Tech Company To Build Science Ghost Town In New Mexico

Charliemopps sends this excerpt from an AP report: "New Mexico, home to several of the nation’s premier scientific, nuclear and military institutions, is planning to take part in an unprecedented science project — a 20-square-mile model of a small U.S. city. A Washington, D.C.-based technology company announced plans Tuesday to build the state’s newest ghost town to test everything from renewable energy innovations to intelligent traffic systems, next-generation wireless networks and smart-grid cyber security systems. Although no one will live there, the replica city will be modeled after a typical American town of 35,000 people, complete with highways, houses and commercial buildings, old and new."

Comments

I see two things happening

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Lots of movies will be shot there.

2) Lots of squatters will move in and create a real life issue of the morality of building a vacant city that can house 35,000 people and not letting homeless people stay there.

~Kactus

Re:I see two things happening

[Co0Ps]

I doubt you would want to move out in the middle of the desert with no open stores and no institutions if you are homeless. Since the city only consists of buildings you would have a lot of logistics problems. Do they even have running water? Even if they did the piping there would be no point in having it on except if they did some kind of related water tests.

Re:I see two things happening

[PopeRatzo]

I doubt you would want to move out in the middle of the desert with no open stores and no institutions if you are homeless.

You wouldn't want to move under a bridge either, but that's what some homeless people do.

I agree with the original poster though. You want to build a test town? Well at least have it help some people besides your R&D department.

Anyway, I bet they'll have water because there will be a bunch of R&D wonks working there.

Unfortunately, I think we're wasting time here. Something tells me this story is bogus. Nobody's going to build a "test town" in the middle of the desert. They may lay out some make-believe infrastructure but they're not going to build little bungalows and streets and white picket fences like we're all imagining from some post-cold war hollywood film.

Re:The hills have eyes.

[Lord Lode]

If they're going to do nuclear testing there, you could always hide in a fridge and be safe.

Hmm

[rasmusneckelmann]

Sounds very inefficient and expensive to me.

Re:Hmm

[SomePgmr]

Because burning down 35,000 real homes when your molten salt solar energy storage system fails, or having your water recycling system backflow bad water through the tap is a bigger problem when you fill them with families of 4?

Just a guess. :)

Re:Hmm

[vlm]

Because burning down 35,000 real homes when your molten salt solar energy storage system fails, or having your water recycling system backflow bad water through the tap is a bigger problem when you fill them with families of 4?

Even "normal failure" needs to be covered up. If it takes 50 revisions to get your SDHW panels not to leak, the last thing you want is 50 families whining on facebook and twitter about how revisions 1 thru 49 of your new panel design leaked water all over their priceless scrapbooks.

Also payment negotiations with a zillion individuals would be a huge PITA.

Re:Hmm

[Inconexo]

Well, it's a salvation for construction companies. Now, they can keep building houses without the need of selling them.

Its about time

[arcite]

Those Crashtest dummies have been demanding a homeland for compensation for decades of abuse and maltreatment in the workplace.

Why build a brand new ghost town

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

They should just use Detroit: it's already built, it's realistic and it's a lot larger than a 35,000 inhabitant city.

Test value?

[argStyopa]

How will they actually test the viability of 'intelligent traffic systems' with no traffic?

In fact, most of those mentioned systems are about the interaction of that technology WITH PEOPLE in an urban environment. Just an empty urban environment doesn't get you much?

Military training sites

[vlm]

is planning to take part in an unprecedented science project — a 20-square-mile model of a small U.S. city.

Note the military has quite a few of these, although smaller scale. Also full of bullet holes. Which might actually be a bonus if you're planning on a technology deployment in "urban" areas.

Re:Military training sites

[gatkinso]

>> Also full of bullet holes.

Why do you have to bring Baltimore into the discussion?

I can guess what they'll discover...

[grumling]

1) solar will be recommended. NM gets a ton of sunlight and it's a friggin' desert.
2) Insulation and sealing up the shell will have the biggest impact on energy efficiency.
3) Setting the thermostat to just above/below "uncomfortable" will be the second.
4) LED lighting will be the third.
5) The capital outlay will exceed the amount of money saved for the first 4-6 years... but only because energy production is subsidized in this country.

How much experimentation do we need? This ain't rocket science. Dad was right, turn down the heat and turn off the AC. Shut off the lights when you leave the room. You think I'm made of money or something?

20 square miles for 35k people is "Typical"?

[ThosLives]

I find it curious that the article says 35k people for 20 square miles is "typical". I'm familiar with several small cities with about 40k people in 9 square miles, and it's not that dense. 20 square miles for 35k people seems like a very inefficient city. 0.36 acres per person is not "city-like" at all.

Consider Detroit, which has lost a staggering amount of population, has a density of about 0.13 acres per person (using 700k and 139 square miles), and this idea of "typical" seems to be really poor.