Those are beautiful images. But I think we also need more energy efficiency through shared (sound insulated) walls like a skyscraper or big apartment block.
A line city would allow you to combine “living in nature” and just taking the stairs down and being in a park or walking between fields and into food forests, go cycling.
And at the same time you get high urban density that is needed to accommodate all the people in an sustainable manner. Important would also be high ceilings (3-4m or 10-13 ft) so people don’t feel like in a shitty box. Cheap food delivery or community run cafeterias. And you live among lots of people to meet and party with.
Another idea I had was to just put a big 500 unit apartment block in the middle of a large agricultural area / food forest. Not so efficient in transport, but everyone living there could work on the common necessities, maintain and build their own machinery and be truly self sufficient for food.
That’s interesting! Yeah foundations and sky rises take a lot of resources. But those calculations might change with a line city, since you don’t need a city grid and drastically simplify infrastructure. You’d also want to redesign how we live and work in general, so theoretically there would be many variables that could change this.
The fundamental idea though is that everyone has a beautiful view on nature. This also connects people to the land.
Obviously you’d want to balance the height against population density. There is also the thing that if you make it too high, you need to feed more people, so you need to get more agricultural land extending from the line. Then it might be more sensible to make the line city longer. Obviously you wouldn’t need the line to be uninterrupted as long as the transport and infrastructure is buried.
My guess my lonely tower would do much worse in this equation, but it also could be more squat than tall. The main goal would be a real alternative to suburbia or people building McMansions or even eco cottages all over the places which all need their own street and water and canalization and power and emergency services.
![[image] Riyadh (population 7.6 million) is finally getting a metro. Initially scheduled for 2018, after successive delays it will open early this year](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/44fc2b12-0018-46c2-8cd7-ec79d11d2c85.jpeg){kind=link}
@LarmyOfLone
Yeh, the guy is pretty brutal about the whole project isn’t he :-)
I agree a city “optimized for public transport and so that everyone’s apartment has a beautiful view on unspoiled nature” is very desirable.
Stuff like this: https://www.whispersandgiants.com/2024/01/16/preferable-future-habitats/
Those are beautiful images. But I think we also need more energy efficiency through shared (sound insulated) walls like a skyscraper or big apartment block. A line city would allow you to combine “living in nature” and just taking the stairs down and being in a park or walking between fields and into food forests, go cycling. And at the same time you get high urban density that is needed to accommodate all the people in an sustainable manner. Important would also be high ceilings (3-4m or 10-13 ft) so people don’t feel like in a shitty box. Cheap food delivery or community run cafeterias. And you live among lots of people to meet and party with.
Another idea I had was to just put a big 500 unit apartment block in the middle of a large agricultural area / food forest. Not so efficient in transport, but everyone living there could work on the common necessities, maintain and build their own machinery and be truly self sufficient for food.
@LarmyOfLone
Big apartment blocks are less energy efficient, so I don’t think they are the solution.
https://theconversation.com/cities-and-climate-change-why-low-rise-buildings-are-the-future-not-skyscrapers-170673
That’s interesting! Yeah foundations and sky rises take a lot of resources. But those calculations might change with a line city, since you don’t need a city grid and drastically simplify infrastructure. You’d also want to redesign how we live and work in general, so theoretically there would be many variables that could change this.
The fundamental idea though is that everyone has a beautiful view on nature. This also connects people to the land.
Obviously you’d want to balance the height against population density. There is also the thing that if you make it too high, you need to feed more people, so you need to get more agricultural land extending from the line. Then it might be more sensible to make the line city longer. Obviously you wouldn’t need the line to be uninterrupted as long as the transport and infrastructure is buried.
My guess my lonely tower would do much worse in this equation, but it also could be more squat than tall. The main goal would be a real alternative to suburbia or people building McMansions or even eco cottages all over the places which all need their own street and water and canalization and power and emergency services.