4 ms·

Will it be called Delta City, will it be built on the ruins of Old Detroit, and will it be patrolled by a new generation of law-enforcement robots? Or maybe he

Will it be called Delta City, will it be built on the ruins of Old Detroit, and will it be patrolled by a new generation of law-enforcement robots? Or maybe he can call it "Rapture", and build it underwater. More seriously: I wonder how much city 500 billion dollars could really build? Given a blank slate of no planning or zoning conflicts.

moonchrome 5y ago
I'm actually sad nobody is building moonshots like Rapture. If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land). We either have super far out (basically marketing BS) projects talking about Mars colonisation or things like this that's basically more of the same just another iteration. Building something that could withstand a couple of atmospheres of pressure, in a hostile environment (seawater) with currents, with full reliance on artificial air filtration, etc. - solve that and it doesn't matter what happens with climate change, super volcano eruptions, meteors, nuclear catastrophes, pollution etc. not to mention you have hard borders to prevent global pandemic outbreaks.
- akudha 5y ago
  If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land). We have ruined our land and air. We have polluted the oceans to an insane level. What makes you think that we'll do a good job with deep undersea cities? We are even polluting space with debris, are we not?
- crowbahr 5y ago
  Nobody builds moonshots like rapture because there's low hanging fruit with easy and quick returns with nowhere near the risk.
  - moonchrome 5y ago
    Sure but that means nobody is building for tail risks. Also these kind of projects require solving problems nobody even tackled so far and they often shake out things that bring industries out of local minimum, providing long term value. Sort of like the space race.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Building a deep sea underwater city is likely more outrageous than an underground city on mars. You're not avoiding tail risks by doing something preposterously dangerous like this because you will almost certainly die regardless of the above world conditions. You'd have to deal with: * needs to be anchored to something somehow * no sunlight * likely catastrophic vulnerability to any tectonic movement * no easily accessible soil * extremely high, extremely slow costs of expansion * no clear way to build the initial structure. * need for perfect protection from the salt * heating problems * likely complete dependence on the above world for materials and food. mostly just going to be nuclear subs with a handful of additional disadvantages.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land). I'm sure we'll figure out a way of replicating our environment-harming technologies but for underwater use, and eventually will pay the price for that as well.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>More seriously: I wonder how much city 500 billion dollars could really build? Given a blank slate of no planning or zoning conflicts. That's it right there. Since he wants to keep ownership of the land like the government does. He can build stuff like condo buildings. Yet those costs are only in the ~50 million range for a big one. You obviously sell the units and have your government be the condo board. Basically recouping any costs here. There you have housing. Next is food. Are they producing food? Maybe not necessary, truck it in via walmart. Next you want walmart warehouses for food and goods. That builds itself, walmart is the one who takes on the cost because they'll pay that off in the long run. Utilities are built in, bringing big power to the edge of your city will be costly, but we're talking less than 50 million. Anything more than that and you start looking at doing it yourself. security and safety doesnt have a problem yet because you don't have that part of society. Stuff like police are paid for and expand with the population. Next you need entertainment and similar. There's a big chunk of $. Probably going to be $5 billion and not pay for itself for a long time, but it will. What more do you need? Small time stuff? Not going to really break the bank.
- ourmandave 5y ago
  tl;dr Discount North Korea
- Maarten88 5y ago
  I think infrastructure will be hugely expensive. When you want to build a city that is sustainable, you'll need to build subways, infrastructure for cars, bikes and walking, sewer systems, garbage collection, energy, communication and something for distribution of food and goods. All these things will be better when doing them collaboratively, instead of individualized. You'll need taxation to pay for them collaboratively. But they should be designed and built up-front, before anyone starts living there - because otherwise people will start doing things the wrong way (i.e. traveling by car instead of public transport) and after that it is very hard to change. Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that. Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.

moonchrome 5y ago

I'm actually sad nobody is building moonshots like Rapture. If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land). We either have super far out (basically marketing BS) projects talking about Mars colonisation or things like this that's basically more of the same just another iteration. Building something that could withstand a couple of atmospheres of pressure, in a hostile environment (seawater) with currents, with full reliance on artificial air filtration, etc. - solve that and it doesn't matter what happens with climate change, super volcano eruptions, meteors, nuclear catastrophes, pollution etc. not to mention you have hard borders to prevent global pandemic outbreaks.

akudha 5y ago
If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land). We have ruined our land and air. We have polluted the oceans to an insane level. What makes you think that we'll do a good job with deep undersea cities? We are even polluting space with debris, are we not?
crowbahr 5y ago
Nobody builds moonshots like rapture because there's low hanging fruit with easy and quick returns with nowhere near the risk.
- moonchrome 5y ago
  Sure but that means nobody is building for tail risks. Also these kind of projects require solving problems nobody even tackled so far and they often shake out things that bring industries out of local minimum, providing long term value. Sort of like the space race.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Building a deep sea underwater city is likely more outrageous than an underground city on mars. You're not avoiding tail risks by doing something preposterously dangerous like this because you will almost certainly die regardless of the above world conditions. You'd have to deal with: * needs to be anchored to something somehow * no sunlight * likely catastrophic vulnerability to any tectonic movement * no easily accessible soil * extremely high, extremely slow costs of expansion * no clear way to build the initial structure. * need for perfect protection from the salt * heating problems * likely complete dependence on the above world for materials and food. mostly just going to be nuclear subs with a handful of additional disadvantages.
capableweb 5y ago
> If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land). I'm sure we'll figure out a way of replicating our environment-harming technologies but for underwater use, and eventually will pay the price for that as well.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>More seriously: I wonder how much city 500 billion dollars could really build? Given a blank slate of no planning or zoning conflicts. That's it right there. Since he wants to keep ownership of the land like the government does. He can build stuff like condo buildings. Yet those costs are only in the ~50 million range for a big one. You obviously sell the units and have your government be the condo board. Basically recouping any costs here. There you have housing. Next is food. Are they producing food? Maybe not necessary, truck it in via walmart. Next you want walmart warehouses for food and goods. That builds itself, walmart is the one who takes on the cost because they'll pay that off in the long run. Utilities are built in, bringing big power to the edge of your city will be costly, but we're talking less than 50 million. Anything more than that and you start looking at doing it yourself. security and safety doesnt have a problem yet because you don't have that part of society. Stuff like police are paid for and expand with the population. Next you need entertainment and similar. There's a big chunk of $. Probably going to be $5 billion and not pay for itself for a long time, but it will. What more do you need? Small time stuff? Not going to really break the bank.

ourmandave 5y ago
tl;dr Discount North Korea
Maarten88 5y ago
I think infrastructure will be hugely expensive. When you want to build a city that is sustainable, you'll need to build subways, infrastructure for cars, bikes and walking, sewer systems, garbage collection, energy, communication and something for distribution of food and goods. All these things will be better when doing them collaboratively, instead of individualized. You'll need taxation to pay for them collaboratively. But they should be designed and built up-front, before anyone starts living there - because otherwise people will start doing things the wrong way (i.e. traveling by car instead of public transport) and after that it is very hard to change. Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that. Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.