Starfleet Academy / headquarters / assembly room

[GodThingFormerly]

The idea of underground industry and transport sounds OK, but commerce?

Why not commerce? Many parts of the world have shopping malls that were built partially or wholly underground. As for the "financial services" industry, well, it's not like those vampiric parasites have a pressing need for access to natural sunlight, do they?

I believe in green (energy efficient) architecture and engineering, utilization of new building materials and technologies, all that stuff... Or maybe I've been watching too much "Megastrustures"...

An arcology is still an arcology even if 9/10ths of it is placed below the surface. Beyond that, the heating/cooling energy and external weatherization maintenance costs would only be a fraction of those required for an aboveground structure of comparable size, particularly in regions with crappy climates (i.e., Florida).

I'll check out those books, though... They sound interesting.

Take a look at Loretta Hall's website as well.

SLR

 

[Mach5]

The idea of underground industry and transport sounds OK, but commerce?

Why not commerce? Many parts of the world have shopping malls that were built partially or wholly underground.

Yeah, we have those too here in Croatia... Can't say I like them very much.

You make a pretty strong case, I admit... But i'm just a sucker for cityscapes. And sunlight.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Yeah, we have those too here in Croatia...

Iz kog dijela Hrvatske si ti? Familija mog oca je iz Lukova Otockog.

Can't say I like them very much.

Me neither, but then most shopping mall developers never exactly saw the need to spend money on world class architects to design their facilities. Frank Lowy's Westfield Group is a particularly egregious offender in this regard, IMNSHO.

You make a pretty strong case, I admit... But i'm just a sucker for cityscapes. And sunlight.

"There are 'art cities', planned, designed and built by artists, sculptors and architects as ongoing showcases that constantly change." - Jon Povill, Ibid. See? They thought of everything.

SLR

 

[Mach5]

Yeah, we have those too here in Croatia...

Iz kog dijela Hrvatske si ti? Familija mog oca je iz Lukova Otockog.

Ono selo preko puta Golog Otoka? Ja sam nešto sjevernije (Rijeka).

Što malo ne navratiš na domaće Trek forume?

Me neither, but then most shopping mall developers never exactly saw the need to spend money on world class architects to design their facilities. Frank Lowy's Westfield Group is a particularly egregious offender in this regard, IMNSHO.

Yeah, I checked that out on Wikipedia. Those malls look okay from the inside, but their exteriors... Meh, most malls are like that anyway, at least here where I'm at.

Back to Trek now. I must say that I got mixed feelings regarding ST XI San Francisco. Architecture does look nice, but the city itself looks way too over developed for a city that's supposed to represent the paradise that this future Earth is supposed to be.

Check out this ST Online Academy concept painting:

Waaay better and more "heavenly" than what we got in the movie, IMO.

 

[Maurice]

Check out this ST Online Academy concept painting:

Waaay better and more "heavenly" than what we got in the movie, IMO.

That's Fort Baker on the north side of the Bridge. San Francisco's on the other side. The city you see under the bridge are the neighborhoods of Sea Cliff and the Outer Richmond. Land's End is seen behind the tower to the right. I can almost see my house from here!

 

[sbk1234]

I don't suppose it's possible that in the next 300 years they've actually moved some of the buildings around? As for inconsistencies within the same film, you got me.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't suppose it's possible that in the next 300 years they've actually moved some of the buildings around? As for inconsistencies within the same film, you got me.

Why would anyone want to move a skyscraper from one point to another?

If the Big One hits San Francisco, I'm sure none of the destroyed building would be rebuild. They would be replaced entirely by new ones. Just think about the Twin Towers. Except for the Golden Gate Bridge, they are so proud of it, they would definately rebuild it, or at least paint the replacement orange

 

[Maurice]

People do move small buildings...but you'd need a pretty compelling reason to move a skyscraper, even if the technology was a given.

 

[Nerys Myk]

People do move small buildings...but you'd need a pretty compelling reason to move a skyscraper, even if the technology was a given.

Nah, you just have to reroute the local gravity through an EPS conduit and reverse the polarity using a tachyon burst.

 

[Maurice]

People do move small buildings...but you'd need a pretty compelling reason to move a skyscraper, even if the technology was a given.

Nah, you just have to reroute the local gravity through an EPS conduit and reverse the polarity using a tachyon burst.

Yeah, but that doesn't move buildings...but it does make me weep.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yeah, that "underground" thing sounds a bit silly to me, sorry. Unappealing too, but that's just the future civil engineer talking...

