3 ms·

That comes unexpected. I really would like to see how this works out. It's a possible way of living in the future. If the earth becomes more fiendly, such citie

That comes unexpected. I really would like to see how this works out. It's a possible way of living in the future. If the earth becomes more fiendly, such cities would offer autonomous compounds for the people. Now i would like to know if somebody is building the ARCs ...

reducesuffering 3y ago
“unexpected” That is not the word I or most of HN would have used… It’s a sad state of the world that this delusional lunatic is dictator of a $1T GDP country instead of everyone else that understands this is a stupid idea.
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  Yes, you can mix your dislike into your opinions, but they still stay your opinions. I'm interested in the technology, in the achievements that are possible, the problem solving and solutions found to do something of this scope. It's not about lunatics or the ** arabs dictators or killers ** say what you want. For example, the need for the special sand for the concrete. Their sand, which they have plenty of, is completely not suitable for this. It's too fine. So, how this will be solved? The world could learn a lot of it - just imagine, you can use the Sahara sands instead of the special sands that need to be somehow and somewhere resourced atm. That would reduce the house building costs a lot and enable affordable housing everywhere. I'm talking about the proper way of housing, like in the story of the three pigs and the wolf. So can you explain why you dislike technology and advancement in city buildings, experiments and new learnings? I don't quite get it.
  - iSnow 3y ago
    >he need for the special sand for the concrete. Their sand, which they have plenty of, is completely not suitable for this. It's too fine. So, how this will be solved? As usual, either the sand gets bought from poorer countries or outright stolen and sold on the black market. You can't use desert sand for building.
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      They have a lot of rocks there. The sands are because of the weathering of the rocks. And they have a lot of sun. Which would make grounding of rocks feasible. That could allow them to use desert sand too. Or they might find a mix between traditional and desert sand.. and some special ingredients. who knows! if you never try, you won't find it out. It's a way of creative problem solving. If they build it. In the "middle of", suddenly, something is not enough, then you do have to find a solution.
  - olabyne 3y ago
    But opinions don't matter here. If you are logical and factual, that city as vaporware from the beginning. You don't need the many debunks available online to see that this project is unfeasible, whether you are talking budget, architecture, maintenance or transportation.
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      If your logical and factual then you don't judge it by it's feasibility. You rather take known facts and problems and try to resolve them logical - to make it better. To learn from it. It's an opportunity. Burji (highest building) was also doomed by kings and horses. Learned a lot. Next will be even higher. Budget talking is not my point. This somehow will be overcome. If not, it's not my problem. There are ways for getting money. You know it, I know it. Maintenance and transportation can't be judged right now, as we didn't see it in function. You and I don't know anything about the plans. You're speculating it will be shitty, I speculate it's possible. If you use modules. Do we have experience with modular buildings? (Yes we have..) Can we use this made experiences? (Yes..) So you see problems before they're actually emerged. That's foresee of the future. All the debunks will be wrong if the line proves the opposite. I see the same problems as you do, but I don't think their unovercomeable..
yard2010 3y ago
Let me tell you something about the middle east Habibi.. Everything here is a ruse.
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  I got it, you dislike middle east. Now, please, concentrate on my arguments again.
Moldoteck 3y ago
the project was/is as feasible and advanced in renderings compared to classic cities as hyperloop was compared to classic high speed rail. It's not a possible way of living in the future, because there are examples of line cities that did exist and some exist today and these cities do have drawbacks that disk/square cities do not have while advantages are minimal and this line project approved by the dictator even in project phase. It's much more expensive, much more inelastic to the economic and people demand, much less economically profitable (per sq km compared to classic cities that expand in all directions) and much worse for commute options too (if you want to use a bike instead of pub transport, you'll have to travel more compared to a med/high density mixed use city developed in all directions with proper and much cheaper infrastructure set in place. This project is nothing more than a dictator's fantasy and should be treated as such. If you want to see a line city-there are several that exist today across the world and you can compare by yourself what's good/bad in these compared to a 'traditional' developed city
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  No I want to see how the project and it's problems are overcomed. Like how to get needed concrete, how to manage infrastructure, how to build the whole, what to do inside to make it a City. There might be line cities. But none of them is a concept like this, or are they in a desert and are 170km long and 500m high? So you absolutely miss my points. We're now. We know more. We have more experience (like "line cities are problematic" but where exactly?) It's not about traditional city vs line city. And here too, your dislike is stronger then your thinking of opportunities. You don't like dictator there? Ok. I wrote it down. Not necessarily you have to travel longer, it's ineffective and all the points you say. We (and they too) still don't know how, and where. Having a circular automated highspeed transport in the ground, it's possible. "What work where" will also be regulated, the plumber won't live in the end of the line city and also won't be the only one. Just think of "silo" (series). I don't see the impossibilities here, like many of you do. I see opportunities.
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    imo it's more abt limitations, not abt opportunities. You get all the stuff a line project provides, but better, if you build in all directions. You get higher density, cheaper housing, more businesses, less segregation, less maintenance cost. And you'll definitely need to travel longer depending on the needs that are usually nonconstant for people, at some point youll need something from the other end while in a dense classic area,because of density, there's more stuff that you may need that's also closer to you. All this project is just about creating a lot of limitations and thinking about ways to reduce those limitations with a huge cost while not having a clear defined benefit. You get the same stuff as in this project by just living close to a subway with the advantage that you still get more stuff because of density while the city remains much more flexible to dynamic demand (buildings can be easily adapted for businesses or for living, you get more area to create parks, etc). Inelastic cities are very vulnerable to the demand change (when demographics are changing(aging or ppl having more kids, the demand for specific infra changes too) or when some businesses that do employ a lot of ppl are closing and unemployment rises quickly because the gap can't be filled that fast) And I've just barely touched the surface - the maintenance cost and knowledge and custom parts needed for this project are not sustainable in any way

reducesuffering 3y ago

“unexpected” That is not the word I or most of HN would have used… It’s a sad state of the world that this delusional lunatic is dictator of a $1T GDP country instead of everyone else that understands this is a stupid idea.

