Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Case of Armageddon, Break Out the GIS

Posted by michael on from the what-me-worry dept.

ADiva writes "There's a detailed, three-dimensional, interactive map of New York City which captures the five boroughs down to the square foot, incorporating everything from building floor plans to subway and sewer tubes. Could the city be rebuilt if destroyed? Should it?" As a New York resident, let me say that if something Bad happened to the city, I hope it is built anew rather than trying to recreate the 1910-era buildings that make up half the city's housing. An "Old New York" in the Metaverse might be fun to visit, though.

27 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. if new york is destroyed, by Valar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    chances are, we will have bigger problems than building acurate reproductions of the original. There would definitely be wholesale destruction to clean up. And it isn't like the people there couldn't be moved to somewhere else.

    --

    ====
    Crudely Drawn Games
    1. Re:if new york is destroyed, by Angry+Toad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope the question posed in the topic wasn't really serious. If New York (or anywhere else) were partially destroyed neither you nor I nor anyone you know would have the slightest say in the rebuilding process - land owners would make these decisions on an individual basis. What we would see, I'm quite certain, is a lot of wealthy individuals buying up the land at firesale prices (assuming it was livable).

    2. Re:if new york is destroyed, by guttentag · · Score: 4, Funny
      Citizen 1: "Where are we going to find food to eat?"
      Citizen 2: "What about the radiation?"
      Citizen 3: "Don't worry about that. Our first order of business is to get the Empire State Building back up. We're Americans! We have to show 'em we're not afraid! Give me a hand with this girder... c'mon! We've got to get all these building back up before they come back and bomb us again!"

      As a NYC native, I must concede the discussion would probably wind down to an argument over which to rebuild first: Yankee Stadium or Shea Stadium. And the survivors would kill each other trying to work it out.

  2. Cool idea but.... by Bush_man10 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would they rebuild the Bronx as it is now? :)

    --
    "I believe in everything in moderation. Including moderation." -Dean DeLeo, Stone Temple Pilots
  3. I vote for 100 year old designs by doom · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As a New York resident, let me say that if something Bad happened to the city, I hope it is built anew rather than trying to recreate the 1910-era buildings that make up half the city's housing. An "Old New York" in the Metaverse might be fun to visit, though.
    As a San Francisco resident who has seen the difference between buildings put up at the turn of this century and at the turn of the last one, I would sincerely vote for building replicas of 100 year old designs.

    Somewhere along the way, modern industrial culture lost the ability or the desire to build anything that isn't a piece of crap. If anyone can explain why that is exactly, this thread might not be a totally useless fluff magnet.

    1. Re:I vote for 100 year old designs by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a degree of false sorting in the belief that the things built that long ago are better. Part of the reason that those 100 year old buildings seem to be so well built is because the badly built buildings from the same time period have all been replaced already. The 1900 equivalent of our lousy apartment buildings and cheaply built houses have either been knocked down for those newer developments or have degenerated into the awful old slum housing that you've probably never visited.

      Also, when you look at the wonderful 100 year old buildings that impress you so much, you have to remember that they're not necessarily exactly like they were when they were built. Buildings are not static. The structure may remain largely the same but the interiors undergo periodic renovation and reconstruction. In the process, people change the things that annoy them or they think are badly done. Space gets redistributed to different needs, design flaws get smoothed over, and things are generally improved. Many, many buildings become gradually more functional over time as they're adapted to the way that people actually do things, rather than the way that architects imagined that they'd do things.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    2. Re:I vote for 100 year old designs by s.fontinalis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A degree of false sorting yes - but having lived in multiple tract housing homes of the 1920's, and multiple tract housing homes of the 1990's - there was a substantial difference in quality.

      Plaster & Lathe is much more durable for walls than wallboard.

      Solid Hardwood Floors last much longer than composite hardwoods.

      Solid boards for your roof last much longer than plywood.

      Of course these techniques are all but impossible to replicate in this day and age at a reasonable cost.

