SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Straight from the horse's mouth:
The first Chinese Forest City by Stefano Boeri Architetti is turning into reality. A city where offices, houses, hotels, hospitals and schools are entirely covered by plants and trees.
Once completed, the new city will host 30,000 people, absorb almost 10,000 tons of CO2 and 57 tons of pollutants per year and produce approximately 900 tons of oxygen.
Liuzhou Forest City will be built in the north of Liuzhou, in the mountain area of Guangxi, in the southern part of China; in an area that covers 175 hectares along the Liujiang river.
...
Liuzhou Forest City will have all the characteristics of an energy self-sufficient urban establishment: geothermal energy for interior air-conditioning and solar panels over the roofs for collecting renewable energy.The great innovation of Stefano Boeri Architetti’s project is the presence of plants and trees over every building, of all sizes and functions.
Liuzhou Forest City will host in total 40,000 trees and almost 1 million plants of over 100 species.
Unlike the characters from a previous story, Stefano Boeri is an architect known to deliver (green urbanism): one of his recent projects (completed) is Bosco Verticale (Vertical Forest) - a pair of residential towers in the Porta Nuova district of Milan, Italy, between Via Gaetano de Castillia and Via Federico Confalonieri near Milano Porta Garibaldi railway station - inaugurated in October 2014.
Under construction, another "Vertical Forest" pair of towers, in Nanjing, with the inauguration date expected in 2018.
From the Wikipedia entry of Stefano Boeri:
Stefano Boeri is an Italian architect and urban planner,[1] born in Milan in 1956, founding partner of Stefano Boeri Architetti. He earned a master's degree in Architecture from Polytechnic University of Milan and a PhD in architecture in 1989 from Iuav University of Venice. Among the most known projects are the Vertical Forest in Milan, the Villa Méditerranée in Marseille, and the House of the Sea of La Maddalena.
Stefano Boeri was the editor-in-chief of the international magazine Domus from 2004 to 2007 and Abitare from 2007 to 2011.
He is the professor of urban planning at Polytechnic University of Milan. He has been visiting professor in many international Universities as GSD Harvard Graduate School of Design, Berlage Institute, Columbia University. From 2013 he is the artistic director of MI/ARCH, an international festival of architecture promoted by the Politecnico Di Milano
...
He is currently the director of the web platform theTomorrow (www.thetomorrow.net), which promotes an exchange of ideas on European culture, and part of the scientific board of the Galleria Degli Uffizi in Florence, Italy, a palace and Italian classical art museum,...
On other sites:
China is building a smog-eating 'forest city' filled with tree-covered skyscrapers - On June 26, Liuzhou broke ground on what Boeri calls a "forest city."
‘Forest City’ starts construction in China - Residential areas, commercial and recreational spaces, two schools and a hospital are expected to be built by 2020.
It is worth visiting TFA(s), even if just for the views of sky-scrapers draped in green vegetation.
(Score: 1, Troll) by kaszz on Saturday July 08 2017, @03:55AM (19 children)
I have this great idea. Make less kids => less environmental demands. Can I patent it? ;-)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:14AM (4 children)
Not until after you kill yourself.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:35AM (3 children)
There was a story on this blog about a week ago. It said that killing yourself is legal in California now. The right to die, they call it. So now a lot of liberals in California are killing themselves. And it's totally legal. Beautiful! #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2017, @07:01AM (2 children)
Wouldn't surprise me if lots of folks from your side of the aisle are too.
Jobs are hard to come by these days.
With the Strict Father model, [google.com] failed people who can't find work have been taught to blame themselves.
Those seem just as likely--if not moreso--to bump themselves off.
Note that, especially outside the big cities, California has lots of folks raised like that.
...and, with heathcare to become less available, we'll see how many of the folks from your side of the aisle with a bad prognosis and lots of pain choose to end it all.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2017, @03:39AM (1 child)
I gather such assisted suicide is exclusively for people who are dying of incurable ailments and have terrible quality of life. More "available" healthcare isn't going to change that except to make health care more expensive for everyone. What's the point of wasting more of society's resources on things we can't make better? Your doctor or insurance company not wealthy enough?
