3
$\begingroup$

My setting includes a space faring civilization which builds massive terrestrial ziggurat-esque megastructures as one of their main identifying features. They vary in size but even the smallest ones are thousands of feet across and they function mostly as self contained cities.

This civilization was started by colonists who migrated to a distant planet. The planet, while habitable, has a layer of mildly toxic topsoil which is blown about by the wind and can cause chronic health issues via long term exposure. The colonists found that much of this toxic dust could be avoided by gaining a little elevation so they built most of their settlements on flat topped hills and mesas. However the planet is less tectonically dynamic than Earth and much of its land is relatively flat greatly reducing the features desirable for settlements.

When the most of the good hills and mesas had been developed but the population continued growing the decedents of the original colonists resorted to building their own mesas out of quarried stone or concrete. Once the top of these artificial mesas filled up they'd build platforms over the existing buildings (with large galleries to let light and air through) and then build on those. This process would continue until multiple successively smaller layers were built up creating a ziggurat style structure. These megastructures would eventually become the main urban centers for this civilization and when they began to colonize additional worlds they would continue building them on those planets as well.

Now the problem is these structures are huge and require an absolutely massive amount of material and tons of heavy machinery to build. Additionally much of this material is just filler and not used create any usable space. Given the resource requirements what would one, justify building these megastructures as opposed to a bunch of cheaper skyscrapers on elevated pillars, and two, be a compelling enough reason to continue building them even on new worlds where the toxic dust is not an issue?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A point of inconsistency: If these ziggurats are constructed the way you describe, each layer would be honeycombed with living and working spaces (since at some point each layer was the 'top' layer and fully utilized). That means there wouldn't be a need for lots of 'filler'; the ziggurat would be mostly empty space. Why would space colonists build their mega-buildings differently? This would create different problems — even empty, it's a tremendous amount of weight to support — but you see my point. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ I probably didn't explain the design as well as I could have but the base is basically one solid block a few hundred feet high before the start of the lowest habitable layer (for the necessary elevation gain). The support pillars between each layer are also huge and add a lot of additional mass when taken together. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ skyscrapers become incresingly less cost effective as they get bigger, moving peole up becomes a pain, but when you start linking them horizontally you don't need to decend ot ground level any time you need somthing. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday

7 Answers 7

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

Systemic competition.

States that are afraid of beeing outcompeted by the great unknown, can put great sums into advances, they would never endavour. Mega structures are cool, keep the population busy (they structure their days), fill them with pride and dread (dread -because mega structures tend to bankrupt nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuschwanstein_Castle#Funding) One madmans megalomaniac project, is another mans gulag.

So as long as their is propaganda and no way to check but word of mouth and bad photos- the mega-structures are signaling the imminent victory of the peoples republic of brutalist buildings.

Bonuspoints: If you get into a war with the systemic competition - you can declare the bombing damage as necessary to clear the way for the future grander cities to be built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(city) So- no air defense needed.

PS: Mega structures do not have to work. The great wall of china was supossed to keep out the mongols, but the mongols conquered china- and then basically became china. So the mega-structure failed, but at least it kept the mongols separated from the mongols in china. And it supplied building materials to several cities.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Why would someone buy a house with 20 bedrooms, 30 bathrooms, golden toilets when 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom with a single porcelain toilet can be perfectly fine?

Some individuals love to show off and flaunt their power and wealth.

Scale it up to the size of your question, and you have your answer.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Why would someone build a pyramid when a hole in the ground would do? Etc. Human history is full of people building unnecessary monumental structures simply for prestige - including, according to the Bible, the original ziggurat. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
3
$\begingroup$

The artificial mesas were originally built due to environmental pressures, but over time aspects of this society or its technology have been adapted or specialized for large, flat spaces, so much so that the population continues to use this physical arrangement even when the original environmental pressures are removed.

I'm imagining a rather hand-wavey science fiction explanation that involves some type of particle collider energy source that underlies cities, which must be built in a large and flat circle. Or maybe the population is very sensitive to vertical accelerations or air pressure differences and prefers to move around large flat spaces in high speed-transport. There should be some element to the artificial megastructure which cannot easily be shrunk down and split into many smaller structures.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

This is a tricky question to answer since it is so subjective.

