Narf the Mouse Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Doesn't look like many high-rises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Doesn't look like many high-rises. Maybe not high-rises, but from my visits there I'd say the vast majority of buildings there are at least three stories tall. My first day there I remember staring in awe from the 69th floor observation deck of the Yokohama Landmark Hotel at this urban landscape that literally extended uninterrupted to the horizon and beyond. Even that photo doesn't really do it justice. (I highly recommend the Yokohama Landmark Hotel, btw. It's a five star hotel in Tokyo but we managed to get some surprisingly affordable rates, perhaps because it was February. And it can't be any more expensive now than it was seven years ago. Plus, from the outside, it looks like some sort of corporate supervillain headquarters.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Doesn't look like many high-rises. Quick thought experiment: take a block as 250m x 100m. Take a strip development as 2.5kmx1km; that's roughly 1 square mile, and 100 blocks. Put 3x3 story+penthouse buildings on each block, or 600 buildings/square mile. Put 8 two-bedroom apartments on each floor, or 15,000 apartments/square mile. Put 2.5 people in each apartment. That's 37,500 people/square mile. New York City has a population density of "only" 26,000 people/square mile, while Manhattan goes up to 67,000. You could leverage up to that total in my thought experiment tract by fitting a fourth building in on each block and going up to 4 stories, never mind doubling up the tenants a bit more in my city of bachelors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Vibrational modes on a circular membrane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barwickian Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Way, way back at nearly the start of this thread, Doc Anomaly posted a map of medieval Nottinghamshire I'd made in collaberation with fellow gamer and history buff Chris Golden. I've finally managed to get all my research notes unpacked (5 years in boxes - that's what moving from a low-rent Yorkshire village to a high-rent Middle-Eastern city does!) and got round to doing something I've wanted to do for years. I added the borders of Sherwood Forest to the map. From the perambulation of AD1218, the earliest one that survives. Updated map is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures :hail::hail::hail::hail:, and that's not enough. Aside: That there Sutton, is it the one with the Hoo? And Hoo, is that a variant on Howe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barwickian Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures :hail::hail::hail::hail:, and that's not enough. Aside: That there Sutton, is it the one with the Hoo? And Hoo, is that a variant on Howe? Thank you. No, it's not Sutton Hoo - that's in Suffolk, IIRC. Sutton is a fairly common placename in England. (A quick google reveals its meaning is 'southern settlement'). I suspect Hoo is a variant on Howe, as Howe is a dialect word for mound or hillock, and the burial mounds at Sutton Hoo were readily visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narf the Mouse Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Quick thought experiment: take a block as 250m x 100m. Take a strip development as 2.5kmx1km; that's roughly 1 square mile, and 100 blocks. Put 3x3 story+penthouse buildings on each block, or 600 buildings/square mile. Put 8 two-bedroom apartments on each floor, or 15,000 apartments/square mile. Put 2.5 people in each apartment. That's 37,500 people/square mile. New York City has a population density of "only" 26,000 people/square mile, while Manhattan goes up to 67,000. You could leverage up to that total in my thought experiment tract by fitting a fourth building in on each block and going up to 4 stories, never mind doubling up the tenants a bit more in my city of bachelors. Well, yes, but you could stuff a lot more people in a high-rise. OTOH, you could stuff even more in an Arcology. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures If you alloted 64 cubic meters per person, you could fit about 16 million people inside one cubic kilometer. Parking might be a hassle, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Hawk Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures If you alloted 64 cubic meters per person, you could fit about 16 million people inside one cubic kilometer. Parking might be a hassle, though. A little math tells me that you get a 2x4x8 meter space. Which might make a very small utility apartment. (oh, two meters tall, four meters wide, eight meters deep. I don't want a apartment two meters wide, four meters deep, and eight meters tall, that's just silly.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escafarc Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Use a finer grind on the sausage maker and you can fit more in......what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narf the Mouse Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures If you alloted 64 cubic meters per person, you could fit about 16 million people inside one cubic kilometer. Parking might be a hassle, though. Which works out to a count of 437.5 one cubic kilometers, or 7.6~^3 km. Make it 8^3 km and we have a round 512, for 8,192 million people. If we instead allocate 2*8*16 per person, for 256 m^3, that gets us 2,049 million people in 8^3 km. The land area of Earth is 148,940,000 km^2. Divide that by 8^2=64 km^2 and you get 2,327,187.5, round down to 2,327,187 Arcologies. Leave three-quarters of that for untouched wilderness and you get 2,327,187/4 = 581,796.75, round down to 581,796 Arcologies for the Human species. 581,796 Arcologies * 2,049 million people and you get room for 1,192,100,004 million people/total Arcologies, or 1.192 quadrillion people. Of course, we could always just allocate a thousand times more space for everyone and have room for a mere 1.192 trillion people. The plants and animals, of course, would have more than sufficient space in the other three-quarters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures The plants and animals' date=' of course, would have more than sufficient space in the other three-quarters.[/quote'] not after the 1.192 quadrillion hungry thirsty people have their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures If you alloted 64 cubic meters per person, you could fit about 16 million people inside one cubic kilometer. Parking might be a hassle, though. This is an announcement from Genetic Control: "It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height." Extract from coversation of Joe Ordinary in Local Puborama "I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold. It's said now that people will be shorter in height, they can fit twice as many in the same building site. (they say it's alright) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIkoolaJTXI JoeG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister E Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures YarnBall-Z [ATTACH=CONFIG]40583[/ATTACH] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narf the Mouse Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures not after the 1.192 quadrillion hungry thirsty people have their way. Which is probably why the 1.192 trillion idea is better; that way, lots of farmland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Do any of these calculations that people are tossing out account for Infrastructure Space that each person takes up? Work space? Just curious what variables are being factored into how much "space" a person occupies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narf the Mouse Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Do any of these calculations that people are tossing out account for Infrastructure Space that each person takes up? Work space? Just curious what variables are being factored into how much "space" a person occupies. Yeah. The 1.192 trillion calculation leaves lots of room for all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Well, a 10m x 10m x 10m space would allow a million people to live within a 1 cubic km space. At 100x100x100, you'd only have 1000 people, but they'd have a fairly luxurious million cubic meters of space(maybe the size of a large shopping mall). Plenty of room for growing food, having mini-factories, and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Hmm. The Second Death Star, in my old WEG handbook is assessed to be 160km in diameter. That gives a total volume on the order of over 2 million cubic km(and a mass on the order of several petatons). If only 10% of it were habitable living space, and there were a modest 1000 people per cubic km, that would still allow for berthing of over 200 million passengers. If some of the wilder estimates on the STvSW boards were correct, that number could rise into the billions. So if they had transporter technology, they could beam everyone off planet first, into some kind of massive Alpha Complex type prison, and then destroy the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matrix3 Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures spoilered for size Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matrix3 Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures I loved this movie. Would show it to my daughter, but I'm afraid it would give her nightmares... (spoilered for size) even bigger version here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matrix3 Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures If you alloted 64 cubic meters per person, you could fit about 16 million people inside one cubic kilometer. Parking might be a hassle, though. o.0 64 cubic meters? i.e, a (roughly) 12 foot cube? Is everybody supposed to live an a tiny studio apartment with only the most basic furnishing(s)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Re: "Neat" Pictures A little math tells me that you get a 2x4x8 meter space. Which might make a very small utility apartment. (oh, two meters tall, four meters wide, eight meters deep. I don't want a apartment two meters wide, four meters deep, and eight meters tall, that's just silly.) Being 6'4" tall, I don't want one that is just 2 meters tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.