    3. Re:I vote for 100 year old designs by antirename · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but those are usually things like adding fake ceilings to fit AC ducts and whatnot. The number of sqare feet in a building only tells you how much room you have to walk around; more cubic feet (high ceilings) make the same space much nicer. Plus, engineering back then wasn't what is is today. I live in Savannah, and there are 2" diameter steel bolts running between floors and tieing the roof together. Those are "hurricane bolts"; they didn't know what a building could take so they used foot-thick outside walls, 2 and 3 by twelves everywhere, and those giant bolts. Those were the building codes. Guess what? My house has lived through a couple of hurricanes, and will probably survive the next. When you watch construction crews framing up a house in suburbia it's like watching somebody building a model of of matchsticks with a staple gun. There IS a difference. "Old" in and of itself might not mean anything, but if you live somewhere REALLY old that was built by the old building codes it is still sturdy as hell after a hundred years or more.

    4. Re:I vote for 100 year old designs by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have moved from Russia almost 9 years ago, and every time I see a construction site here one thought appears in my mind:

      Why are they building everything from a cardboard?

      Now I live in a relatively old concrete building, but it still has way too much of dry wall in it for my taste.

      It's still amusing to see a paper company logo on the office paper and know that the same logo is painted over on the office walls.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:I vote for 100 year old designs by denshi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes and no. Certainly, there was some tenement construction 100 years ago that simply couldn't survive to today, but they explicity *were* tenements, not fully-fledged homes for long term usage. Non-tenement construction before WW2 aimed at designing buildings to last 200 years; a very substantial motivating factor was that construction costs were high enough to warrant building to last -- we just couldn't afford the 'build for 20 years' mentality prevalent after the war. Homes built now (or even worse, the 50's-70's) are not designed to last that long, although recent years of 'green' urban construction has started to reverse that trend.

      Another substantial problem is legal: zoning laws over the past 60 years have grown to make 1910-style construction more or less impossible. You can't build brownstones, Victorian row houses; you can't build a house without a huge strip of lawn around all side, there are modern parking demands you are constrainted to build, mixed-use neighborhoods are forbidden, and there are huge packages of material and design constraints. This is a huge topic, easily dwarfing this NYC thread. But believe me when I say that affection for 1910-style construction is more than just nostalgia.

  4. We are rebuilding it. by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every day, everywhere else, and doing it better almost every time.

    --Blair

  5. Most places should get virtual copies made by philipsblows · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the advent of these new standardized 3D file and render formats (see here) I would think that there would be plenty of room in the virtual museum business, along with maybe virtual architecture, virtual chamber of commerce, etc, to construct virtualized cities from the past and present for everyone with a copy of Mozilla 2.0 to view and enjoy.

    Granted, it is a lot of work...

    I really like this one, a temple in ancient Thailand reconstructed for walktroughs and everything. It's only a small area, of course, but this sort of thing would at the very least change the way history is taught in the future... especially if it is easily editable.

    Of course, being able to play 2nd generation and later online multiplayer games in super-accurate virtual cities from around the world would be pretty cool, to say the least.

  6. Suggested plans to rebuild NYC by Navius+Eurisko · · Score: 5, Funny

    In you already didn't know, there are a lot of scenarios regarding rebuilting cities (and New York in particular.)

    * Rebuilt New York as a maximun security prision and plot out a flight path for Air Force One right over the city.

    * Rebuilt New York a mile away. Motocycle gangs will battle each other, gray skinned wrinkly children will roam the streets, and a teenage boy with a red cape and a "Da Da Da" theme will wreak havoc.

    * Dinosaurs. 'nuff said.

    * In case of flood: Lease out above water skyscrappers to robotics manufacturers.

    * In case of attack by phantasmal alien beings: Erect a "Barrier City" and make everyone look like a Doom III screenshot.

    * In case of attack by 200' tall lizard or ape: Air force to the rescue, barbecue for the civilians.

    As you can see, you can rest easy knowing that every possible scenario regarding NYC has already been covered.

    Warning: NYC rebuilding scenarios may require several poor thought out and executed "sequel" scenarios should the first scenario be received well by the population.

    1. Re:Suggested plans to rebuild NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides, you forgot the "talking apes keeping humans as slaves/pets" option.

      I think he assumed everyone was familiar with present day New York. :-)

      --
      AC

  7. Re:New York is cool as it is, but... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a resident I have to speak up...

    First of all, New York doesn't have nearly the sprawl a lot of cities do, mainly because the boroughs are built primarily on a series of islands that limit the soulless overbuilding you find most places. Sprawl isn't densely packed buildings; it's constant development outwards of strip malls, ugly housing, and too many roads.

