Atlas City Project

Not sure if you guys have agreed to an area to build. But here is something to think about:

We should want to build in an area that is:
-Geologically Stable
-Politically Stable
-Sheltered from severe weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.)
-Not under threat from other weather/geologic events (volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.)


So lets start with the first criteria (Geologically Stable).
-----------
The easiest way to satisfy this requirement would be to build on a "Shield." A shield is a geologic area, that is essentially 'dead rock,' meaning there is very little or nothing going on geologically. They hardly ever have earthquakes, and the earthquakes they do have are a totally different variety than what you might imagine at the sight of that word.

Shields are the core of continental plates, there are 12 shields shields:
-Canadian
-Amazonian
-Guiana
-Platian
-Baltic
-African
-Australian
-Arabian-Nubian
-Antarctic
-China-Korean
-Angaran
-Indian

Of these, the Canadian and Australian shield are the most promising. They are in politically stable areas that also happen to be fairly tolerant, they are almost entirely inland, have no active volcanoes, and are not vulnerable to tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes.


Regions included in the Canadian Shield:
-Greenland
-Quebec (north of St. Lawrence River)
-Ontario
-Adirondack Mountains
-Upper Peninsula of Michigan and northermost parts of the Lower Peninsula
-other less notable areas


Regions included in the Australian Shield:
-Western half of Australia


So now we know some good places to build. What comes next is which area has greatest access to water? Obviously the Canadian shield has superior access to water, specifically in the Quebec, Ontario, and Michigan portions. For that reason we should consider those areas.

However, they aren't known for their warm weather!

So we might want to look at water features on the Australian plate. But then comes COST. Will getting access to fresh water on the Australian plate be cost prohibitive? Or should we tough it out and commit to the short summers of the Canadian Shield? Or is the land in those favorable areas of the Canadian Shield in-and-of-itself cost prohibitive?

All things up for discussion.

But, that's why we're here! Looking forward to your thoughts. Who is going to get data on the price/availability for land with water-access on the Australian shield? Who is going to get that same data for the favored areas of the Canadian shield?

I think the idea is that this city will be built in Nevada, the construction details will be published in the wiki, so anyone can copy all or part of it anywhere in the world.

Let me explain why that is a bad idea:

WATER

I'm finished.


True, Nevada has great solar potential, and even some wind too. But its not a good site because (1) it is encircled by fault lines (earthquake prone), (2) has poor access to water.


If we end up having to buy water, which we will, we might get away with it for a short while. But civil engineers all know that water is becoming extremely scarce in that region and will soon become extremely expensive. In fact, long term estimates project that the population in the western, dry areas of the country will begin plummeting in the next 20 years as water becomes prohibitively expensive.

So the question is: Will this city have a lifetime of only 20 years?

I think the clear and obvious answer is NO. Nobody builds a house that is intended to last only 20 years, and its far too much work and money to be spent on this project if its only going to last 20 years.

Another site needs to be selected, I've offered two general areas that have great potential.

Apparently you have a misconception of a few things. Nevada does NOT have an earthquake problem. The fault lines are deep into California and Nevada has never suffered an earthquake and I don't even remember having an aftershock in the 17 years I've lived here. Not saying it's impossible, but no more likely then anywhere else in the world.

Water is, of course, a concern when you picture a desert. However, northern Nevada does receive adequate rain and snow if we have proper rain collection and recycling. The other thing most people don't realize is that we actually have a great deal of underwater aqueducts we can tap into, but in the city are forced to use water from Colorado and Lake Meade. That's not saying we will have all the water in the world to waste, but it can be managed if everyone is aware of their surroundings.

Now, there is no reason why we can't select another location if things work out that way. Believe me, we would all rather pick a forested area or some place that may make things easier, but this concept is designed to be altered for any area and any terrain. Unless we can find adequate, cheap land somewhere else that doesn't have high taxes it is likely to be built in Nevada. The main thing to realize is that the northern part of the state is not as bad as the dirt mound that Las Vegas was built on. It is easier to build there then here, and here expands exponentially each year.

you know, i have been an advocate of somewhere like northern florida.
yes there are hurricanes, no thats not a problem, just an engineering concern.

i mean, if we have to live somewhere, it might as well be close to the ocean

I'm down for a better climate as well, it's just going to have different legal and budget concerns attached. I was planning on moving near the ocean or the top of a mountain in a few years anyway before I joined this group. Besides, I was born in FL

Well, wherever you do it, it needs to be politically stable with easy access to plentiful resource of all types. Yes, disaster-free would be a nice option, but unlikely - pick the disaster you can best engineer against. Florida might not be such a bad place really. This is the home of the original Venus Project as well!

I have lived in Nevada my entire life (29 years) and never felt an earthquake here. Rain flooding is the main problem but was solved a long time ago using water retention basins. Northern Nevada gets as much snow as any other cold place and has more water than Southern NV by far. If the city was built in Southern NV water would be a problem.

How is any state or any country politically stable right now? Political stability is an oxymoron by the way. Politics are made to be unstable thats what we are trying to get away from.

The entirety of the people that make up the core of Atlas, or helped bring this concept to where it is today all live in Nevada. Monetarily speaking it would be smarter for us to build it closer so that we dont have to spend a bunch of money traveling to and from the construction site. We can spend that money on improvements to the city instead right?

Last but not least, if we can build this city and make it work in Nevada then it can be built and work more easily anywhere in the world.... except China.....

I forgot to mention that I am not closed to other ideas Im just saying the reasons why I think Nevada is a sound idea

I like the effort gone into choosing a region to build, though I reckon that sadly the most consideration will be simply to cost, eg. if we cannot afford land in the good spots, we are left with the less than ideal to get started.

As such, one might think that the first community will be focused more on income generation so that the next community can be built somewhere more suitable, and that the first location is simply chosen because the land is dirty cheap.

Well if we can just get a big enough donation then location can be anywhere. Donations are mostly for land and materials anyways. If we could get someone to donate land then the location of said land would dictate where the first city would be.

We talked about maybe working out a deal with one of the Indian tribes in South Dakota. The tribe is poor but has lots of land. Land has resources. We could provide a much higher standard of living for their people and our own. If handled right I am sure they would share a small piece of their untouched territory. We could provide education, healthcare, living space all at a much higher standard than they currently have. Indian land is sovereign territory and the US Gov has no control over what the tribes do with their land. There are many unnamed benefits that come with working with the native Americans for both sides. I see it as a win win scenario.

Has Bret made any leeway with that? Everyone I know that is part Native American agrees that we have a better chance building a floating city in the clouds then them letting us build on their land. I'd advocate other paths to land acquisition if anyone can think of it, short of talking to each ranch owner with lots of land independently.