Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the same site, the multifamily cost structures are not too far off from office. Perhaps you have a large parking lot or structure, or maybe it just costs a lot more than even New York to do construction here.
No parking garage, but a 40 space asphalt parking lot (roughly $130k).
Quote:
I think the site does a fairly good job of arguing that higher buildings cost less per square foot.
If it's on the web, it must be true!
Unfortunately, all I can draw on is nearly 3 decades of personal experience in the design/engineering/construction mgt fields.
Cultural changes, supported by birth control and television. Certainly not by shared concern for sustainability or mass die-offs.
Ah, of course. Countries where many people don't have TVs will be changing their culture because of what the television tells them. I would argue that many of these people will begin to use more birth control because modern methods actually work. Although, I doubt birth control will be used because someone told them to do so, but instead because they realize that their life will be easier with less mouths to feed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
While the world is littered with unsustainable farming practices, the net system is still very sustainable and most of the points of pollution are caused by lack of appropriate regulation or remediation, not by the technologies themselves.
Let's look at the US where all farmers used to rotate their crops at one point. They would do something like plant corn (which depletes soil nitrogen levels) one year, then plant soybeans (which allow nitrogen levels to recover) the next year, and so on. Now, many farmers plant corn every year and must therefore use large amounts of fertilizer in order to sustain the corn. The fertilizer will run off the field no matter what is done, but much of it changes into something inert before it cause much harm. The problem is that too much fertilizer is being used and problems ensue. Even if the pollution is not an issue, the use of large amounts of fertilizers is. Not only is the fertilizer made from oil, but the farm machinery runs off of oil and power is generated from primarily fossil fuels. Using fossil fuels, which will be severely depleted within a couple of generations, is by definition unsustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Maybe you'd be good enough to cite that fact?
This link provides a wealth of information on the effects of the current population and on increasing population. My point is that tripling the population in a set area will change the situation, which is just common sense, and should not need to be cited.
I doubt birth control will be used because someone told them to do so
Worked in China.
Quote:
Let's look at the US where all farmers used to rotate their crops at one point. They would do something like plant corn (which depletes soil nitrogen levels) one year, then plant soybeans (which allow nitrogen levels to recover) the next year, and so on.
Yes, old technology. Could argue it's more sustainable or in harmony with nature but it's a pretty weak argument; corn and soybeans displace natural flora.
Quote:
Now, many farmers plant corn every year and must therefore use large amounts of fertilizer in order to sustain the corn.
Corn yields are now >160 bushels per acre. In 1960 they were <55.
It's a tradeoff whether you want less fertilizer used or more acreage planted (with commensurate increases in other forms of pollution).
Quote:
Not only is the fertilizer made from oil, but the farm machinery runs off of oil
Some of it. Most nitrogen fertilizers come from natural gas (and could be made using renewable hydrogen). Farm machinery could run on any number of energy sources including renewable ones.
We are not likely to run out of oil or natural gas anytime soon; they will just get more expensive. They would have to get significantly more expensive to make food unaffordable for even the poorest people on this planet.
It would be better to use renewable sources, and the market will eventually tilt in that direction for simply economic reasons. That will happen far in excess of any supposed shortage of petroleum.
Quote:
My point is that tripling the population in a set area will change the situation, which is just common sense, and should not need to be cited.
Your link didn't add any basis to any number of people being unsustainable, which is what you claimed you could back up, only that there would be situational issues that need to be planned for.
Back to skyscrapers. How many stories is too many for Albuquerque?
I can't vouch for your link, but I do know to take this building from concept to a finshed building = $4.3M. It will house 80 people in a cube farm layout. There are some special things about the building, however I'd equate their cost to be about the same as items specifc to a multi family unit.
This building was originally estimated to be $6.5M in 2006, but with the decline in the economy and the construction industry, it came in at $4.3M in Oct 2010.
I can't think of what building this could be. I usually am up to date on most decent size non-single unit residential building projects.
According to this link, that's ($373/ft2) way out of the realm of averages for this type of construction.
What is it about your building that makes it more expensive than any average cited? Or is my link suspect?
I am not sure about that link but it probably computes cost as material/sq ft. It probably does not account for the architecture, bidding costs, construction management, insurance, etc.
Never mind, I thought I read that it was a multi residential facility. That is what I get for scanning through posts without actually reading them. I have an idea of what building this may be
That's only one country. I was thinking more along the lines of much of Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Worked in China.
Under threat of death and by an oppressive government with a questionable human rights record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Yes, old technology. Could argue it's more sustainable or in harmony with nature but it's a pretty weak argument; corn and soybeans displace natural flora.
Corn yields are now >160 bushels per acre. In 1960 they were <55.
It's a tradeoff whether you want less fertilizer used or more acreage planted (with commensurate increases in other forms of pollution).
That "old technology" is one of the best ways of not destroying the soil for future generations, so probably not a good reason to believe that we are being sustainable. Most of the flora in the Midwest has been displaced, so not really sure what you are getting at here. Yes, corn yields are up. Unfortunately, instead of feeding needy people in the world, we use it to fatten up cows for gluttonous Americans to eat. How is this sustainable? I see you decided to take my "weak argument" and help strength it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Some of it. Most nitrogen fertilizers come from natural gas (and could be made using renewable hydrogen). Farm machinery could run on any number of energy sources including renewable ones.
We are not likely to run out of oil or natural gas anytime soon; they will just get more expensive. They would have to get significantly more expensive to make food unaffordable for even the poorest people on this planet.
It would be better to use renewable sources, and the market will eventually tilt in that direction for simply economic reasons. That will happen far in excess of any supposed shortage of petroleum.
Sorry, I was wrong. Lots of fertilizer isn't made from oil, a fossil fuel; it is made from natural gas, a fossil fuel that has about the same lifespan as oil....As for the hydrogen, where do you envision it coming from? How would you separate it out from other elements without using the same energy we already use? Food is affordable for even the poorest on this planet? It's not even affordable for many in New Mexico who are rich by comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Your link didn't add any basis to any number of people being unsustainable, which is what you claimed you could back up, only that there would be situational issues that need to be planned for.
Perhaps, I should have started with asking you to cite your claim that there is no difference between 3 billion vs. 9 billion humans on the Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Back to skyscrapers. How many stories is too many for Albuquerque?
Tallest right now is 22, correct? I say keep future building below 15. Another issue I wonder about is, would adding more tall buildings to Albuquerque negatively affect the balloon fiesta (increased danger of a collision)?
How is this sustainable? I see you decided to take my "weak argument" and help strength it...
Fat Americans are plenty sustainable. Not healthy, or good necessarily, but keeping 310 million people (most of them fat) isn't difficult to sustain.
Quote:
it is made from natural gas, a fossil fuel that has about the same lifespan as oil....
At current production/consumption rates, we have 15372 days until we run out of oil.
At current production/consumption rates, we have 60798 days until we run out of gas.
Quote:
As for the hydrogen, where do you envision it coming from?
Solar, wind, hydro.
Quote:
How would you separate it out from other elements without using the same energy we already use?
We wouldn't. Additional energy. (That, or energy to replace the oil/gas we supposedly won't have anymore).
Quote:
Food is affordable for even the poorest on this planet? It's not even affordable for many in New Mexico who are rich by comparison.
That's pure weapons-grade balonium. Why don't I see pictures of starving New Mexicans if that's the case?
Quote:
Tallest right now is 22, correct? I say keep future building below 15. Another issue I wonder about is, would adding more tall buildings to Albuquerque negatively affect the balloon fiesta (increased danger of a collision)?
Depends on where. I'm sure there's plenty of FAA guidelines to cover that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
