[submitted 21.10.19] The Perils of Getting High

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I never felt that the existing issues that tackle highrise construction attempted to present the downsides. Rather than amend those issues, I think a consequence issue could work well.

TWO:

TITLE:
The Perils of Getting High

VALIDITY:
643.1 or 68.1 or 725.1.

DESCRIPTION:
A surge in the construction industry has followed your government's recent endorsement of high rise buildings, but some are questioning the ecological impact.


OPTION 1
"Your shining glass towers demand regulation of fluctuating temperatures, force water distrIbUtion against gravity, and are a blight on our landscape," complains woke teenager @@randmomname@@, adjusting the collar of @@HIS@@ all-hemp smock. "Change direction, @@LEADER@@, and restrict building heights. The closer we are to Mother Earth, the better."

OUTCOME:
the architecture of @@CAPITAL@@ is often accused of being short on ambition

OPTION 2
"There's upsides to maximising density of urban structures," counters Countryside First campaigner @@randomname@@, looking somewhat discomfited at being indoors. "High-rises reduce the geographical footprint of cities and reduce need for transportation. Instead, build only with living organic materials, with natural ventilation and integrated biospheres. Some taxpayer money will be needed to make this work, but with an environmentally sound approach, the sky's the limit."

OUTCOME:
treehouses aren't just for kids

OPTION 3
"Actually, there's perfectly good hard engineering solutions available," phones in Ivana Locke, concrete-pouring guru. "Use MgSO4-7H2O-based aggregates, recycled fly ash, locally sourced substrates and greywater. Then you get durable concrete buildings, which need replacing less often -- barely any environmental damage but solid as a rock. Ah, got to go, I've got a call coming through on the other line."

OUTCOME:
the concrete reality of @@NAME@@ is depressingly grey

OPTION 4 - CAPITALISTS ONLY
"Rap with me now, @@LEADER@@: The invisible hand of the market guides us," intones the CEO of Notoriously Big Construction, with almost religious reverence. "If a building ain't ecological, peeps ain't gonna want it. If peeps ain't fussed how green it is, then Government ain't got no right to be fussed neither. Keep the planners and the inspectors out of the way, and builders gonna get busy."

OUTCOME:
a high-rise capital city disrupts weather patterns across the whole nation

OPTION 5 - NONCAPITALISTS ONLY
"The construction engineer, just as the poet, the sculptor or the painter,
is in duty bound to serve Man, the people," intones Director of Construction Sergei Sergeyevich, composing his sentences with deliberate care. "Our high rise constructions consciously extol the glory of Communism, and lead us to economic strengh in future. Do not let the small-minded limit our upward climb, @@LEADER@@. The nation demands that we build. The future awaits."

OUTCOME:
a high-rise capital city disrupts weather patterns across the whole nation

ONE:

TITLE:

The Perils of Getting High

VALIDITY:
643.1 or 68.1 or 725.1. Adult.

DESCRIPTION:
A surge in the construction industry has followed your government's recent endorsement of high rise buildings, but not everybody is happy with this trend.


OPTION 1
"Skyscrapers have the potential to be highly unsound, ecologically," complains woke teenager @@randmomname@@, adjusting the collar of @@HIS@@ all-hemp smock. "Your shining glass towers demand regulation of fluctuating temperatures, force water distrubition against gravity, and can even mess up the weather. We need eco-friendly integrated biospheres, with natural ventilation, and sustainable materials. Reach for the clouds, but do so with feet firmly planted on Mother Earth."

OUTCOME:
treehouses aren't just for kids


OPTION 2
"Yeah, that's not going to help with what matters here, which is people bein' safe," tuts Building Codes Inspector @@randomname@@, forcing a plastic hard hat on the youth's dreadlocked bonce. "You gotta put buildin' standards first - fireproof buildin' blocks, sound foundations, proper load bearing columns. Erections ain't no use if they fall down, am I right?"

OUTCOME:
the concrete reality of @@NAME@@ is depressingly grey


OPTION 3
"These plebs are hopelessly prosaic, and missing the bigger picture," bemoans avant garde architect @@randomname@@, placing decorative coloured shards of glass on the floor to brighten up your carpet. "The real problem with these monstrous tumours on the landscape is the detriment to the aesthetic of the ancient cityscape. If we are to create, let us create beauty! Curving spires that swoop and twist! Sculptures of light and shadow! Ah, magnificent!"

