Floating cities

[Horza2002]

While reading this article about the potential for building floating cities (http://www.gizmag.com/lilypad-floating-city-concept/17697/), I was wondering if there is any research into floating structures for people to use?

[Sisyphus]

floating structures for people to use?

 

Boats?

[lemur]

While reading this article about the potential for building floating cities (http://www.gizmag.co...-concept/17697/), I was wondering if there is any research into floating structures for people to use?

Those "lilypads" look pretty interesting. I wonder if they could be used as platforms to build subsequent ones. That would probably be necessary if land became excessively territorialized or otherwise scarce. I also wonder how they would avoid salinification (is that a word?) In other words, what keeps all the plants from dying due to salt from the ocean water infiltrating the soil, like on a beach? Still, I think these kinds of floating structures could be a good way to connect all the continents with artificial land-bridges. That way, people could walk or use other fuel-free methods to get around Earth.

 

 

 

[Horza2002]

Thanks for that Sisyphus.

 

I guess there would have to be some kind of desalinisation system on board...it would make sence if it just took water from the ocean it was on, cleaned it up and then people wud be able to drink, wash, etc with it as well. I like that idea...have several of those cities spread out, say in the Atlantic, like islands that you simply went between each of them to get across. Although, that would be an extremely expensive way to do it...I can;t image builidng one of those things would be cheap...I wonder how'd you'd pay for it? I assume tax the people who live on it as you would anywhere else I guess.

 

Wasn't there talk of being a rail network built under/through the Atlantic at one point to connect America with Europe? Maybe that was another idea I've seen about getting people around the world.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Horza2002

[Blahah]

Yes, there is research being done, primarily by the Seasteading Institute

[InigoMontoya]

Prediction: For all the money spent on such a system you could just as easily create a city on some currently uninhabited chunk of shoreline that would house twice as many people....And with a lot fewer maintenance issues.

 

Opinion: Looks cool and a scaled down version might make for a very cool resort... But as an honest to goodness city? No way.

[lemur]

Prediction: For all the money spent on such a system you could just as easily create a city on some currently uninhabited chunk of shoreline that would house twice as many people....And with a lot fewer maintenance issues.

But how would that drive engineering progress the way these lilypad structures would?

[InigoMontoya]

But how would that drive engineering progress the way these lilypad structures would?

Is that a serious question?

 

Very few ventures out there are set out upon with the goal of driving engineering progress. Or progress of any kind, really. Ventures tend to be started to accomplish a pragmatic goal. If that goal requires engineering progress, well then, so be it. But if it doesn't... Well, then it doesn't.

 

That said... The goal of the lilypad structures as stated in the article is to provide a home for people displaced by rising oceans as a result of global warming. If that is the goal, I say that they're going to spend waaaaaay more money than is required to accomplish the goal. And I'm sure I'm not the only person to see this. Result? If that's the goal, it ain't gonna happen.

[lemur]

Very few ventures out there are set out upon with the goal of driving engineering progress. Or progress of any kind, really. Ventures tend to be started to accomplish a pragmatic goal. If that goal requires engineering progress, well then, so be it. But if it doesn't... Well, then it doesn't.

My impression is that projected future events like shoreline recession are exploited to stimulate innovation for possible mitigations. Regardless, the point is that these designs are innovative and thus stimulating in terms of engineering progress, no?

 

That said... The goal of the lilypad structures as stated in the article is to provide a home for people displaced by rising oceans as a result of global warming. If that is the goal, I say that they're going to spend waaaaaay more money than is required to accomplish the goal. And I'm sure I'm not the only person to see this. Result? If that's the goal, it ain't gonna happen.

If shoreline recession is occurring so quickly that such structures have functional value, I don't think economic values are going to remain stable enough for fiscal rationality to persist. If people can throw together such structures as these, why shouldn't they do so? What is wrong with people devoting labor and resources to such? What better use is there for labor and resources? You assume everything is or should be dictated by fiscal rationality, but what other investments would overshadow this? Investing in prospective water-front property by speculating on where the shoreline will stabilize?

 

 

[InigoMontoya]

the point is that these designs are innovative and thus stimulating in terms of engineering progress, no?

Only if somebody actually makes significant progress towards building them. A paper study isn't progress. It's just that: a paper study.

 

If people can throw together such structures as these, why shouldn't they do so?

If people can play in the freeway, why shouldn't they do so? Not to compare building such structures with playing in the freeway, but rather to point out the problem with that logic.

 

What is wrong with people devoting labor and resources to such?

There's nothing *wrong* with it, per se. I just don't see it happening. You're a family who's soon to be homeless due to the ocean rising. Do you spend your life's savings on getting a cabin on the Lilypad or do you spend half of that and simply move inland? Sure, a *few* people will opt for the Lilypad, but I'll wager that the numbers of people willing to do that will be small at best.

 

Or if you prefer the big picture... You're a politician. Do you spend $100M building a Lilypad for 1,000 people to live on, or do you spend $100M building a land-based community for 2,000 people to live on? Are you prepared to explain to the 1,000 homeless people why you spent all the money on a boat?

