Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#131

Post by adrianN »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #119
adrianN wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retirees are not known for generating large amounts of demand compared to younger people who work.

I don't really follow? Workers are supply (their labor) and demand (their consumption), but as we have more productive industrial capacity and more of it, the cycle breaks down as not enough labor is needed, reducing their purchasing power and further slackening the labor market in a vicious cycle. Retirees don't work, which means nevermind the absolute amount of demand (no kids, etc., make less per household sure) t…

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#132

Post by sharken »

robin_reala wrote: post #95
mkl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the original plan though.

If we’re talking cathedral delays, Köln Cathedral was started in 1248 and finished in 1880.

Quite a turn of events that made it possible to resume that building after the original plans were found, here is the summary i found:

> In the 1790s, when the French Revolutionary Army drew close to Cologne, the Cathedral treasures were removed for safekeeping. These included the plans and drawings for the west front, which were transported with other items to Amorbach and eventually lost and forgotten. In Amorbach, the large “F-Plan” was used by a family for some time to dry beans, and later wrapped around their son’s new suitcase to protect it as he traveled to the university in Darmstadt. It was in Darmstadt, in the attic of the inn where the son arrived that the Plan was rediscovered and recognised by G. Moller as the missing drawing of the west front.

Source https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/younghistorians/2012/oral...

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#133

Post by ostenning »

boublepop wrote: post #110

This is the absolute concentrate of idiocy. They need the island because there isn’t land to build new housing… there’s plenty of land to build new housing but every single attempt gets shot down with excuses about “maintaining nature” because every single politician has had a 3000% increase of the value of their houses and apartments in the capital region and don’t want to see that end. Once the island is finally bu…

If this is true then that’s diabolical!

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#134

Post by mensetmanusman »

perihelions wrote: post #3

This is some remarkably long-term planning: "If construction goes ahead as planned, the majority of the foundations for the island off Denmark's capital should be in place by 2035, with an aim to fully complete the project by 2070." I can't recall ever seeing the year 2070 or later in print, in the context of some definite project or plan. Are there other examples?

It’s definitely a modern phenomenon to have such short term planning.

In the past (building cathedrals for example) humanity had advanced project timelines of many hundreds of years. I wish we were able to replicate the long-term thinking strategies of the past.

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#135

Post by guerrilla »

shoto_io wrote: post #123
guerrilla wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like Blade Runner did even worse.

Indeed. I don’t get it though. Why not push every timeline out by a safety margin of hundreds/thousand years?

I just think of it as an alternate timeline now

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#136

Post by shoto_io »

guerrilla wrote: post #135
shoto_io wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I don’t get it though. Why not push every timeline out by a safety margin of hundreds/thousand years?

I just think of it as an alternate timeline now

Nice. That’s great trick

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#137

Post by Grustaf »

dustymcp wrote: post #84

I cant stop wondering the why its such a massive undertaking and we have plenty of land just expand on the other side i cant stop feeling that this is a prestige project with very little gain.

Which option do you think will generate the largest bribes?

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#138

Post by Grustaf »

manexploitsman wrote: post #54

Wouldn't it be cheaper and better for the environment to buy some land off Germany or Sweden? Once the deal is sealed, they could start building the city the very next day.

It is definitely an idiotic and corrupt project, but how would it help Copenhagen to buy a part of Sweden? There's plenty of farmland in Denmark that could be used, including within bicycle distance of the center.

Re: Denmark parliament approves giant artificial island off Copenhagen

#139

Post by Fnoord »

yread wrote: post #61
perihelions wrote: post #3

This is some remarkably long-term planning: "If construction goes ahead as planned, the majority of the foundations for the island off Denmark's capital should be in place by 2035, with an aim to fully complete the project by 2070." I can't recall ever seeing the year 2070 or later in print, in the context of some definite project or plan. Are there other examples?

Seems reasonable. Maasvlakte is a comparable project: an artificial island (20 km2 while this island is "only" 2.8km2) outside Rotterdam harbor and it was built over 25 years (1974-1997) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasvlakte (Dutch wiki has much more info: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasvlakte ) Another comparable project is the new Strandeiland in Amsterdam https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/ijburg/deelproject…

> Ijsemeer

Minor nitpick, it is 'IJsselmeer'. Double 's' and 'IJ' is both in capital letters when its part of a name. Otherwise great links, thanks!

Post reply on HN