OUTCOME:
architects sometimes forget to include doors in their blueprints


OPTION 4 - CAPITALISTS ONLY
"Rap with me now, @@LEADER@@: The invisible hand of the market guides us," intones the CEO of Notoriously Big Construction, with almost religious reverence. "If a building ain't beautiful, peeps won't live in it. If it ain't safe, they won't pay for it. Government need to back off. Keep the planners and the inspectors out of the way, and builders gonna get busy."

OUTCOME:
skyscrapers that start to lean are propped up by building another skyscraper next to them

[Great Mojave]

Notoriously Big Construction is very clever. I love this issue, and especially love the capitalist-only option.

[Bears Armed]

"Skyscrapers have the potential to be highly unsound, ecologically," complains woke teenager @@randmomname@@, adjusting the collar of @@HIS@@ all-hemp smock. "Your shining glass towers demand regulation of fluctuating temperatures, force water distrubition against gravity, and can even mess up the weather. We need are eco-friendly integrated biospheres, with natural ventilation, and sustainable materials. Reach for the clouds, but do so with feet firmly planted on Mother Earth."

Missing a "What" from before "We need"...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

"Skyscrapers have the potential to be highly unsound, ecologically," complains woke teenager @@randmomname@@, adjusting the collar of @@HIS@@ all-hemp smock. "Your shining glass towers demand regulation of fluctuating temperatures, force water distrubition against gravity, and can even mess up the weather. We need are eco-friendly integrated biospheres, with natural ventilation, and sustainable materials. Reach for the clouds, but do so with feet firmly planted on Mother Earth."

Missing a "What" from before "We need"...

Cheers. I actually snipped the "what" for brevity, but forgot to snip the "are". Done now.

[Trotterdam]

"We need are eco-friendly integrated biospheres, with natural ventilation, and sustainable materials. Reach for the clouds, but do so with feet firmly planted on Mother Earth."

"We need" or "what we need are".

Although I'm fuzzy on what this actually means. It seems heavy on feel-good buzzwords and light on actual building codes.

OPTION 2
"Yeah, that's not going to help with what matters here, which is people bein' safe," tuts Building Codes Inspector @@randomname@@, forcing a plastic hard hat on the youth's dreadlocked bonce. "You gotta put buildin' standards first - fireproof buildin' blocks, sound foundations, proper load bearing columns. Erections ain't no use if they fall down, am I right?"

This feels like too much of a "duh" option. Of course buildings need to be safe. Everyone is going to want to choose this in addition to any other option, rather than instead of. Constructing a skyscraper without putting a lot of effort into making sure it doesn't collapse is the crazy option.

However, there are other, less obvious, kinds of "safety" that might be considered, such as the contagious disease risks of packing too many people too closely together.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Although I'm fuzzy on what this actually means. It seems heavy on feel-good buzzwords and light on actual building codes.

I think natural ventilation and sustainable materials is self-explanatory, but maybe I need to clarify integrated biospheres.

This feels like too much of a "duh" option. Of course buildings need to be safe. Everyone is going to want to choose this in addition to any other option, rather than instead of. Constructing a skyscraper without putting a lot of effort into making sure it doesn't collapse is the crazy option.

You're right. I'll instead have him emphasise that he's talking about more stringent safety checks, and prioritising those things over environmental concerns.

However, there are other, less obvious, kinds of "safety" that might be considered, such as the contagious disease risks of packing too many people too closely together.

Hmm. Will consider that as an alternate #2.

[Trotterdam]

I think natural ventilation and sustainable materials is self-explanatory, but maybe I need to clarify integrated biospheres.

I'm not sure about natural ventilation either, actually. You mean, like, opening a window? I don't see how that does much good for the environment. Maybe it saves some energy on electric fans, but I doubt that's where most of our energy budget goes to begin with, and it doesn't seem like ventilation would be significantly more expensive (per floor) in a skyscraper than in a one-story building of similar width, but skyscrapers do have to worry about being stable enough to stand up to stronger winds.

For that matter, I'm not sure what's unsustainable about iron and concrete. Would it be better to chop down forests to make skyscrapers out of wood? I'd never trust a skyscraper made out of something as flimsy as wood, anyway.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Natural ventilation is easy enough to look up, and I don't want to inflict too much option bulk be explaining these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_ventilation

On material sustainability:
https://c-r-l.com/content-hub/article/s ... materials/

[Trotterdam]

On material sustainability:
https://c-r-l.com/content-hub/article/s ... materials/

Wow, they're seriously recommending that we build houses out of straw? I thought that only happened in The Three Little Pigs.

