Talk:Walking City

Untitled
Adjustment made to pic caption -- while the example of modern aircraft carriers as a current manifestation of walking cities is relevant and wise to include, it would seem that these craft represent more of an intermediary stage, as they are (currently) very dependent on traditional nation-states for survival, manufacture and maintenance. Hence the change from "closely" to "loosely" in the caption. The observation that they fulfill many of the requirements of a "walking city" is certainly notable, so kudos to the original author on that account. It is important to remain honest about their limitations in the present. Until more self-sufficiency for the vehicles is obtained, however, we should resist the temptation to call 'em "closely" related to the walking city concept.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercury
A massive city travelling along equatorial rails around the planet Mercury .... The city is pushed along by the slight yet powerful expansion of the rails as the close-by sun shines on them (with the city always just staying within the planetary night), moving the city once around the planet every 88 Earth days.

Shouldn't that be 176 days (two years)? —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In 2312_(novel), Robinson quotes 177 days for the circumnavigation. In Blue Mars, I can only find reference to the 88 day year and the 59 day rotation period implying a long solar day.  Definitely not an 88 day solar day. 96.239.226.24 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fiction
Wasn't the town Atlantis in Star Gate: Atlantis also able to move? I didn't follow the series closely enough to remember all details. Perhaps someone else does? 192.109.140.196 (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Practical details
How does such a gigantic moving city walk all over the world without seriously pissing people off by trampling all over their crops, roads, infrastructure, leaving behind permanent damage from their "feet" or tracks? (Not to mention simply being really annoying; people dislike wind-turbines and cell towers enough. I doubt they'd like the idea of miles-wide metropolises trampling the countryside.) I suppose the guy who came up with the idea assumes that EVERYONE in the world will live in these cities by that point? What about crops? The natural world (if any remains)? Water crossings? Seems generally implausible to me. You'd have to not only find a clean, renewable source to feed humans appetites, but you'd then also have to find some way to power a few millions tons of self-propelled city as well. I doubt one would get the greatest MPG's out of something like that. If you really want moving cities, a big rail network would work better. Ocean-based ones would probably be the most ideal (until the first really big hurricane). Personally, I don't have any intentions of living in a city at any point, mobile or not..45Colt 08:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)