Giant SimCity 2000ish Arcologies, yes or no?

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-02-22 07:37pm

I don't know which, but I think they're helluva cool.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-22 08:01pm

What are you asking? Did we like the Arcologies in the game? Or something else? My favorite was the Launch Arco.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-22 08:15pm

Actually there probably will be sky scrapers similar to the being built in 20-3 years. We've been studying urban architecture in IDS and some of the designs (particularly from guys like Calatrava) are pretty much in the arcologie design.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-22 08:38pm

living one of them would probably suck!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-22 09:00pm

salm wrote:living one of them would probably suck!

How so? It'd all depend on the design of the thing.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-02-22 09:14pm

The launch arcology would be nice, techno-living structure below, park and sky dome above.
The other ones, plymouth forest and Draco would probably suck because they all make no sense and would be stifling. Draco is bad architecture, forest is agrarian nonsense and plymouth is depressing. Personnaly I wouldn't mind a smoother style of architecture in skyscrapers, though it would probably be problematic for designers and engineers.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-22 09:59pm

We might see some really huge apartment buildings in coming years with shops and maybe schools on the lower levels. But at least in the US large residential complexes have been an awful failure, with many being destroyed recently.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-22 10:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:We might see some really huge apartment buildings in coming years with shops and maybe schools on the lower levels. But at least in the US large residential complexes have been an awful failure, with many being destroyed recently.

Part of that is because they were done all wrong. Shitty design, shitty execution, poor maintenance and a shitty class of resident in most cases.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2003-02-23 01:05am

Overly tall buildings = NO

I'm not living in one, thats for sure.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-23 01:18am

I believe that some people have concepts for towers 1000+ meters tall right now, but there are no plans to build them. Frank Lloyd Wright had a design for a mile-tall skyscraper also. I'm sure with strong enough materials, good planning, and a fast enough elevator, they could happen.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-23 01:26am

In countries like Japan, tall buildings are a must, since space is so limited. So tall buildings aren't always automatically bad.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-23 01:26am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I believe that some people have concepts for towers 1000+ meters tall right now, but there are no plans to build them. Frank Lloyd Wright had a design for a mile-tall skyscraper also. I'm sure with strong enough materials, good planning, and a fast enough elevator, they could happen.

Problem is money and cost effectiveness. A larger number of 50 or so story buildings offer a better return since you can get them up and running quicker, and don’t need to use up as much space on the lower floors for structure or utilities to support the upper stories.

Really, most city centers are nowhere near packed enough for building much bigger then that to be required. And with the economies of recent decades prestige and publicity that comes with huge buildings just isn't worth it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-23 01:30am

Shinova wrote:In countries like Japan, tall buildings are a must, since space is so limited. So tall buildings aren't always automatically bad.

Even Japan doesn't have all that many huge buildings. In Japan you find swarms of medium sized buildings, but few which look like the designers where trying to match the World Trade center's towers or anything like that.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-23 01:35am

Sea Skimmer wrote:We might see some really huge apartment buildings in coming years with shops and maybe schools on the lower levels. But at least in the US large residential complexes have been an awful failure, with many being destroyed recently.

If your talking about the fate of the numerous 'public housing complexes' that isn't really the same as the type of buildings we are talking about here. Public Housing by its very nature causes its own self destruction, as the tenants lack any sense of ownership or responsibility to the upkeep of the buildings. Combine that with shoddy construction and ineffective administration and they become the 'verticle ghettos' we are all familiar with.

Arcologies are essentially entire towns, built into a single building. This is like the reverse of urban flight by creatitng a verticle suburb. You would 'own' your own home within the walls, in the same way you 'own' a condominium today. these would be middle to upperclass types of settlements eiether built by private developement consortiums or as part od a new phase of corporate integration where you both live and work in the company arcology. I find them to be an interesting idea, far less wasteful of arable land than the current urban sprawl and in my mind at least a greater social convienence. I would love to both live and work in the same building where work is only a few mins away by transport car, and I don't have to deal with roads, weather, car ownership or maintanence and the other assorted headaches of the commute. By the same token , all my needs such as shopping, healthcare, and amusement are all close at hand, I'd be all for it.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-23 03:59am

They make for a nice building in a game, but in real life they would not work out for several reasons.