Wikipedia acknowledges a problem with carbon dioxide emissions in concrete production, but also suggests the solution to that is "make better concrete". The more detailed article goes on to suggest that concrete actually has environmental benefits due to the low transportation distances.

I'm really not convinced there is an actual problem here that needs drastic unconventional measures to solve. And also not one that's more of an issue with skyscrapers than with a comparable amount of building space spread out horizontally rather than vertically.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Well, my option doesn't say "use straw", it says "use sustainable materials", so I guess better concrete works for that!

[Jutsa]

Woo~ Glad to see a skyscraper followup.

[Fontenais]

DESCRIPTION:
A surge in the construction industry has followed your government's recent endorsement of high rise buildings, but not everybody is happy with this trend.

What exactly aren't people happy about? Personally, I really like the design of the Woolworth building, but the Bank of America Tower... not so much.
I think there should be more description about what's wrong with the buildings, like, 'rows of almost-identical, glass skyscrapers have been recently constructed in Capital City' and citizens have been complaining that they're ugly, not environmentally friendly, etc.

[Australian rePublic]

Wait, aren't skyscrapers better for the environment, as they cram more people into a small space, causing less demand for long distance travel?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

DESCRIPTION:
A surge in the construction industry has followed your government's recent endorsement of high rise buildings, but not everybody is happy with this trend.

What exactly aren't people happy about? Personally, I really like the design of the Woolworth building, but the Bank of America Tower... not so much.
I think there should be more description about what's wrong with the buildings, like, 'rows of almost-identical, glass skyscrapers have been recently constructed in Capital City' and citizens have been complaining that they're ugly, not environmentally friendly, etc.

You mean like the rest of the issue goes on to do?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Wait, aren't skyscrapers better for the environment, as they cram more people into a small space, causing less demand for long distance travel?

Yes and no. But part of sidestepping that debate is not having the environmentalist option propose getting rid of skyscrapers, but rather rendering them eco-friendly.

[Fontenais]

What exactly aren't people happy about? Personally, I really like the design of the Woolworth building, but the Bank of America Tower... not so much.
I think there should be more description about what's wrong with the buildings, like, 'rows of almost-identical, glass skyscrapers have been recently constructed in Capital City' and citizens have been complaining that they're ugly, not environmentally friendly, etc.

You mean like the rest of the issue goes on to do?

True, but from the perspective of the woke teenager, the skyscrapers will probably never be green enough, from the perspective of the architect they will probably never be creative enough, etc. I'd like to know from a reliable narrator what's wrong with the skyscrapers before the crazy people suggest improvements.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The things that are wrong with them are all matters of opinion -- the only information that the reliable narrator can narrate is that "not everybody is happy with this trend".

[Trotterdam]

The things that are wrong with them are all matters of opinion -- the only information that the reliable narrator can narrate is that "not everybody is happy with this trend".

And that's really the problem - if the only issue is that some radicals are whining about problems that there's no objective evidence even exist, then why shouldn't I just dismiss the issue?

Most issues start with a clear controversy - not something everyone agrees is a problem, but something that many people do and has some hard evidence backing it up (as in, there's a difference between "I don't believe this is bad for the environment", and "I accept that this is bad for the environment, but I feel our economic growth is more important than the environment", etc. - the latter is denying the problem without denying the facts behind the problem, so a reliable narrator can still assert those facts as true) - and then offer several conflicting ways of solving it.

Although "not everyone" is happy with the skyscrapers, the sum of all people who are unhappy for all reasons combined may still be a minority of the total population.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So you guys are saying that maybe we need a different narrative construction? For example, building the issue around just the environmental concerns and then offering a trio of options relating to just that?

[Fontenais]

So you guys are saying that maybe we need a different narrative construction? For example, building the issue around just the environmental concerns and then offering a trio of options relating to just that?

Yeah, I think that would be best

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay, Draft 2 up.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Any thoughts on the new direction, anyone?

[Bears Armed]

Looks good to me.
(Not that the people in this nation build skyscrapers anyway, mind you...)

[SherpDaWerp]

A couple of formatting tweaks that I can see, but nothing major.
I question why the issue is Adult? I can't see anything that wouldn't be PG-13...

[Fontenais]

I question why the issue is Adult? I can't see anything that wouldn't be PG-13...

I also wonder why. The title maybe? But surely that's not too mature?

By the way, I think this is pretty good. I don't have anything else to add.