Starting with a POD not before 1900, what's the earliest we could see an arcology (or arcology analogue) housing a million people?
Odd Challenge
- Thread starter Justin Pickard
- Start date
Imo it's not that complicated a thing to do earlier. The necessary technolgy (buildings made from steel and glass - stone would not be very practical) existed from the 1920s. Have a very rich construction company owner come up with the according idea would probably be sufficient to make it work any time from then.
A rough calculation assuming 1 cubic meter of space per person would mean it could be done in 100x100x100 meters - not really such an engineering feet, not even extremely costly compared to other buildings of similar size.
Sleeping would be done in bunk beds, tubes, or the likes (think of this hotel in Tokyo), with some noise protection. The beds would be available in different configurations for singles, couples, families, children, and so on, in different sizes, according to need. They'd be used by different people each, so that the structure needs less beds than it has inhabitants (depends upon how many people work night shifts, late, or early). They should also be convertible to be usable during the day for different purposes. Some might be foldable, stackable, or the likes, to make room while they are not in use.
Office work would be done in structures more like studying rooms than cubicles. To save space, the areas where people sit might be less high than the walk ways.
To save energy, walls, doors, floors, and ceilings, roofs, and so on would be made with a lot of glass, to let light shine through the whole structure. Other parts would be made mostly of white or reflecting materials, which would also help distribute the light and which would allow illuminating it with comparably few light sources. "Light courts" might also help get sun light to the lower levels, while being useful for air circulation and other purposes. The visual openness should also help make people feel less "encased". I suppose some of the effects (like people walking along on above levels causing shadows) would need some getting used to, but people could handle eventually.
People would eat in canteens, which would also function as assembly places, lounges, and so on.
Many corridors would be one-way, to make it possible for them to handle lots of people without taking up much space.
A possibility to get started might be a university reducing the complete student housing and teaching facilities into a single building. Such a small arc might only be made for 10 000 or 100 000 people, but it might give the university the possibility to sell off enough property to finance the building and some more. After a successful start, more universities and even some boarding schools might start similar projects.
Once the concept has become popular and cheap due to mass production of the parts, it might replace social and worker homes.
Due to the low cost, the same for a million people could then easily happen in any city with 4 million or more inhabitants.
Something similar might already exist in some Hong Kong homes / sweat shops I saw on tv once, though not quite as extreme.
A rough calculation assuming 1 cubic meter of space per person would mean it could be done in 100x100x100 meters - not really such an engineering feet, not even extremely costly compared to other buildings of similar size.
Sleeping would be done in bunk beds, tubes, or the likes (think of this hotel in Tokyo), with some noise protection. The beds would be available in different configurations for singles, couples, families, children, and so on, in different sizes, according to need. They'd be used by different people each, so that the structure needs less beds than it has inhabitants (depends upon how many people work night shifts, late, or early). They should also be convertible to be usable during the day for different purposes. Some might be foldable, stackable, or the likes, to make room while they are not in use.
Office work would be done in structures more like studying rooms than cubicles. To save space, the areas where people sit might be less high than the walk ways.
To save energy, walls, doors, floors, and ceilings, roofs, and so on would be made with a lot of glass, to let light shine through the whole structure. Other parts would be made mostly of white or reflecting materials, which would also help distribute the light and which would allow illuminating it with comparably few light sources. "Light courts" might also help get sun light to the lower levels, while being useful for air circulation and other purposes. The visual openness should also help make people feel less "encased". I suppose some of the effects (like people walking along on above levels causing shadows) would need some getting used to, but people could handle eventually.
People would eat in canteens, which would also function as assembly places, lounges, and so on.
Many corridors would be one-way, to make it possible for them to handle lots of people without taking up much space.
A possibility to get started might be a university reducing the complete student housing and teaching facilities into a single building. Such a small arc might only be made for 10 000 or 100 000 people, but it might give the university the possibility to sell off enough property to finance the building and some more. After a successful start, more universities and even some boarding schools might start similar projects.
Once the concept has become popular and cheap due to mass production of the parts, it might replace social and worker homes.
Due to the low cost, the same for a million people could then easily happen in any city with 4 million or more inhabitants.
Something similar might already exist in some Hong Kong homes / sweat shops I saw on tv once, though not quite as extreme.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
So if the technology has been available for 80 years, what social changes would we have to see that would cause people to accept living as an entire community within one building? At least in America, the changes required to make arcology living acceptable to people would probably require a society and economy almost unrecognizable to us today.
I suppose there are lots of people who'd like the idea or accept it once it hits them. There's just no need. Why live in such a confined space when it's easy and affordable to have much more room? Also, most businesses prefer buildings tailored pretty much to their demands, and showing some degree of luxury (success). Also not too compatible with such arcs.
I suppose we'd need much higher population numbers, maybe caused by a pro-growth religious movement or the likes, much higher income differences, maybe due to less competition with communism and some other factors (religion?), a much more rationalisation-oriented economic thinking, and probably also more tolerance for peasants living in such places (think of our average tolerance for sweat shops, which aren't too different from the concept).
A problem to be solved would also be illnesses.
Max Sinister
Banned
Soviets decide to build a prestige project? In the 20s they planned to introduce a truly "revolutionary" architecture.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
It would have to be in a totalitarian regime. No private venture would build such an obvious moneyloser.
Hendryk
Banned
The original location was Hong Kong, but then it was decided to do it in Shanghai. Not that the project is anywhere near getting started. There's already enough of a building frenzy in China these days.
