestead on an inhospitable planet. Start with a translucent dome of ballistic cloth stretched over a 1 square kilometer circle and tightly anchored at the outer edge. Add a small power plant (say fuel cell), a water well, and a large compressor/filter life support system. Scrub the air and inflate the dome. Add a prefab habitat for a family of four and enough farm machinery to raise crops and livestock. There you have a small farm where you can live without the need to "see the smoke from your neighbor's fire".

Most of the equipment comes from the personal equipment and vehicle design rules, so how hard can it be to get or repair.

Build an airlock at one side and a short tube could connect to the next domed farm (and the next ...).

 

[Golan2072]

The big issue with ballistic cloth domes would be radiation - so they'll work for worlds with unbreathable (but significant) atmospheres but wll be quite problematic for worlds with Very Thin or thinner atmospheres (or no atmosphere at all). On such worlds, living underground would be better - find a lava tube, seal it, pressurize it and use plant-lights to grow your food in a hydroponic garden.