4 ms·

Since there are enough 'Cons'; some of the 'Pros' that could be in in its favor.. - Everyone on both side gets unblocked full vista. There are no other buildin

by achow 4y ago

Since there are enough 'Cons'; some of the 'Pros' that could be in in its favor.. - Everyone on both side gets unblocked full vista. There are no other buildings blocking the view or the sun. - Navigation is super easy. No getting lost in the city. - One single public (or private) transportation line (Metro, Bus, etc.), no criss crossing complicated routes. No calculation for what is the optimal route between two points in the city. - Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. - Incase of emergency easy and super fast evacuation, everyone simultaneously 'spills out' of the walls on either side. No long travel through city, getting blocked due to traffic jams. - With proper planning of shades, HVAC, etc. climate control could be more energy efficient.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Thanks for the balanced perspective. I would never live in such a place even with its benefits, but yes, it's not all bad.
automatic6131 4y ago
Is this satire? Surely this must be satire. Because every point you just listed is wrong. > Everyone on both side gets unblocked full vista. There are no other buildings blocking the view or the sun. This is meant to be 500 metres wide! Only the few on the outside get the view. > Navigation is super easy. No getting lost in the city. Navigation is really difficult if there's a blockage in your way or your destination is really far! You could also get lost - on foot! - in a three dimensional urban jungle. > One single public (or private) transportation line (Metro, Bus, etc.), no criss crossing complicated routes. No calculation for what is the optimal route between two points in the city. This is also reallllllly fragile. If there's a blockage, power failure, accident then you have real trouble. > Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. See above, also getting water into this... thing... is far from uncomplicated in the first place. No rivers, no natural water. And if it's all supplied through the city (as in, through 170km or whatever) where's the redundancy? What if the water pipes break? What if the sewage pipes spill? > Incase of emergency easy and super fast evacuation, everyone simultaneously 'spills out' of the walls on either side. No long travel through city, getting blocked due to traffic jams. Great, you have successfully evacuated everyone into the desert. How are you going to keep them alive? Evacuate them? Which scenarios is this a benefit? I can think of - maybe - a fire? But then fires in high rise build are already extremely deadly and this is a big high building, so it's not going to help > With proper planning of shades, HVAC, etc. climate control could be more energy efficient. Forget shade, there is none. Climate control - this is a 500m x 500m x 17000m building. This is never going to be efficent. EVER. Transport - distances between points have been absolutely maximised so it's also incredibly inefficient. Water? How do you get water in Saudi Arabia with NO RIVERS NEARBY? A massive desalination plant presumably - so again, NOT EFFICIENT.
majewsky 4y ago
> Everyone on both side gets unblocked full vista. Aren't the sides supposed to be completely covered in solar panels? > Navigation is super easy. No getting lost in the city. But your maps need to be inherently three-dimensional because of the verticality. Usually getting around in a city only requires a two-dimensional map until you enter the building at your destination. > One single [...] transportation line In other words, a single vehicle breaking down can take down the entire transit system. > One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure You still need to branch out from the single pipe in the same way as in a conventional city. Also, "one straight pipe" is a really bad idea because of the same issue as above. Good engineering is all about avoid single points of failure. > Incase of emergency easy and super fast evacuation, everyone simultaneously 'spills out' of the walls on either side. Into what is mostly inhospitable desert.
- mburee 4y ago
  > In other words, a single vehicle breaking down can take down the entire transit system. Eh. It's the same way for most train tracks around the world, single track and double tracks without frequent crossing. You could still push/pull them along with the next train, in case they have a single point of failure. Other points still stand, but with that quite ambitious completion date well see sooner than later
  - bpfrh 4y ago
    Yes, but in most other cities you can get to the point via different routes for example in my city I can reach some points with 3 different routes, with no single point of failure.
- Timshel 4y ago
  Fail too see why the fact it's a line would prevent redundancy. Do buildings have only one elevator ? No idea how it will end up, and outside of the problem of the location, at least it's an urban area envisioned around high density, public transport and walking. Not a suburban hellhole where you can't move without a car and where infrastructure push municipality into bankruptcy.
tgv 4y ago
> - Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. We're talking about a 170k long infrastructure. How is that easy to lay and maintain? At some point, the waste of 9 million people gets merged. That sounds too much to handle and a maintenance nightmare. And traveling in a circular city is a lot faster than in a linear one, of course.
tromp 4y ago
And if you get a 500m restraining order against a fellow Line citizen, then they're stuck on one side.
benj111 4y ago
>Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. But you lose the network effects of an actual 3d city. Want to work on the electricity. Every one on the wrong side loses electricity. Plus I'd hate to think of the scale required to get all these things through one pipe.

