3 ms·
It housed 33,000 people. While on paper that's extremely dense it's not necessarily scalable - and kind of provably so, since they tore it down and evacuated ev
by duped 4y ago
It housed 33,000 people. While on paper that's extremely dense it's not necessarily scalable - and kind of provably so, since they tore it down and evacuated everyone who lived there.
What would the sewage infrastructure look like for a 1km square with almost two million people in it? How about the ventilation? Police and fire? It's not really tenable.
- tormeh 4y agoTore it down against the will of the people living there. And the building height was constrained by an overhead airport approach. KWC could have been even denser. I don't think going full KWC density is a good idea, but comparisons to it serves as a rough measure of how far from "full" a city really is. And I think it's important to remind ourselves of that from time to time. SF, to pick an example near and dear to HN readers, is not full. All residents of the Bay Area could fit between Market Street and Van Ness Avenue with lots of room to spare.