Matt Jensen wrote:
> > You could build a building for 10^6 people which is walkable.
> Walkable, but not livable.
How do you know? It doesn't have to become the Mother of all malls.
Since you can't get windows, you'll need light sources simulating
the spectrum and the luminosity. Plus greenery and aquariums. And
beamers projecting feel-good imagery for the primates.
> You mean all Quality of Life issues can be boiled down to a single number?
Where did I claim such a stupid thing?
> Maybe fuel efficiency + cost of construction materials? I doubt it.
That's some of the motivating factors. Average distance, walkable radius,
3d arcology, cost and/or value of infrastructure. What's wrong with
asking for borosilicate glass pipes and stainless steel structures?
> People have decided they don't like living in gleaming Buck Rogers towers
> that are half a mile high. It's because they sense they're being turned
That's ridiculous. You'll never get to see the outside of it. Sooner or
later you'll be living in so heavily augmented reality it doesn't matter
anyway. Muahahahaha! (Damn, now I blew it totally).
> into social insects, and they resent it. But that's the average person.
Hey, we *are* social insects. You'd never deny that if you've ever set
your foot in Suburbia.
> Eugene, maybe you're smart enough to want to live in the giant hive? :-)
Sure, if it's properly engineered. Oops, forget I ever said any such dumb
thing. Back to the drawin board.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:19 PDT