 

What better use is there for labor and resources? You assume everything is or should be dictated by fiscal rationality, but what other investments would overshadow this?

I already gave you my answer (that low-tech, simple migration is a better answer to the stated problem).

 

 

Investing in prospective water-front property by speculating on where the shoreline will stabilize?

Not that damned hard to determine. And heck, you really don't *have* to. In a word? Venice. Nobody's talking about oceans rising hundreds of feet in the foreseeable future. A quick wiki indicates that the worst case scenarios have the ocean rising less than 10'. 10 feet! Sure, some places (like Florida) will have a big problem, but the vast majority of the world? Not so much. The Santa Monica Pier goes away, but Los Angeles as a whole would be largely unaffected....

[CaptainPanic]

Engineering companies are actually building floating houses in the Netherlands, and in a few other places on earth as well probably.

 

It seems that those people think that the way forward is to have individual floating houses, connected to other relatively small structures. In a way, that would mean you get a modular city. It's a whole lot easier to build probably, and the initial (financial and technical) hurdle to overcome for a single house is a lot smaller than the massive problems associated with the "lilypad".

 

Here's some links of modern multi-story floating houses:

- A .pdf about plans for delta regions - with a picture of a floating house on page 22.

-

 

Of course, the idea to live on a boat is quite old... in Amsterdam there are thousands of house-boats. Almost all of them are just 1 floor as you can see here and here.

 

I think that the lilypad looks cool, and it is quite ambitious, but in reality the project developers will choose a more simple and practical approach.

[Blahah]

I think the motivation for building these cities is not so much to escape the effects of climate change, at least for the pioneers. The idea is to create a place with political freedom. People who want to take part in the social experiment would be the initial inhabitants, not refugees or normal people who are thinking about creating a safe, lasting home for their family. I think the seasteading ideas seem more realistic (but still far fetched) than those of the artists who create the lily pad and other similar sci-fi versions of ocean living.

 

The seasteading institute invisions the process starting with ocean vessels providing offshore medical and other tourism, then gradually moving towards platform communities (like oil platforms, without the oil) and then eventually ending up with the floating cities.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Blahah

[CaptainPanic]

The seasteading institute invisions the process starting with ocean vessels providing offshore medical and other tourism, then gradually moving towards platform communities (like oil platforms, without the oil) and then eventually ending up with the floating cities.

 

Sounds like Sealand. It already exists.

[Horza2002]

InigoMontoya, I see your point that you could spend the money required to build a Lilypad on moving people inland...but there is a limit on how many people you can squeeze into an area. City centres are pretty crowded as it is (at least here in the UK), so trying to force people who have been forced away from the coast into them is just going to cause problems. I do agree though, maybe smaller versions would make for a nice resort to go visit.

 

I do, however, have to disgaree with you saying that it being just a paper study is not progress towards anything. It may only be the beginning of a VERY long process but it is at least the beginning. And it has prompted another plausible solution to a problem...instead of making more people live in less land...why not move them onto the ocean instead. A radically new idea has to start somewhere, even if its just some idea that someones scribbled down on a bit of scrap paper. I do agree though that it would be very ambitious to attempt to try and build one.

 

I've heard about those floating houses before...they seem a good idea, especially when buildings are built on flood plains. They could save alot of money in the long run.

[lemur]

Only if somebody actually makes significant progress towards building them. A paper study isn't progress. It's just that: a paper study.

That sounds like a definitional issue. Whether you call it progress or not, someone has to come up with an idea for it to be built/implemented. Sometimes it helps to come up with one idea and then develop it into a better idea. Just because you never got to the point of putting money/energy/materials into implementing the stepping-stone idea doesn't mean it wasn't part of the progress to the better idea that succeeded it.

 

If people can play in the freeway, why shouldn't they do so? Not to compare building such structures with playing in the freeway, but rather to point out the problem with that logic.

I hear people give reasons again innovation like this all the time. It's unconstructive, imo. There's nothing wrong with caution but it shouldn't become an impetus for thought-censorship.

 

 

There's nothing *wrong* with it, per se. I just don't see it happening. You're a family who's soon to be homeless due to the ocean rising. Do you spend your life's savings on getting a cabin on the Lilypad or do you spend half of that and simply move inland? Sure, a *few* people will opt for the Lilypad, but I'll wager that the numbers of people willing to do that will be small at best.

More than likely the way the economics would work is that rising land prices would make some people wealth landlords by renting to poor people moving inland. Then you could afford to spend your money living on a luxurious lillypad. Waterfront property is usually more coveted and thus more expensive, including floating property.

 

Or if you prefer the big picture... You're a politician. Do you spend $100M building a Lilypad for 1,000 people to live on, or do you spend $100M building a land-based community for 2,000 people to live on? Are you prepared to explain to the 1,000 homeless people why you spent all the money on a boat?

If you were really good, you could build the land-based community for cheap and fund the homeless people's purchase of their property by employing them in building the Lilypad. You could also solicit the building materials from donors in exchange for shares in the design-revenue and then employ the homeless people to do the actual labor. It all depends on the skills and will of the various people/firms involved. It oversimplifies to just assume that everything has a price and the price is fixed.