by achow 4y ago

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Thanks for the balanced perspective. I would never live in such a place even with its benefits, but yes, it's not all bad.

automatic6131 4y ago

Is this satire? Surely this must be satire. Because every point you just listed is wrong. > Everyone on both side gets unblocked full vista. There are no other buildings blocking the view or the sun. This is meant to be 500 metres wide! Only the few on the outside get the view. > Navigation is super easy. No getting lost in the city. Navigation is really difficult if there's a blockage in your way or your destination is really far! You could also get lost - on foot! - in a three dimensional urban jungle. > One single public (or private) transportation line (Metro, Bus, etc.), no criss crossing complicated routes. No calculation for what is the optimal route between two points in the city. This is also reallllllly fragile. If there's a blockage, power failure, accident then you have real trouble. > Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. See above, also getting water into this... thing... is far from uncomplicated in the first place. No rivers, no natural water. And if it's all supplied through the city (as in, through 170km or whatever) where's the redundancy? What if the water pipes break? What if the sewage pipes spill? > Incase of emergency easy and super fast evacuation, everyone simultaneously 'spills out' of the walls on either side. No long travel through city, getting blocked due to traffic jams. Great, you have successfully evacuated everyone into the desert. How are you going to keep them alive? Evacuate them? Which scenarios is this a benefit? I can think of - maybe - a fire? But then fires in high rise build are already extremely deadly and this is a big high building, so it's not going to help > With proper planning of shades, HVAC, etc. climate control could be more energy efficient. Forget shade, there is none. Climate control - this is a 500m x 500m x 17000m building. This is never going to be efficent. EVER. Transport - distances between points have been absolutely maximised so it's also incredibly inefficient. Water? How do you get water in Saudi Arabia with NO RIVERS NEARBY? A massive desalination plant presumably - so again, NOT EFFICIENT.

majewsky 4y ago

> Everyone on both side gets unblocked full vista. Aren't the sides supposed to be completely covered in solar panels? > Navigation is super easy. No getting lost in the city. But your maps need to be inherently three-dimensional because of the verticality. Usually getting around in a city only requires a two-dimensional map until you enter the building at your destination. > One single [...] transportation line In other words, a single vehicle breaking down can take down the entire transit system. > One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure You still need to branch out from the single pipe in the same way as in a conventional city. Also, "one straight pipe" is a really bad idea because of the same issue as above. Good engineering is all about avoid single points of failure. > Incase of emergency easy and super fast evacuation, everyone simultaneously 'spills out' of the walls on either side. Into what is mostly inhospitable desert.

mburee 4y ago
> In other words, a single vehicle breaking down can take down the entire transit system. Eh. It's the same way for most train tracks around the world, single track and double tracks without frequent crossing. You could still push/pull them along with the next train, in case they have a single point of failure. Other points still stand, but with that quite ambitious completion date well see sooner than later
- bpfrh 4y ago
  Yes, but in most other cities you can get to the point via different routes for example in my city I can reach some points with 3 different routes, with no single point of failure.
Timshel 4y ago
Fail too see why the fact it's a line would prevent redundancy. Do buildings have only one elevator ? No idea how it will end up, and outside of the problem of the location, at least it's an urban area envisioned around high density, public transport and walking. Not a suburban hellhole where you can't move without a car and where infrastructure push municipality into bankruptcy.

tgv 4y ago

> - Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. We're talking about a 170k long infrastructure. How is that easy to lay and maintain? At some point, the waste of 9 million people gets merged. That sounds too much to handle and a maintenance nightmare. And traveling in a circular city is a lot faster than in a linear one, of course.

tromp 4y ago

And if you get a 500m restraining order against a fellow Line citizen, then they're stuck on one side.

benj111 4y ago

>Same holds true for essentials like water, electricity, sewage etc. One straight uncomplicated pipe infrastructure - easy to lay, maintain. But you lose the network effects of an actual 3d city. Want to work on the electricity. Every one on the wrong side loses electricity. Plus I'd hate to think of the scale required to get all these things through one pipe.