3 ms·

This is a good project. The way we currently run our living spaces is extremely inefficient. We distribute people to many disparate neighborhoods, and - in the

This is a good project. The way we currently run our living spaces is extremely inefficient. We distribute people to many disparate neighborhoods, and - in the case of the US - gasp suburbs, and then face the problems which having to provide all the infrastructure, supply networks, transportation to those places create. One unmistakable example of this is traffic congestion and how a lot of energy, productivity and even more importantly, the precious time of people are lost while going from place to place, leave aside in congestions. The people are having to do this because it is just how things are, not because it is the best thing that mankind should have been doing. The systems logic that they have in this project makes sense: A more efficient structure would definitely make running a large urban region much more effective. And Saudi Arabia has a lot of flat, uninterrupted, unused space that is largely outside the earthquake, storm and other disaster zones, so a big linear structure can be easily workable there. The line structure seems to be well calculated - its long, but its very thin. Meaning that they plan to run everything one single, uninterrupted, well, line of infra. Which totally makes sense from an engineering standpoint. If it was a vanity project or wasteful indulgence as some claim, the systems side of this would not be made as simple as this and it would be something more grand. Moreover, the linear building concept that apparently does not seem to inspire anyone judging from the comments, is another evidence that it was chosen for its systems efficiency, and not awe factor or tourism value. Again, its an interesting project. Even if they can pull off a fraction of it and succeed in developing a large, uninterrupted urbanization that is efficient, it can make a great breakthrough in terms of urban technology.

emkoemko 4y ago
how is a line more efficient then a circle?
- unity1001 4y ago
  A circle is literally a bent line. It could work as well. However, you would get a bent line in the end. Aside from the problems that running an infra on a circular shape with bent curves would bring, it could work. A line would be just easier.
  - olig15 4y ago
    It’s not that simple. A ‘bent line circle’ can be crossed from one ‘end’ to the other much faster than with a line by going through the middle.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      That's for people. For infrastructure, that is physically so too. But interlinking different units in the different points in a circular structure introduces a lot of complexities if done. Much easier to construct standalone units that get supplied from a line.
gherkinnn 4y ago
No, it makes zero sense to build a city along a line. It is comically inefficient, offers no fault tolerance nor ability for expansion. I don’t even know where to begin. By all means put it in a forgettable sci-fi movie. Don’t take it further.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > No, it makes zero sense to build a city along a line. Why. That we are building cities in non-linear fashion because we dont have enough flat, contiguous land in most of the world does not make it the best paradigm. Moreover, there were historic communities that were built in such linear fashion. Ancient Egypt itself, was a gigantic line around the Nile river where the Nile played the role of the infrastructure.
  - majewsky 4y ago
    > because we dont have enough flat, contiguous land in most of the world But even in the plentiful places where we do, cities grow in two dimensions. > Ancient Egypt itself, was a gigantic line around the Nile river where the Nile played the role of the infrastructure. This is indeed a good example, though it proves the opposite of your point. The Egyptians spread in a linear fashion because (and only because) the land far away from the Nile was pretty much uninhabitable (except with a nomadic lifestyle).
    - unity1001 4y ago
      > But even in the plentiful places where we do, cities grow in two dimensions. We don't have plentiful places to be able to construct any linear cities. The majority of the world's habitable zones do not permit such construction. You would eventually have to oblige with what geography and geology imposes on you even after a few kilometers. Saudi Arabia has immense desert stretches that are uniform and that are fit for this purpose. What would prohibit it would be the desert environment not being conducive to living. But an efficient planning and infrastructure like they are likely doing would make it possible. > This is indeed a good example, though it proves the opposite of your point. No, you disproved your point: > The Egyptians spread in a linear fashion because (and only because) the land far away from the Nile was pretty much uninhabitable (except with a nomadic lifestyle). That is precisely the reason why Egyptians lived in linear fashion, and thats also the reason why their entire civilization never had infrastructure problems and it was able to undertake construction projects like the pyramids.The reason for having to urbanize in such a linear outline does not negate its merits. Moreover - the majority of the world's civilizations and urbanization has developed along the rivers. That many rivers do not follow a straight line and turns in curvers does not mean that they are not line-like in their behavior. Even when the land far away from the rivers were arable and habitable, the urbanization did not spread too far away from the river. The infrastructure that the river provides is way too efficient to give up. Even if it is only for providing water for consumption and for irrigation. Actually, it is so even today - the majority of world's urbanization and mega cities and even industries are still spread along the rivers.

emkoemko 4y ago

how is a line more efficient then a circle?

unity1001 4y ago
A circle is literally a bent line. It could work as well. However, you would get a bent line in the end. Aside from the problems that running an infra on a circular shape with bent curves would bring, it could work. A line would be just easier.
- olig15 4y ago
  It’s not that simple. A ‘bent line circle’ can be crossed from one ‘end’ to the other much faster than with a line by going through the middle.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    That's for people. For infrastructure, that is physically so too. But interlinking different units in the different points in a circular structure introduces a lot of complexities if done. Much easier to construct standalone units that get supplied from a line.

gherkinnn 4y ago

No, it makes zero sense to build a city along a line. It is comically inefficient, offers no fault tolerance nor ability for expansion. I don’t even know where to begin. By all means put it in a forgettable sci-fi movie. Don’t take it further.

unity1001 4y ago
> No, it makes zero sense to build a city along a line. Why. That we are building cities in non-linear fashion because we dont have enough flat, contiguous land in most of the world does not make it the best paradigm. Moreover, there were historic communities that were built in such linear fashion. Ancient Egypt itself, was a gigantic line around the Nile river where the Nile played the role of the infrastructure.
- majewsky 4y ago
  > because we dont have enough flat, contiguous land in most of the world But even in the plentiful places where we do, cities grow in two dimensions. > Ancient Egypt itself, was a gigantic line around the Nile river where the Nile played the role of the infrastructure. This is indeed a good example, though it proves the opposite of your point. The Egyptians spread in a linear fashion because (and only because) the land far away from the Nile was pretty much uninhabitable (except with a nomadic lifestyle).
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > But even in the plentiful places where we do, cities grow in two dimensions. We don't have plentiful places to be able to construct any linear cities. The majority of the world's habitable zones do not permit such construction. You would eventually have to oblige with what geography and geology imposes on you even after a few kilometers. Saudi Arabia has immense desert stretches that are uniform and that are fit for this purpose. What would prohibit it would be the desert environment not being conducive to living. But an efficient planning and infrastructure like they are likely doing would make it possible. > This is indeed a good example, though it proves the opposite of your point. No, you disproved your point: > The Egyptians spread in a linear fashion because (and only because) the land far away from the Nile was pretty much uninhabitable (except with a nomadic lifestyle). That is precisely the reason why Egyptians lived in linear fashion, and thats also the reason why their entire civilization never had infrastructure problems and it was able to undertake construction projects like the pyramids.The reason for having to urbanize in such a linear outline does not negate its merits. Moreover - the majority of the world's civilizations and urbanization has developed along the rivers. That many rivers do not follow a straight line and turns in curvers does not mean that they are not line-like in their behavior. Even when the land far away from the rivers were arable and habitable, the urbanization did not spread too far away from the river. The infrastructure that the river provides is way too efficient to give up. Even if it is only for providing water for consumption and for irrigation. Actually, it is so even today - the majority of world's urbanization and mega cities and even industries are still spread along the rivers.