    Granted, Manhattan has little greenspace other than Central Park, but there is some; there are several parks, and the northern edge of Manhattan Island (the Inwood section) is actually very pleasant, with impressive views of the palisades and a lot of parkland.

    You're also ignoring the outer boroughs, which make up most of the population. Brooklyn and Queens have plenty of backyards and parks. The next time you're in New York and want to see what I mean, take the elevated J train towards Jamaica, and look north. Queens is almost a forest, with a VAST canopy of trees with the occasional house and building poking out.

    The Bronx, despite its reputation, has some of the loveliest sections of the city, with extensive parkland, beautiful old houses, and the Zoo and Botanical Gardens (both very sizeable). The Bronx also has, I believe, a little old-growth forest that has never been built on.

    Staten Island is for the most part suburban, though admittedly the landfill probably doesn't qualify as greenspace.

    As for the recycling issue, it didn't quite happen that way. What basically happened is the city realized that a) they were losing a lot of money recycling plastic and glass, and b) most of it was ending up in landfills anyway. They're planning to revamp and reintroduce it next year, and we still recycle newspapers and cans. Personally I think it's better to admit something's failed so we'll have to deal with it, rather than give people the illusion that they're recycling and just throw the stuff in a hole.

  8. Depends on the Armageddon in Question by Mulletproof · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously. How was the city destroyed? Conventional bomber attack? Nuclear weapon (of what yield), Earthquake? Biologicals? Come on, throw us a bone here...

    Using New York as the example, lets assume an ID4 level of armageddon... Y'know... Where a giant UFO brings his destructo-beam of fun to bear on the city, causing wide-spread "conventional" damage (if you can call a giant destructo-beam of fun conventional). Anyway, you'd be facing an engineering debacle of the Trade Center proportions, but on an epic scale. Any structure that hasn't been leveled would probably be dicey in terms of structual support. That goes all the tunnels beneath the city as well. It'd be a grim task to have to sift through all the damage, clear it out and rebuild... An entire city... Hell, the refugee camps set up to take survivors would probably become full cities before New York was even habitable again. I'm also assuming this would be the senario for carpet bombing and earthquake/giant tidal waves.

    Nuclear? We all know the answer to that, though the yield of the weapon makes a hellva difference. Biologicals and chemical devistation could hopefully be delt with after the inital blow and loss of life, as the city would be realitively intact. You'd just have to watch out for masive decay and the diseses it spaws if you go in within a few weeks.

    In short, assuming your New York sized city suffered a major conventional casulty, you'd probably be better off writing it as a loss for the next decade. Of course, that's nothing compared to a good Slashdotting...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  9. Did anyone else read "Aftershock"... by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...the book (also later a miniseries) that had a huge earthquake levelling much of NYC?

    Not a bad read. The plan to rebuild what was destroyed was interesting... It's been years since I read it, but IIRC there were ideas something like, make it a city for the people, a social and cultural mecca even moreso than it was, packed full of parks, museums, libraries, etc. No internal-combustion vehicles allowed on the island, just people-powered and non-polluting vehicles. Subways would be repaired, but used to move freight, not people, with the rationale, "why force people underground to travel quickly and clog the streets above with trucks full of cargo?"

    I'm just kinda rambling here, and that's all I remember now, so time to click "Preview" and "Submit."

    ~Philly

  10. Re:agreed by x136 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many people live in New York City now? Let's say a million. What would be cooler than an RPG set in an exact replica of NYC, with millions of people walking the street? You live in real apartments, walk along real sidewalks, and throw fireballs at your foes on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

    Yeah, you'd need octo-42GHz CPUs and a few terabytes of RAM, but so what? :)

    --
    SIGFEH
  11. New York: Viridian version.... by detect · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Haven't you guys read:

    Newer York, New York: After the Great Blaze of 2015, Manhattan went green - thanks to Bill Gates and bambootekture.
    by Bruce Sterling?

    Detailing a new ecologically sound/networked New York City...

    Good read if you have the time.

