4 ms·
The author cites London as being a desirable city given the historical lack of disasters, steady government, and cultural preference for preservation etc. Londo
by fumblebee 5y ago
The author cites London as being a desirable city given the historical lack of disasters, steady government, and cultural preference for preservation etc. London was also my first thought as a safe haven for a long lasting build.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel London would be an obvious target for nuclear annihilation in some future conflict; UK commerce / industry / power / wealth is deeply centralised in London.
A better option would be to stick to the UK, but maybe a 100 miles outside of London proper.
- surfingdino 5y agoPlease build it somewhere else. We have enough eyesores in London, don't need another one. Also, based on evidence, houses that last ~1000 years are typically built from stone (see Italy, South of France, Spain, Greece, Portugal) with easily replaceable wooden roof, ceilings.
- notahacker 5y agoNever mind the small possibility of nukes (think my house surviving would be the least of my concerns for humanity then), London has the highest value land in the country and most of 1000 year old London is buried several feet below much newer and bigger buildings. Pretty much any smaller UK town that isn't threatened by coastal erosion, flooding or mining subsidence offers better survival prospects.