The problems of a mega-city

[Lagmonster]

A lot of sci-fi depicts super-cities with mile-high town-skyscrapers that pack millions of citizens into relatively small areas.

But is this a reasonable aspiration? We already know that increasing population density helps the spread of disease, whose role is already population control.

The other problem areas are education, the environment, crime, and economics. But what I don't know is whether the problems with each we see in big cities are actually an untamable result of population density, or indications of a government completely incapable of servicing and managing such huge population densities (or alternatively, the fact that we just don't have the technology and skilled workforce capable of quashing all the problems of a huge local population. Arguably, one skilled doctor can provide top service to a community of 500, but would be strained to support a community of 10,000).

And crime is a special category all on its own; something that we just might notice more in dense cities. And clustered populations might even deter crime by making it impossible to act without witnesses.

So I'm wondering a variety of things: Should we limit population densities in growing cities to manageable levels, concurrent with the infrastructure available to support them? And secondly, is it reasonable to expect the super-clean mega-cities of the future, or will the inherent problems of disease and human stupidity prevent something like that from functioning?

[Crossroads Inc.]

For a good answere to how to properly build a "Mega City" and actually get along with the enviroment, check out the works of Pablo Solari and his ideas of "Archology"

[Cao Cao]

As sci-fi goes, it rarely depicts megacities to be problem free.
Usually it's the often use upper city/undercity cliche of a rich, clean low-density upper area and a hidden, super-densely populated lower area rife with disease and crime seen in everything from Metropolis to Star Wars to Judge Dredd to Final Fantasy VII.

I call it a cliche because it's often used, but it might just be what happens in the future given current problems. Is there any sci-fi out there that depicts near-"perfect" megacities?

[General Zod]

But is this a reasonable aspiration? We already know that increasing population density helps the spread of disease, whose role is already population control.

The other problem areas are education, the environment, crime, and economics. But what I don't know is whether the problems with each we see in big cities are actually an untamable result of population density, or indications of a government completely incapable of servicing and managing such huge population densities (or alternatively, the fact that we just don't have the technology and skilled workforce capable of quashing all the problems of a huge local population. Arguably, one skilled doctor can provide top service to a community of 500, but would be strained to support a community of 10,000).

See Tokyo.

[Lagmonster]

I call it a cliche because it's often used, but it might just be what happens in the future given current problems. Is there any sci-fi out there that depicts near-"perfect" megacities?

There have been. Demolition Man, for example. But that was obviously lunatic.

[Lagmonster]

See Tokyo.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying here. Are you suggesting Tokyo is a model for a functioning mega-city? If you are, in what way are they battling crime, disease, and other problems better than other cities of similar size?

[General Zod]

See Tokyo.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying here. Are you suggesting Tokyo is a model for a functioning mega-city? If you are, in what way are they battling crime, disease, and other problems better than other cities of similar size?

Not so much that it's a model for one, just that it's an example of a city that's becoming fairly close to one but is still functioning relatively well. As far as crime is concerned, this article has a few examples of how they're handling it. Though since Japan doesn't quite seem to have the love affair with guns that America seems to, I'd imagine that's proven it considerably easier for them to clamp down on gun control than several countries that allow private ownership.

Disease control I'm not so sure about, though. Not really an area I'm familiar enough to really say anything on.

[Lagmonster]

Though since Japan doesn't quite seem to have the love affair with guns that America seems to, I'd imagine that's proven it considerably easier for them to clamp down on gun control than several countries that allow private ownership.

Time to wait for the gun apologists.

Disease control I'm not so sure about, though. Not really an area I'm familiar enough to really say anything on.

Now that you mention it, I recall that one of the common practices in Japan is to wear flu masks when you're sick, and that it's not uncommon to see someone walking down the street in one. It might not be as impossible as I thought; my initial suspicions were that the problems of big cities were inherent in all big cities; it may be that they are just common to American big cities, or poor cities that simply have astronomical birth rates, like Mexico City a while back.

[outcast]

At what population level would a city be considered a megacity? With something like 30 million people, i'd consider Tokyo a megacity.

[Pablo Sanchez]

At what population level would a city be considered a megacity? With something like 30 million people, i'd consider Tokyo a megacity.

I think part of what he's talking about is density as well as sheer population. The Tokyo metropolitan area has 30 million people but an average density in the region of 13,000 to the square kilometer. This is pretty roomy compared to Paris, to say nothing of places like Lagos or Bombay. Problems become magnified by higher population densities.

[Lord Zentei]

I call it a cliche because it's often used, but it might just be what happens in the future given current problems. Is there any sci-fi out there that depicts near-"perfect" megacities?

There have been. Demolition Man, for example. But that was obviously lunatic.

I don't know if that qualifies as a mega-city as described in the OP, what with the lack of mile-high skyscrapers and all that. Still was a load of bollocks, though.

Though since Japan doesn't quite seem to have the love affair with guns that America seems to, I'd imagine that's proven it considerably easier for them to clamp down on gun control than several countries that allow private ownership.

Time to wait for the gun apologists.