    --
    // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
  12. interesting article... by amb_lew · · Score: 3, Informative

    An Urban Data Goldmine from govtech

  13. If New York was destroyed... by coene · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... What makes you think that the computer holding this "detailed, 3d, interactive map" would survive too? If NY blows up, I'd say we're a bit too fucked to care about some map data :/

  14. A lot more at stake than rebuilding the city... by doormat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure the people who use the GIS data care more about its usability on a daily basis rather than to rebuild it if it gets destroyed. In fact, as someone who works in GIS (I write pieces software for use with Arc/Info and Autodesk Map), the value of having the whole city layed out with associated attributes is extremely important when it comes to utilities and roads are much more useful during or just after a disaster in compairson to long after the disater is over.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  15. Why I like newer buildings by freeweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess living in Canada changes my perspective some, but a lot of this seems to hold true in any city I visit (American or Canadian):

    For the most part, I'd much rather live in a newer building than one built 100 years ago. I don't know if people have grown, or we just need more space, but a lot of old buildings are VERY claustrophobic. Hell, some of the doorways are barely 6' high. Never mind the rambling tenements built to house immigrants back at the turn of the century, where having an 8'x10' bedroom was considered a luxury (this trend seems to have continued at least into the 1960's - most houses over 30 years old here have TINY bedrooms).

    A building constructed 100 years ago may not have originally had much in the way of central heating, let alone air conditioning. Retrofitted, most of these buildings have atrocious heat efficiency (so sue me, I live in a -40 to 100 degree climate :), and these large gaping ducts which always seem to trap the most useful things - including pets.

    Older buildings often are very difficult, if not impossible, to get modern appliances and/or furniture into - especially if they have any staircases, ESPECIALLY if those staircases try to 'save space' in the house by turning once or thrice. A lot of these places were designed for people who owned essentially nothing, or nothing that wouldn't fit into a suitcase - I've spent many an hour trying to navigate a 3-seater couch around turns, whereas it would take all of 10 seconds straight down a modern home stairway.

    Obviously I'm over-generalizing, and can only speak from my own limited experience, but unless you radically alter the interior designs of most of the older buildings (let's try avoiding the mud basements from now on, eh?), I'd much prefer living in something designed with how people actually *live* nowadays.

    Asthetically though, I have to agree - older is better. New houses and apartments look like utter crap.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  16. i live in times square by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    i live in times square and i just have a few details for the metaverse keepers:

    yes, there are dishes in my sink, but when you rebuild could you replace them with an empty sink?

    i have a pile of laundry as well. see what you can do about that. thank you.

    i'd like a bigger tv for me in new york 2.0, please? oh and more windows! i don't know why there isn't one on the west wall, it's a perfect place for it.

    move that hotel over a few feet so i get a better view too.

    thank you! much appreciated! ;-P

    ps: can you fix the bedroom window? it lost it's spring and doesn't stay up when i open it, thank you very very much.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. security concerns by mumkin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I would expect that while the data about exteriors might eventually be released to the public in a low-res form, privacy and security concerns would limit the release of much interior detail. I mean, think of all those movies where cunning access to blueprints allows the criminals to pull off a brilliant heist, assassination, etc. Now, imagine you have an incredibly accurate blueprint of the entire city of new york to explore, not just on paper but it in fully immersive VR.


    The only way that a virtual NYC will ever be constructed from these bits is if it is wiped off the face of the earth, so that there's no real world analogue to be concerned about anymore. I'm not particularly interested in that scenario.

  18. if new york destroyed, we can play it in quake3+! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope they convert the 3D maps over to
    quake3 levels so I can do some fraggin
    in all 5 boroughs!!!!

    GTA3+ levels would be even better!

    muhahaha

  19. Get over it by K. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering that the USA and the rest of the world lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation from
    pretty much the fifties to the dismantling of the USSR, you're letting this pissant terrorist threat thing get to ye far more than it should. It's hard not to wonder if you aren't in fact just being cynically manipulated to distract you from the ridiculous amount of domestic problems your current administration is causing and/or ignoring.

    It's about time you got over it, either built a Ground Zero memorial park or used the space for buildings, stopped beating up on random eastern countries, implemented decent accounting laws, and returned to being the arrogant but lovable bunch of tech-obsessed golden boys that we all remember from the 90s.

    And ratify Kyoto already - have you seen the weather lately? Can't you take a hint?

    --
    -- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.