It sounds mighty BORING. Who the hell would want to live their whole lives in a hole in the ground? Claustrophobia would be a bitch to deal with. I wouldn't much care for waking up in the morning and seeing nothing but concrete and steel, and having to take a fucking elevator just to see the sun...

Cartman was right. It really is just a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.

 

[Nerys Myk]

People do move small buildings...but you'd need a pretty compelling reason to move a skyscraper, even if the technology was a given.

Nah, you just have to reroute the local gravity through an EPS conduit and reverse the polarity using a tachyon burst.

Yeah, but that doesn't move buildings...but it does make me weep.

Run a level three diagnostic on your visual sensors. Track the leak and fix it with a self sealing stem-bolt.

 

[Maurice]

Oh please, so many people in this country spend the bulk of their days in windowless workplaces already. With the kinds of video displays they'd have by the 23rd century, underground would look like outdoors if you wanted it to.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But it wouldn't BE outdoors. And people could tell the difference. They'll know they're basically shut up in a cubicle all day. Not just to work, but to LIVE. Who would want to live like that?

 

[M'Sharak]

^ But it wouldn't BE outdoors. And people could tell the difference. They'll know they're basically shut up in a cubicle all day. Not just to work, but to LIVE. Who would want to live like that?

Most people don't live and work outdoors now, and besides, it's not as if underground housing or workspace is anything really new. The only real difference between living and working in a highrise building or any large, semi-self-contained structure and living and working in an underground one is whether you take the down or up elevator/stairs to get to ground level. Are you sure you're not raising an objection merely for the sake of raising an objection, rather because there's any rational reason for doing so? Would you object, too, to living or working in the basement or sub-basement of a building which also extends above ground? People have been doing that for years and most suffer no ill effects whatsoever.

Bottom line: If most things were moved underground, the outdoors is still there and it's still accessible; it's just that much less of it would be cluttered up with condos and apartment buildings, freeways, elevated railways, high-tension towers, parking structures, grain elevators, barns, warehouses, self-storage facilities, wrecking yards, used-tire dumps, fast-food restaurants, etc., etc. There are a few things which it wouldn't be very practical to put underground, of course -- airports would be tricky, for example, and harbors more so -- but most things could be moved there without disrupting any of the functional activities involved in the slightest. Indeed, many things, such as climate control and delivery of utilities and services, would become more efficient, and breakdowns of structures and systems due to exposure to the elements/natural phenomena would be significantly reduced.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If most things were moved underground, the outdoors is still there and it's still accessible

Perhaps. If people can still actually go outside whenever they want, I guess it wouldn't be so bad. But would that be possible?

Assuming a population comparable in size to ours, then where's the room for all those people underground? If you stick enough people down there, it may be difficult for those living further underground to efficiently reach the surface in a reasonable amount of time (and I doubt everyone would have access to a transporter whenever they wanted. Besides, you'd have to have transporter pads on the surface). I mean, there'd be a fair amount of crowding with enough people trying to get to the surface at once. At least people today can go outside by simply stepping outside their front doors, or even just opening a window.

It's all well and good for Gene to claim that everyone should, or does, live underground, but it would have helped if he'd explained further. What would a full sized underground city look like? What would the quality of life be? How much room would there be to move around? What views would most people have outside their 'windows'?

breakdowns of structures and systems due to exposure to the elements/natural phenomena would be significantly reduced.

Earthquakes, on the other hand...

 

[M'Sharak]

If most things were moved underground, the outdoors is still there and it's still accessible

Perhaps. If people can still actually go outside whenever they want, I guess it wouldn't be so bad. But would that be possible?

Why wouldn't it be? In the example which sparked this tangent, wasn't Roddenberry's picture of San Francisco one in which:

"Industry, commerce and transportation facilities are [predominantly] underground so that the surface of the planet can be a place to be enjoyed"?

That doesn't sound to me as if anyone would be prevented from going outside.

Assuming a population comparable in size to ours, then where's the room for all those people underground? If you stick enough people down there, it may be difficult for those living further underground to efficiently reach the surface in a reasonable amount of time (and I doubt everyone would have access to a transporter whenever they wanted. Besides, you'd have to have transporter pads on the surface). I mean, there'd be a fair amount of crowding with enough people trying to get to the surface at once. At least people today can go outside by simply stepping outside their front doors, or even just opening a window.

It's all well and good for Gene to claim that everyone should, or does, live underground, but it would have helped if he'd explained further. What would a full sized underground city look like? What would the quality of life be? How much room would there be to move around? What views would most people have outside their 'windows'?