That being said, I would say it is justified by being more cost efficient to build one large foundation to raise everyone above the height threshold rather than several foundations for different buildings. Foundations are some of the most expensive parts of construction (apart from the exterior shell system). This is especially true if the foundation needs to be hundreds of feet tall, which is an engineering conundrum in itself. The one large foundation, most efficiently, would also probably be moved earth and not giant stone blocks. So, dig a hole and move the earth to the location you want to build the giant foundation and pack it down.

Beyond the height constraint, the ziggurat structure is clearly a cultural marker of the colonizing civilization/government. That alone is justification enough, especially for a reader where this is likely a background detail of the setting.

Additionally, I think you would find this Youtube video by DamiLee (architecture-focused channel) about Coruscant/planet wide cities interesting. It goes over multi-layered cities similar to what you described.

Improve this answer
New contributor
amadshade is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

ALL FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF THE ZIGGURAT-ESQUE EMPIRE!

This is the easy answer - but there is something to the notion of building megastructures to demonstrate the glory and vastness of your Empire/Civilization.

Think the Pyramids for example - plenty of examples throughout history of people building big and grandiose things 'just because'

Future proofing

Okay, New Zealand rant time - we have a culture of 'Number 8 wire' AKA cheap, efficient temporary fixes. Works great on the farm when all you have is a bit of Wire and some Nouse, but it really sucks when it comes to National Infrastructure.

Case in point - the Auckland Harbour Bridge - originally conceived IIRC by a US Design firm to be 4 lanes each way (total of 8) - instead, in true Kiwi Fashion 'Naaaaah, that's too much, just have a total of 4 lanes, She'll be right Maaaaaaaate'

And lo - the bridge was built with just 4 lanes... then just 10 years later, two clip-ons on each side needed to be added for a total of 8 lanes (the original spec).

TL;DR - if they built it properly in the first place, they would have saved time and money in the long run.

Your civilization has learned this lesson - and so builds these structures with ample space and spec for growth and expansion - as they find that this is better in the long term.

It is the done thing and they like it this way

Many Civilizations have buildings built in a way because of regional/cultural quirks.

Think Greek columns or Gothic Arches etc. They might just build them this way because it is aesthetically pleasing to them and they like them as they are - they work perfectly fine and there is no reason to change them.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If you have self-replicating machines, a megastructure may be easier to organise.

The great pyramids of Egypt may have been built by seasonal labour. Ramps were built to carry the building material to the top. Stone was quarried in standard sizes to build the structure, the internal rooms and the facing. Rubble was used to fill the larger voids. The craftsmen could work on finishing and decorating the chambers while work progressed on the outside. Once the process was started, they would know how many people and how many stones would be required for a day's building, and people could be sent to the quarries or the ramps or the pyramid worksite accordingly.

Suppose this was done using a system of self-replicating machines. They mine ore and produce metal to make more machines; they make more building materials or resources; or they work on the megastructure. The megastructure design might be a simple repeated set of arches, like Breughel's Tower of Babel. This would have enough over-design to survive subsidence, or faulty stones. You program the machines and let them get on with it. This is more expensive than building individual high-rise buildings, but the idea of 'expense' as we know it becomes meaningless if we have a small population and many machines.

There is an economic limit to building high buildings on Earth. A taller building takes longer to build. It is hard to sell lots in the building while it is still a building site. So the peak amount of money you have to borrow to get it built increases with height, even if you don't factor in the costs of building higher. If you have a wide, blunt megastructure, you could might live in one bit while building continued elsewhere. The ramps for lifting material might be hidden deep in the structure so you do not get the noise and the dust.

If you need another city elsewhere on the planet, what would you do? If the megastructure works, you would probably do the same again. It would then become 'the way things are done'.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Human Male Reproductive Member-measuring Contest

aka "MY Megastructure is bigger than YOUR Megastructure"

Sometime you don't need practical reasons.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.