Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>
> >Why? Arcologies are in actuality highly wasteful structures,
> >demanding more resources per occupant than a more diffuse
> >community.
>
> Huh? Got a URL to support this? Apartment buildings use much less
> resources than individual houses.
Nope, I just read this in a several places, the only two of which I recall
definitely was in fiction: Niven's "Oath of Fealty" and in one of his Known
Space stories about the first Man-Kzin War.
I guess the reasoning is that operationally they may be more efficient, but
building them demands so much more design and labor work, as well as more
expensive higher performance materials that the resources used to support that
overwhelm those saved in the day to day operations. So long as building
efficiencies discount savings beyond 10 years as much as they do, arcologies
will always be negative impactors.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:58 MDT