city buildings

[Rob Oplawar]

http://www.totalleh.com/non/beta491.jpg
e: LOL oops, pasted the wrong thing from my clipboard. meant to paste this:

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/09/15/mad-architects-superstar-mobile-city
lolWUT
Who else thinks these super self-contained "cities of the future" are starting to get really ridiculous?

Although, I wouldn't be surprised to see that thing in Dubai...

[itszutak]

It's never a good thing when they put "of the future" in the name.

Also, that thing looks like it could blow over and stab a city

[Limited]

Sounds to me like one of these self containing places that have EVERYTHING, bit like a cruiseship, problem then is people will have no reason to go outside of it. =\

Looks a bit deadly too, the angles would be a bitch to make level floor space in too lol.

[Terin]

It'll be like Wall-E. We'll need some clean-up robot to invade the city in order to get us out of our luxury-induced coma. D:

[Rob Oplawar]

Seems to me that if you're going to be absurdly over-the-top spare-no-expense with these city buildings, it would be better to make them wide and flat rather than tall and glaring, and to cover them with parks/gardens/farmland. I mean, if the idea is self-sustainment and eco-friendliness, you're much better off building a bunch of wide 10-20 story buildings close together with usable soil on top of them than you are building a behemoth 200 story column of glass and concrete, the top floors of which you then have to heat and pressurize, while wasting tons of energy carrying people, consumables, and building materials thousands of feet into the air.

The only problem with my wide and flat theory is that I'm pretty sure geothermal couldn't power an entire city, even if you coupled it with windfarms on top. In order to have it meet its own energy demands, the top would have to be covered in solar arrays, or something, and that just defeats the purpose of having a low flat city on top of which you can place farmland.

But I still think it could be a beautiful city- much prettier than these glass and concrete monstrosities. Someday I'll model up a scene depicting my concept and show it off here.

[k4is3rxkh40s]

Seems to me that if you're going to be absurdly over-the-top spare-no-expense with these city buildings, it would be better to make them wide and flat rather than tall and glaring, and to cover them with parks/gardens/farmland. I mean, if the idea is self-sustainment and eco-friendliness, you're much better off building a bunch of wide 10-20 story buildings close together with usable soil on top of them than you are building a behemoth 200 story column of glass and concrete, the top floors of which you then have to heat and pressurize, while wasting tons of energy carrying people, consumables, and building materials thousands of feet into the air.

The only problem with my wide and flat theory is that I'm pretty sure geothermal couldn't power an entire city, even if you coupled it with windfarms on top. In order to have it meet its own energy demands, the top would have to be covered in solar arrays, or something, and that just defeats the purpose of having a low flat city on top of which you can place farmland.

But I still think it could be a beautiful city- much prettier than these glass and concrete monstrosities. Someday I'll model up a scene depicting my concept and show it off here.

May not be in space, but they may be trying to go for the utilitarian inside, like the Battle School from Ender's Game

[Patrickssj6]

oh i c