Not that I am a gun apologist, but crime rates can be both high and low with both gun control and without it: see Switzerland for low-crime, liberal gun laws (though obviously, that is not a mega-city).

[Lagmonster]

At what population level would a city be considered a megacity? With something like 30 million people, i'd consider Tokyo a megacity.

I think part of what he's talking about is density as well as sheer population. The Tokyo metropolitan area has 30 million people but an average density in the region of 13,000 to the square kilometer. This is pretty roomy compared to Paris, to say nothing of places like Lagos or Bombay. Problems become magnified by higher population densities.

Indeed. I've often wondered, when watching Star Wars, if the only thing that keeps the Coruscant from being wiped clean by plague is the fact that the actual density is misleadingly low, since most of your neighbours are of a different species and thus less likely to have something that would make you ill.

But I still wonder about the long-term feasability of continuing to grow New York City, for example. Does anyone think that there must be a logical upper limit to its downtown population density, or can we just keep cramming them in there in ever-taller apartment buildings without feeling any sting that our existing technologies and services can't handle? (Edit and Note for Mike: Yeah, I'm presuming we can build ever-taller apartment buildings).

[Lord Zentei]

Indeed. I've often wondered, when watching Star Wars, if the only thing that keeps the Coruscant from being wiped clean by plague is the fact that the actual density is misleadingly low, since most of your neighbours are of a different species and thus less likely to have something that would make you ill.

Advanced medical tech, perhaps? Also, with such high buildings it is perhaps more apt to speak of population density per volume, since the people in the lower levels need not be in contact with those living a dozen miles above them any more than they are in contact with the people in the next city district.

But I still wonder about the long-term feasability of continuing to grow New York City, for example. Does anyone think that there must be a logical upper limit to its downtown population density, or can we just keep cramming them in there in ever-taller apartment buildings without feeling any sting that our existing technologies and services can't handle? (Edit and Note for Mike: Yeah, I'm presuming we can build ever-taller apartment buildings).

Apart from the construction material issues, existing technologies will be hard pressed to keep waste (including pollution), water and energy distribution going, as well as simple commuting. For these to be implemented would require updating the infrastructure every so often. However, I don't see that it would be imossible in principle to increase population density significantly.

[Turin]

Apart from the construction material issues, existing technologies will be hard pressed to keep waste (including pollution), water and energy distribution going, as well as simple commuting. For these to be implemented would require updating the infrastructure every so often. However, I don't see that it would be imossible in principle to increase population density significantly.

The concept that's always floated around the architectural community is that you would use distributed waste handling and energy sources for megacity structures.

"Living machines" (aka greenhouse ecosystems) have been demonstrated to be scalable to handle fairly large loads, and one can easily envision the upper floors of a mile-high skyscraper filled with a greenhouse ecosystem that process the wastewater of the building to effectively reuse most of the building's water, then supplement this source with rainwater collectors (from the massive footprint of such a building).

Distributed power is trickier, although you do have an enormous amount of south-facing surface area to collect solar energy, and you could potentially collect wind power as well. So the building should be able to generate some percentage of its own power. Naturally, this assumes some materials technology advancement in the field of photvoltaics... but we're assuming some pretty remarkable engineering and materials advancements to get a mile-high building in the first place.

[Broomstick]

I wouldn't call Chicago a "mega-city", but it does have some remarkably tall buildings and population densities.

There is not an exact correlation between density and crime. At least, not violent crime. The Chicago Loop area is one of the most densely packed parts of the city population-wise just counting the year-round inhabitants. Which are augmented daily by around 400,000 commuters. The Loop and Magnificent Mile (which is the strip immediately north of the Loop on Michigan Avenue) have five of the world's ten tallest buildings still, and the tallest in North America. It is also one of the lower violent crime areas of the city (which is not to say it is without crime, and arguably the vast majority of white collar crime occurs in the LaSalle Street financial district and City Hall). The highest-crime wards have a significantly less dense population.

It has been my personal opinion for some time that it's crowding AND poverty that lead to high urban crime rates. Wealthy areas can support very dense populations, but the wealth enables both adequate living space and/or means to get away from stressful environments and situations - not an option for the impovershed living 10 to a room. Wealth also eliminates desperation stealing - the sort starving people engage in as a means of survival. (It does not, of course, eliminate all stealing or all other forms of crime).

As for problems with building extremely tall buildings that function - the Sears Tower (1400 feet/425 meters) requires its own electrical substation and just getting the toilets to flush reliably and without exploding took some innovative plumbing. You can't just put a straight pipe down to the basement sewer - a toilet worth of water plunging 400 meters can cause considerable destruction on impact. There are six locomotive engines in one of the basements to provide emergency power - that just bare bones, I think one elevator and minimal lights. The top of the tower sways up to 24 inches (2/3 of a meter) in wind, and for the first 10-15 years they had a devil of a time with windows blowing out of the building. You have to consider the effect of tall elevator shafts, and a measurable difference in air pressure between ground floor and top - on average, 1.5 inches of mercury (50 millibars) barometric pressure. This complicates air circulation, heating, and cooling. Temperature difference between ground floor and top is often 5-10 degrees F. When I ride the elevator to the top my ears pop. Twice.

