Atlas City Project

if this is intended to be a proof of concept which will not be developed further or if it will grow to become a much larger city.
If we have the space it would seem a shame to abandon the city to build another elsewhere.

Considering the number of people on the planet, I would like to see self-sufficient communities that are able to support one million people each.

The plan is not to abandon, but have it be the older and smaller sister of future cities that come out. I do agree that it's easier to build anew as opposed to fix the old when it comes to many aspects of structural rehab. Basically, when Atlas is larger in support and popularity we can just begin a newer larger city with the experience we have learned from this initial design.

I might think that the EASIER thing to do from an effort stand point would be to build a new city from the gorund up. However, from a practical standpoint - it might be better to begin with a blighted city - look at Detroit for example -start with small areas of said cities - and convert them into the vision on a smaller scale - and then expand it outward. SURE - a lot of things would need to be undone, destroyed, rebuilt, etc., but you may have some people-power available to assist as there is already a presence struggling to survive in these places - plus, it is interconnected to surrounding communities - certain resources are either available, or not far away. A project like this could really energize a place - and start a cascade of creation and change.

That's what CityNet what's to do, and good for them. However, you will just never reach the same efficiency. You can't really insulate an old home the way you could a properly built new home can be. You can't take back all the waste from the cheap, quick planning that originally went into it.

Either way, Atlas will need to be created from scratch to work. There's just no infrastructure right now that really suites it.

Well, it wasn't so much to reuse old buildings necessarily - it was more about using a location that was "established" - certain areas have been totally abandoned in some large cities - no reason why a project couldn't go into these areas, raze them, and start the rebuilding process as modern, efficient structures and infrastructure. Utilize what is already there as needed (EX: roads that are already there to transport materials, etc,) - Get building, people will become interested (hopefully), and expansion follows (again, hopefully) - it'll be a slow process no matter what though.

Why not have Atlas be the core of a larger city-to-be?

Sure, it would be the older, less advanced core, but it'd also have an established population and culture--whereas spawning a new city would repeat the psychological and social difficulties encountered by the first 'settlers'.

That said, how many people should this city house?

I'm thinking more than 1,000 but less than 10,000 as a starter. It should truly be a full city with all the challenges faced by any developed community in order to be taken seriously. If its 100 people between the ages of 20 and 30 then outsiders won't look at it as a true city. But if it has pregnant mothers, children, young adults, mature families, and elderly, and the city providing support and service to that entire group, its difficult to say its not a city.

We have discussed this in the past and there are a few issues that come up:

Firstly for us, land. We just won't have much and have no way to determine if more will be available later.

Secondly, city design. It's circular based with the center being the main hub. This allows everything to be accessible and close. If we build out then it just makes it more difficult to get to the main area and causes more congestion and commuting issues.

Third, structural limitations. If our lot for agriculture is unable to sustain more, or a water recycling is at max capacity it is difficult to upgrade and complicated to network different units to an already built infrastructure.

Later on there may be some architectural geniuses that have an efficient way of doing that. For now, it just seems difficult.

I think it is folly to even set artificial limits like this - sure, maybe you can build a planned apartment to hold 100 units - you can't build a city for 1000 people - it just won't work. Cities are far more dynamic than that. If you target too small a scale, then yo have no room for growth - what do cities tend to do? Grow. Always fluid, never static, always growing. You will need to deploy concepts, yes, probably on a small scale at first - but don't think of it in terms of a human count. What is needed is clever design that can be adapted and easily changed for growth, don't box yourself in.

I agree Dieter and I repeat those very words often. Never set limitations, they will only result in failure. If we build an apartment building for instance to house 400 people we will need a way to continue to add to the building to house more and more beyond its original design scope. Maybe the units could be prefabricated offsite then the building could be lifted up and a new level slid in at the bottom?

An interesting idea - or along that same line, they could be built up as need grows. The Venus Project site has (or at least had) a nice mini-video of an apartment tower and a mobile "thing" attaching apartment units to it. It was a vertical slider that could lift a unit from ground to the needed elevation and attach - definitely prefab. Might be easier to go this route than insert modules at the ground level???

But back to the limits and numbers - absolutely. I can see why one might think in these terms - but we can't, gotta get it out of mind. We must define core concepts and begin discussions on how they might be deployed - and if they are adequate to accommodate intended growth. A city must be prepared for success - if this works, then growth is the obvious outcome - but will the "core" be dynamic enough to grow??

I have heard of one person who jacked up the roof of their house and built another storey to the house then lowered the roof to complete the job.

If you are going to standardise this method of expanding the occupancy of the city, you need to plan for it from the outset, the foundations and the walls must be strong enough to support the final height of the building, the underground services, such as water electricity and waste must be capable of supplying the full demand of the final fully occupied building.
So a small block of four houses could grow to a block of 100? apartments, but there will be a limit to the height that the building could reach.

BINGO! 100% correct. So - there are of course certain practical limits thanks to physics! These are the kinds of things that need to be brainstormed.