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
Yes, you can mix your dislike into your opinions, but they still stay your opinions. I'm interested in the technology, in the achievements that are possible, the problem solving and solutions found to do something of this scope. It's not about lunatics or the ** arabs dictators or killers ** say what you want. For example, the need for the special sand for the concrete. Their sand, which they have plenty of, is completely not suitable for this. It's too fine. So, how this will be solved? The world could learn a lot of it - just imagine, you can use the Sahara sands instead of the special sands that need to be somehow and somewhere resourced atm. That would reduce the house building costs a lot and enable affordable housing everywhere. I'm talking about the proper way of housing, like in the story of the three pigs and the wolf. So can you explain why you dislike technology and advancement in city buildings, experiments and new learnings? I don't quite get it.
- iSnow 3y ago
  >he need for the special sand for the concrete. Their sand, which they have plenty of, is completely not suitable for this. It's too fine. So, how this will be solved? As usual, either the sand gets bought from poorer countries or outright stolen and sold on the black market. You can't use desert sand for building.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    They have a lot of rocks there. The sands are because of the weathering of the rocks. And they have a lot of sun. Which would make grounding of rocks feasible. That could allow them to use desert sand too. Or they might find a mix between traditional and desert sand.. and some special ingredients. who knows! if you never try, you won't find it out. It's a way of creative problem solving. If they build it. In the "middle of", suddenly, something is not enough, then you do have to find a solution.
- olabyne 3y ago
  But opinions don't matter here. If you are logical and factual, that city as vaporware from the beginning. You don't need the many debunks available online to see that this project is unfeasible, whether you are talking budget, architecture, maintenance or transportation.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    If your logical and factual then you don't judge it by it's feasibility. You rather take known facts and problems and try to resolve them logical - to make it better. To learn from it. It's an opportunity. Burji (highest building) was also doomed by kings and horses. Learned a lot. Next will be even higher. Budget talking is not my point. This somehow will be overcome. If not, it's not my problem. There are ways for getting money. You know it, I know it. Maintenance and transportation can't be judged right now, as we didn't see it in function. You and I don't know anything about the plans. You're speculating it will be shitty, I speculate it's possible. If you use modules. Do we have experience with modular buildings? (Yes we have..) Can we use this made experiences? (Yes..) So you see problems before they're actually emerged. That's foresee of the future. All the debunks will be wrong if the line proves the opposite. I see the same problems as you do, but I don't think their unovercomeable..

yard2010 3y ago

Let me tell you something about the middle east Habibi.. Everything here is a ruse.

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
I got it, you dislike middle east. Now, please, concentrate on my arguments again.

Moldoteck 3y ago

the project was/is as feasible and advanced in renderings compared to classic cities as hyperloop was compared to classic high speed rail. It's not a possible way of living in the future, because there are examples of line cities that did exist and some exist today and these cities do have drawbacks that disk/square cities do not have while advantages are minimal and this line project approved by the dictator even in project phase. It's much more expensive, much more inelastic to the economic and people demand, much less economically profitable (per sq km compared to classic cities that expand in all directions) and much worse for commute options too (if you want to use a bike instead of pub transport, you'll have to travel more compared to a med/high density mixed use city developed in all directions with proper and much cheaper infrastructure set in place. This project is nothing more than a dictator's fantasy and should be treated as such. If you want to see a line city-there are several that exist today across the world and you can compare by yourself what's good/bad in these compared to a 'traditional' developed city

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
No I want to see how the project and it's problems are overcomed. Like how to get needed concrete, how to manage infrastructure, how to build the whole, what to do inside to make it a City. There might be line cities. But none of them is a concept like this, or are they in a desert and are 170km long and 500m high? So you absolutely miss my points. We're now. We know more. We have more experience (like "line cities are problematic" but where exactly?) It's not about traditional city vs line city. And here too, your dislike is stronger then your thinking of opportunities. You don't like dictator there? Ok. I wrote it down. Not necessarily you have to travel longer, it's ineffective and all the points you say. We (and they too) still don't know how, and where. Having a circular automated highspeed transport in the ground, it's possible. "What work where" will also be regulated, the plumber won't live in the end of the line city and also won't be the only one. Just think of "silo" (series). I don't see the impossibilities here, like many of you do. I see opportunities.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  imo it's more abt limitations, not abt opportunities. You get all the stuff a line project provides, but better, if you build in all directions. You get higher density, cheaper housing, more businesses, less segregation, less maintenance cost. And you'll definitely need to travel longer depending on the needs that are usually nonconstant for people, at some point youll need something from the other end while in a dense classic area,because of density, there's more stuff that you may need that's also closer to you. All this project is just about creating a lot of limitations and thinking about ways to reduce those limitations with a huge cost while not having a clear defined benefit. You get the same stuff as in this project by just living close to a subway with the advantage that you still get more stuff because of density while the city remains much more flexible to dynamic demand (buildings can be easily adapted for businesses or for living, you get more area to create parks, etc). Inelastic cities are very vulnerable to the demand change (when demographics are changing(aging or ppl having more kids, the demand for specific infra changes too) or when some businesses that do employ a lot of ppl are closing and unemployment rises quickly because the gap can't be filled that fast) And I've just barely touched the surface - the maintenance cost and knowledge and custom parts needed for this project are not sustainable in any way