The Sears Tower is only 1/4 of a mile tall (roughly). If you're talking about a mile-high skyscraper the engineering problems are scaled up, and I'm pretty sure it's not all a linear progression of complication.

[Cao Cao]

I call it a cliche because it's often used, but it might just be what happens in the future given current problems. Is there any sci-fi out there that depicts near-"perfect" megacities?

There have been. Demolition Man, for example. But that was obviously lunatic.

I don't know if that qualifies as a mega-city as described in the OP, what with the lack of mile-high skyscrapers and all that. Still was a load of bollocks, though.

That city still had a crime-ridden undercity though, albiet one relegated to the sewers. And let me also agree that it was a load of crap.

[Ypoknons]

But I still wonder about the long-term feasability of continuing to grow New York City, for example. Does anyone think that there must be a logical upper limit to its downtown population density, or can we just keep cramming them in there in ever-taller apartment buildings without feeling any sting that our existing technologies and services can't handle? (Edit and Note for Mike: Yeah, I'm presuming we can build ever-taller apartment buildings).

Manhattan's buildings are typically taller than 20 floor sin my experience, although there mega-apartments. Buildings in the Village are in fact more commomly 2-3 floor townhouses. The average height on Hong Kong island is taller, probably closer to 30-40, and there are more tall buildings greatest concentrations (the distrubtion is clustered but it's not all-covering like New York; there are substanial non-park green areas). Engineering concerns are not a problem for New York, but I feel that it needs a more sosphiscated garbage collection system than "dump it in the streets at night" that seems to go for Chinatown and some other areas.

[Ariphaos]

Not so much that it's a model for one, just that it's an example of a city that's becoming fairly close to one but is still functioning relatively well. As far as crime is concerned, this article has a few examples of how they're handling it. Though since Japan doesn't quite seem to have the love affair with guns that America seems to, I'd imagine that's proven it considerably easier for them to clamp down on gun control than several countries that allow private ownership.

Fairly well, if you're of Japanese descent and don't have any hinin blood in you. Which is most of the population. There's also an entire district of Tokyo that we would consider to be slums that the city would prefer not to admit to.

I don't really see why an arcology needs to be dystopic. As long as you take care of solipsism syndrome, robots doing the work, your main problem would be the apathy and ennui of your citizens. Or perhaps you want that.

[weemadando]

Well in the Judge Dredd model, each tower/block has its own "National Guard" style force generally consisting of several hundred men on duty at any time, they also have their own stores, hospitals (small scale, but still...) as well as innumerable other facilities. Indeed, many blocks also incorporate their own schools as well as power generation, waste management (preliminary stages, city wide Resyk plants handle most of it) and all the rest.

Also, on the social scale - each citizen is paid a stipend per week (or is it fortnight, I forget) that is enough to cover all of their expenses as well as leaving them money for entertainment. There are strict laws about what work is allowed to be done (some is robot only, some is human only) and private enterprise and indeed employment in general, though not actually enforced is techically illegal (at least in my understanding of it) as it promotes inequality.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Also, on the social scale - each citizen is paid a stipend per week (or is it fortnight, I forget)

Technically it's unemployment wages that are extremely generous due to a 89% unemployment rate due to the efficiency of robot workers.
It's economically more efficient for them to have the robots do the work and their economy allows them to support the 780/390 million unemployed.

and private enterprise and indeed employment in general, though not actually enforced is techically illegal

It's legal and their are job offices that have massive demand/ques, but a license is needed for it, and private enterprise especially is discouraged albeit unofficially.

Indeed, many blocks also incorporate their own schools as well as power generation, waste management (preliminary stages, city wide Resyk plants handle most of it) and all the rest.

Almost all blocks contain all their facilities, a citizen can easily "Spend their entire lives... without leaving their block".
A block is as you said essentially a miniature city (Which causes problems with interblock warfare, exuberated by the Citi-def guards leading the charge often out of boredom).

Also I feel insulted that you didn't acknowledge my post that led to this thread, unless it was simply pure coincidence/minds thinking alike;).

And let me also agree that it was a load of crap.

True, but a very low crime rate with near total universal subliminal education and conditioning combined with a controlled economy is relatively understandable, albeit the movie was indeed foolish.

[General Zod]

At what population level would a city be considered a megacity? With something like 30 million people, i'd consider Tokyo a megacity.

I think part of what he's talking about is density as well as sheer population. The Tokyo metropolitan area has 30 million people but an average density in the region of 13,000 to the square kilometer. This is pretty roomy compared to Paris, to say nothing of places like Lagos or Bombay. Problems become magnified by higher population densities.

I'm not exactly sure I'd consider Tokyo "roomy" by any sense of the word. Especially considering that some articles I've read have shown people who live in apartments not much larger than an office cubicle due to land being at a premium, and this is at the affordable end of apartments for your low income to middle income individuals.

[Anomie]

Here are a couple of Wikipedia articles on Mega-cities.

Mega-cities

Arcology

Sky City

Pyramid City

The last two are based on episodes from The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering programing (Two of my favorite episodes).