And yet, how many failed people are there under the "Strict Father" model compared to the "Nurturant Family" model, which is the other George Lakeoff model? In the former case, at least they're looking for work, which is the biggest factor in finding employment opportunities. And for some weird reason, it's not the "Strict Father" adherents who complain of the supposed impossibility of finding work rather than just finding work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:18PM
*Lakoff
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:49AM (8 children)
How's this great idea of yours relating with the story?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 08 2017, @11:47AM (7 children)
The town is designed to reduce pollutants and consume less resources. The need for this is lessened if there are less people.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:09PM (5 children)
How about looking to the side effect of making the life more enjoyable by bringing nature close to urban environ?
If you do make from this your primary target (with less pollution and lower resources being side effect) buildings like this make sense even at a lower level of population (e.g. technological advances are improbable in sparse population, lets bring them together in a city but let them have nature nearby)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:33PM (4 children)
Bringing nature to the urban environment is not a counter point. It's just that at the core we simple have to make less kids. And make sure that those that are born have high chances to live a good life. That entails both obligations and rights.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 08 2017, @02:08PM (3 children)
More than that, I argue you can make it the main point.
Isn't it amazing that, as societies develops, they usually experience a slump in population growth (and an increase in life expectancy)? To the point in which they need immigration to keep their population stable (e.g. Germany encouraged Turkish immigrating during '60-'70 [wikipedia.org]).
Here, pick your own countries [worldbank.org]
If you want less kids, the solution is simple: help them develop their society.
Unfortunately, as they develop, it is the environment foot-print that explodes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:45PM (2 children)
Some regions have ingrained belief systems that makes progress a very slow process if it moves at all.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 08 2017, @05:10PM (1 child)
You better leave those regions alone instead of stirring up wars in there.
War/famine/etc is a condition which favours a higher birth rate, as a mean to group survival
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @07:26PM
Poverty leads to a higher birth rate. Famine does not [nih.gov]—quite the opposite, famine brings a drop in fertility. Famine can be the result of a high birth rate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2017, @04:54AM
I guess my take on this is that this design would work now for that purpose, while lowering population by having less kids is likely to take a few centuries to really kick in, assuming we don't get huge longevity gains before then.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday July 08 2017, @10:17PM (4 children)
Europe, the Americas, Oceanea, and some of eastern Asia are already doing this. How exactly will less people being made in China/Europe/America lead to fixing the upwards of 15 billion in Africa alone by the end of the century?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 09 2017, @12:37AM (2 children)
Africa has then to learn self restraint. Or take the consequences of their own breeding.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday July 09 2017, @01:11AM (1 child)
I am uncertain what consequences might teach them self restraint except a furtherance of their already extreme consequences. There will be a significant amount more of the problems that face them, but as of yet subsaharan africa has not taken any significant steps forward. Starvation, dehydration, desertification, malaria/etc, and war.
I would like to see a list of great leaders (in the civ iv sense) that have arisen in continental africa since the end (where it has) of colonialism that have done things of note.
I think a solution that might work is a balkanization of the poorly designed country borders set up by Europe, Redraw along tribal lines so rather than Hutu/Tutsi conflict for control over Uganda central government (example) they have their own states. Naturally there will be real war, but more realistic borders might make it possible for peace to eventually exist.
Is the aid provided by the west good because it helps more people live, or bad because they get just enough that they dont face hard enough times to require change. Is it better for a much smaller population to have a higher standard of living (less people get to ever have lived) or better to have more people live but have a much lower standard of living.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 09 2017, @02:59AM
Maybe the policy for assistance to African countries has to be re-evaluated. Ie planned families as a condition for assistance. But the hard limits are clear. Taking on the birth surplus into Europe or elsewhere is not a working solution either resource wise or socially. I think the number I have seen quoted is 4x times current population in Africa quite soon. If they move they will just bring their circumstances with them so any change has to happen where they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2017, @04:34AM
Global population is projected [newscientist.com] to be 12 billion or less by 2100. Africa isn't going to be anywhere near 15 billion.
But should Africa somehow manage to achieve a disastrously large population of 15 billion by 2100 (which also implies very out of control population growth much higher than we currently expect to see), we would no doubt see a population die-off shortly thereafter. That would solve this hypothetical overpopulation problem. I'm confident in such a situation that enough of the developed world would have the firepower to hold off 15+ billion people in their death throes to maintain a global civilization. Our challenge is not what to do in such a situation (genocide is pretty straightforward), but in not letting it get that bad where the only solution is to kill Africans.