Yeah but I’d also like to see such huge buildings in the middle of nature. Imagine 10.000 people with their own daycare, school or even medic / doctor surrounded by fields and food forests so they can produce their own food. Generates it’s own power, centralized super efficient heat storage system for winter, cleans up it’s own water etc. And have a fast mass transport to the next hub, like a chain of such buildings a few miles apart linking to the next big city. That’s my solar punk.
It’s basically a whole city in a building. The big advantage for this is that the city is not taking up massive amounts of space.
American Fork, Utah, has 33k inhabitants on 19 square kilometres. The building in the OP has 20-30k inhabitants on 0.04 square kilometres, which would mean that if you house all of American Fork like that, you’d get between 18.92 and 18.96 of untouched nature in return.
Yeah exactly. Highly compact and energy efficient living while still living in nature and luxuriously, and little large scale infrastructure.
Restoring nature would be a major way to fight climate change too. Of course you’d want fields lined by hedgerows (Bocage?) and food forests to produce the food those 10-30k inhabitants needs right outside, so you save transportation energy costs. And it’s self sufficient at least in areas with water sources nearby or rainfall to capture.
I can also imagine a “mini-monorail” with single seats that run on a simple metal beam build by a welding robot to connect such buildings and transport people, carry internet and power.
I’ve seen fancy ideas for “arcologies” in cities but never one in nature with enough food calorie production right outside. I’d honestly love to live in a skyscaper where each apartment has a beautiful view on unspoiled countryside.
It’s kinda crazy to me that people want to “live in nature” and what they do is live in a suburb with their paved roads and fenced lawns that are biologically dead. They have some grass and that’s it. Nothing lives in there.
I think that’s where hyper-individualism leads us when people don’t want to share spaces but want their own little castle. But sharing spaces and parks would be vastly more cost and energy efficient (so I assume these countryside arcologies would also be very cheap way to live). Also you’d want an association that is geared to be more democratic than typical HOAs are (they are designed to improve and maintain property values for the whole project instead of living quality or utility). So even the individualism of suburbs are a kind of scam.
Yeah but I’d also like to see such huge buildings in the middle of nature. Imagine 10.000 people with their own daycare, school or even medic / doctor surrounded by fields and food forests so they can produce their own food. Generates it’s own power, centralized super efficient heat storage system for winter, cleans up it’s own water etc. And have a fast mass transport to the next hub, like a chain of such buildings a few miles apart linking to the next big city. That’s my solar punk.
It’s basically a whole city in a building. The big advantage for this is that the city is not taking up massive amounts of space.
American Fork, Utah, has 33k inhabitants on 19 square kilometres. The building in the OP has 20-30k inhabitants on 0.04 square kilometres, which would mean that if you house all of American Fork like that, you’d get between 18.92 and 18.96 of untouched nature in return.
Yeah exactly. Highly compact and energy efficient living while still living in nature and luxuriously, and little large scale infrastructure.
Restoring nature would be a major way to fight climate change too. Of course you’d want fields lined by hedgerows (Bocage?) and food forests to produce the food those 10-30k inhabitants needs right outside, so you save transportation energy costs. And it’s self sufficient at least in areas with water sources nearby or rainfall to capture.
I can also imagine a “mini-monorail” with single seats that run on a simple metal beam build by a welding robot to connect such buildings and transport people, carry internet and power.
I’ve seen fancy ideas for “arcologies” in cities but never one in nature with enough food calorie production right outside. I’d honestly love to live in a skyscaper where each apartment has a beautiful view on unspoiled countryside.
It’s kinda crazy to me that people want to “live in nature” and what they do is live in a suburb with their paved roads and fenced lawns that are biologically dead. They have some grass and that’s it. Nothing lives in there.
I think that’s where hyper-individualism leads us when people don’t want to share spaces but want their own little castle. But sharing spaces and parks would be vastly more cost and energy efficient (so I assume these countryside arcologies would also be very cheap way to live). Also you’d want an association that is geared to be more democratic than typical HOAs are (they are designed to improve and maintain property values for the whole project instead of living quality or utility). So even the individualism of suburbs are a kind of scam.