 

I already gave you my answer (that low-tech, simple migration is a better answer to the stated problem).

Most immediately, you're right. And part of the problem with pie-in-the-sky designs like this is that it's a lot easier to plan and create renderings than it is to actually implement building projects. I don't think most people who would design housing solutions like this would even be willing to put in the money and effort it takes to build the simplest possible single-family dwelling to give a homeless family a place to live. But that doesn't mean the idea of floating cities isn't cool or that people shouldn't come up with such ideas, does it?

 

 

[Marat]

Sealand is not a genuine floating city, since it is just a World War II anti-aircraft gun platform anchored to the sea bed in the North Sea.

 

But there is a genuine historical floating city which still exists, and that is Ankor Wat. It floats in its own artificial lake.

[Blahah]

Sealand is not a genuine floating city, since it is just a World War II anti-aircraft gun platform anchored to the sea bed in the North Sea.

 

But there is a genuine historical floating city which still exists, and that is Ankor Wat. It floats in its own artificial lake.

 

Ankor Wat does not float, it just has a moat surrounding it (according to the official website).

[Horza2002]

Angkor Wat is not a city put a temple complex technically...and it has a moat not a floating.

 

Lemur has made a point I had considered before. If the coast line and low lieing land is flooded, then the price of the remaining land will increase...the people who own it will therefore get even richer and would then be able to afford to at least live somewhere as expensive as a Lilypad would be.

[lemur]

Angkor Wat is not a city put a temple complex technically...and it has a moat not a floating.

 

Lemur has made a point I had considered before. If the coast line and low lieing land is flooded, then the price of the remaining land will increase...the people who own it will therefore get even richer and would then be able to afford to at least live somewhere as expensive as a Lilypad would be.

Thanks for agreeing, but there's the problem that if remaining land is getting more expensive, so would the costs of building materials, labor, and everything else involved. So the basic economic problem you're always stuck with is how to fund one project with the proceeds of another. I suppose if you sell expensive inland land to construction workers, you may be able to hire them to build the Lilypads to pay off their mortgage (assuming banks would be lending money at that time, which they would be if they thought the land was sustainably appreciating). The problem would be that if the Lilypads turned out to be worthless, the construction workers end up with the inland land and you get stuck with the Lilypad. Hopefully they'll be truly sustainable to use as a base for productive economic activities at that point since you won't have any money left to import supplies from inland.

[Horza2002]

I think its fair to say that it will be a while before these Lilypads are even possible to let alone a plausible for them to be built. I do quiet like the idea of having them as resorts...a floating holiday destination in the middle of an ocean/sea/lagoon could be a good idea...especially for a water sports based holiday.

[Grouchy Hermit]

I read something about a guy converting a couple of super tankers into floating cities but it was more for the rich than the poor....I think the best thing would be less people instead of making more land....If they ever came up with these things they would be full of unwanted people and floating just off California and the people on them would breed so fast that they would sink unless the USA let them in.

[lemur]

I read something about a guy converting a couple of super tankers into floating cities but it was more for the rich than the poor....I think the best thing would be less people instead of making more land....If they ever came up with these things they would be full of unwanted people and floating just off California and the people on them would breed so fast that they would sink unless the USA let them in.

People who want less people never start with themselves or the people they care about - and if they do they're insane. Then, if you advocate population reduction without counting yourself among those subject to reductive measures, what would differentiate you from any other oppressor of human rights? I understand the scientific appeal of Malthusian thinking, but what I don't get is why people think that non-voluntary population control measures are an ethical use of social power? If someone determines scientifically that your mind is sociopathological and decides it is in the interest of humanity to lobotomize you, for example, that could be just as justifiable in terms of eugenic logic as any population control measure, but you would probably not like people talking about it.

[InigoMontoya]

People who want less people never start with themselves or the people they care about - and if they do they're insane.

And yet, there are a lot of folks out there with zero or one child. So... Those who are in that boat who also advocate population reduction are crazy? Huh. Who knew?

[lemur]

And yet, there are a lot of folks out there with zero or one child. So... Those who are in that boat who also advocate population reduction are crazy? Huh. Who knew?

I don't see any problem with not having children or just having one or two. The problem, imo, is when people take a paternalistic tone about other people's 'breeding' being a problem and that they should curb their reproduction because someone else says so. I don't know why I responded to a post about reproductive control anyway since it's always such a negative no-win topic. It's basically defeatist in claiming that the limits of population expansion have been reached and there's nothing science, technology, or culture can do to expand the frontiers further. If you're just going to decry every innovative idea, what's the point of discussing progress to begin with? To discourage any and all hope for a life-sustaining future?

[SMF]

Lemur. Land area for living space is not at all a factor in the overpopulation problem. What is important, as Ehrlich said 50 years ago, is resources. This includes energy, fertilizer for crops, fresh water for crops, and a healthy ocean. People who are educated enough to understand the problem and ignore it in their procreation decisions, in my opinion, are unethical. Please define paternalism in this context. SM