Most people if given a choice prefer a single family detached home, even if they have condo like I do, I do not want to be 30 stories up. I want a low rise building.

Working close to home is such a pipe dream. You get a job where you are offered one, and you live where you can afford. The two seldom correspond. Jobs come and go, most people live in the same place for 5-10 years, but change jobs every 2-3 years.

I really dont see them being able to match job types with residents in a single building anymore than they can match neighborhoods with business parks today.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-23 06:02am

Don't count on seeing any arcologies in the near future.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-23 08:42am

Stormbringer wrote:
salm wrote:living one of them would probably suck!
How so? It'd all depend on the design of the thing.

you´ll be troubled with getting enough sunlight into the apartements. artificial light is not a real alternative.
what would you do with the space which does not have winows. you could put commercial stuff there but that would be way too much space for that.
the light is the arco´s problem.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2003-02-23 09:04am

I kind of like the design of the Arcologies in Masamune Shirow's Appleseed.

Their overall shape is similar to a half-dome, but the smooth side slopes, and iscover in sunward-facing mirrors. The domed side isn't smooth, however and you can see induvidual balconies and structures built on the surface. The Mirrored face is open near the canter, and the inside is hollowed-out to a point. To reduce density of the arcology blocks, factories are moved underground, and the majority of the powergrids are in orbit.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-23 09:18am

SAMAS wrote:I kind of like the design of the Arcologies in Masamune Shirow's Appleseed.

Their overall shape is similar to a half-dome, but the smooth side slopes, and iscover in sunward-facing mirrors. The domed side isn't smooth, however and you can see induvidual balconies and structures built on the surface. The Mirrored face is open near the canter, and the inside is hollowed-out to a point. To reduce density of the arcology blocks, factories are moved underground, and the majority of the powergrids are in orbit.

sounds interesting. got any pics?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-23 10:34am

I was watching a program on Discovery last night which touched upon such ideas...one was talking about a design for Hong Kong with a 800+m tall tower to be built in the bay....it was very intresting....

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-23 12:31pm

I am suddenly reminded of the Caves of Steel.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-02-23 04:29pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I am suddenly reminded of the Caves of Steel.

Asimov probably had it right. Right now people say "Nonono, we want to live in little buildings in humongous sprawling cities." And that's perfectly fine when you don't have population pressures on arable land. But, as you increase your population, you eventually have to start finding ways to house the people, and reduce the area they take up. Other pressures to consolidate urban populations come from pollution concerns. Automobiles pump out lots of pollution. This is true from the moment we mine the iron from the earth to the point Bubba drives his brand new 2003 Humungowhale-o-saurus SUV off the dealership lot, and through the time he wraps it around a telephone pole and it gets hauled off to a salvage yard. And it's demonstrated big sprawling cities generate their own climate. For example, it's much hotter in Phoenix than it is in the areas outside the city.

Eventually, cities will have to be consolidated into a few large high-rise buildings, with only the richest people living in somewhat larger, low-rise estates. But, very likely, it will really happen long after I'm dead.

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-23 05:05pm

It's definitly an interesting idea, but I think that lack of sunlight would be a major problem...people don't think they need it, but not having it can be a health problem.

And the lights that simulate it are fairly expensive.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-23 05:27pm

Cap'n Hector wrote:It's definitly an interesting idea, but I think that lack of sunlight would be a major problem...people don't think they need it, but not having it can be a health problem.

And the lights that simulate it are fairly expensive.

If you design it properly there are ways of letting daylight into even an archology type skyscraper, it wouls just require a lot of work.

And eventually there will come a point at which we'll need to big buildings so large as the make the cost of even sunbulbs cheap compared to the real estate.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-23 07:57pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:It's definitly an interesting idea, but I think that lack of sunlight would be a major problem...people don't think they need it, but not having it can be a health problem.

And the lights that simulate it are fairly expensive.
If you design it properly there are ways of letting daylight into even an archology type skyscraper, it wouls just require a lot of work.

And eventually there will come a point at which we'll need to big buildings so large as the make the cost of even sunbulbs cheap compared to the real estate.

what do you consider an arco? a building with something like a radius of 70 meters or more something like a radius of several hundred meters?