Aboveground use of space is typically pretty haphazard, even in areas which are fairly densely populated. It should be possible to utilize space much more efficiently in underground developments without unnecessary crowding and without impinging upon anyone's quality of life. As far as what view people would have outside their 'windows' goes, I think DS9Sega's point was that video technology would allow them to choose any view they liked, or to rotate among a wide variety of views; that technology already exists today.

breakdowns of structures and systems due to exposure to the elements/natural phenomena would be significantly reduced.

Earthquakes, on the other hand...

Earthquakes actually occur miles beneath the surface. Siting and design of buildings and the methods used in their construction should already take fault locations and resistance to seismic shock into account, as they do here in California. I would imagine that many of the same rules and practices would apply, whether a structure was resting upon the surface or beneath it; further, I suspect that a properly-designed and -constructed underground structure would be even more resistant to earthquake damage than comparable above-ground structures.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

wasn't Roddenberry's picture of San Francisco one in which:

"Industry, commerce and transportation facilities are [predominantly] underground so that the surface of the planet can be a place to be enjoyed"?

That doesn't sound to me as if anyone would be prevented from going outside.

Still, there'd be billions of people living underground (and as I said, is there enough ROOM underground for the entire population of the Earth?), all of whom are going to want some fresh air from time to time. How would they allocate this? Obviously they couldn't all go at once. The pedestrian traffic jams would be legendary.

As far as what view people would have outside their 'windows' goes, I think DS9Sega's point was that video technology would allow them to choose any view they liked, or to rotate among a wide variety of views; that technology already exists today.

And what about the view from 'street' level (or whatever passes for same in an underground city)? Obviously there'd be no sky, as we understand it. And I doubt the entire sky surface would be such a window. They'd have to work out how to rotate from 'daylight' to 'dusk' to 'darkness' (the human body depends on such things). Also I assume the therapists would be on speed-dial to deal with any problems of claustrophobia that may arise.

 

[M'Sharak]

wasn't Roddenberry's picture of San Francisco one in which:

"Industry, commerce and transportation facilities are [predominantly] underground so that the surface of the planet can be a place to be enjoyed"?

That doesn't sound to me as if anyone would be prevented from going outside.

Still, there'd be billions of people living underground (and as I said, is there enough ROOM underground for the entire population of the Earth?),

Figure the thickness of the Earth's atmosphere to be about 100 km/62 miles, and roughly 12,000 feet/2.25 miles/3660 meters of that to be suitable for human habitation. Now figure that the Earth's continental crust (that's the part we live on -- the part not covered by water) has an average thickness of around 50 km/31 miles/164,000 feet and an approximate area of 148,900,000 km²/57,490,600 mi². Even if you only go down, say, two or three hundred feet and only in certain locations, that's a lot of room you've got to play with.

...all of whom are going to want some fresh air from time to time. How would they allocate this? Obviously they couldn't all go at once. The pedestrian traffic jams would be legendary.

They're in different locations, spread all over the globe; why would they all need to go at once? And even if they did, there's all kinds of room up there if you get rid of the buildings and such, and presumably multiple exit points so that everyone would need only pick one of the nearer ones or catch the future equivalent of the subway to whatever favorite spot they like.

As far as what view people would have outside their 'windows' goes, I think DS9Sega's point was that video technology would allow them to choose any view they liked, or to rotate among a wide variety of views; that technology already exists today.

And what about the view from 'street' level (or whatever passes for same in an underground city)? Obviously there'd be no sky, as we understand it. And I doubt the entire sky surface would be such a window. They'd have to work out how to rotate from 'daylight' to 'dusk' to 'darkness' (the human body depends on such things). Also I assume the therapists would be on speed-dial to deal with any problems of claustrophobia that may arise.

There could easily be skylights on upper levels and light shafts as in modern high-rise buildings, and rotating from broad daylight to dusk to darkness to dawn to keep everyone's Circadian rhythms happy is something which has been addressed in probably hundreds of science fiction stories and not any sort of huge logistical problem. And claustrophobics would probably get first dibs on living space next to the skylights/light shafts, hey?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And claustrophobics would probably get first dibs on living space next to the skylights/light shafts, hey?

Could be, but who knows if it'd be enough. I am claustrophobic, and the problem (with me, at least) isn't light - it's simply BEING in an enclosed space. You can have all the light you want, plus fake windows that give you any *view* you want, and still have that fear.