NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] The Perils of Getting High

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 19438
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalizt

[DRAFT] The Perils of Getting High

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:04 am

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.

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
Last edited by Candlewhisper Archive on Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:28 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Great Mojave
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 165
Founded: Aug 02, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Great Mojave » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:10 am

Notoriously Big Construction is very clever. I love this issue, and especially love the capitalist-only option.
_[' ]_
(-_Q)

Pro: 1st and 2nd wave feminism, Libertarian Party, Cryptocurrency, Capitalism, USA, Christianity, Space Travel, Civic Nationalism, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment

NEIN: Monarchy, Socialism, Mutualism, Communism, Syndicalism, Fascism, Wahabism, Islam (the idea, not its supporters.), Islamism, Theocracy, Authoritarianism, Corporatism
(Almost) not based on fallout! Also, we don't use NS stats.
Libertarian Republic of
Great Mojave
Now with 50% more sapient deathclaws!

The Year is 2050. The cities are big, the streets are bathed in neon, the desert is hot, and the wave is synth.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18547
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:28 am

"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"...
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 19438
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:29 am

Bears Armed wrote:
"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.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7762
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:30 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:"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.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote: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.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 19438
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:36 am

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.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7762
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:49 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote: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.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 19438
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:57 am

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/

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7762
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:09 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote: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.
Last edited by Trotterdam on Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 19438
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:13 am

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


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads