Swedish Firm Proposes City Buildings On Rails

Lanxon writes "A Swedish architecture firm that came up with a plan to roll buildings through a city on rails has won third prize in a competition to develop the Norwegian city of Åndalsnes. The company, Jagnafalt Milton, suggested that existing and new railroads could be built to provide the base for buildings that could be positioned differently depending on the seasons and on the weather. It proposed designs for rail-mounted single- and double-berth cabins, along with a two-story suite, reports Wired."

Take it from an architecture major...

[arcsimm]

As somebody who keeps up with this kind of stuff (albeit often with a rather quizzical expression), you should just nod, smile, say "that's cool," and move on. Don't think about how monstrously impractical this would be. Don't consider the long-term maintenance issues involved with the moving parts, the problems involved with things like plumbing and electrical service, or the insulation requirements of a floor raised up off the ground in a northern climate. Don't try to think about how much simpler it would be to achieve the same goals in a passive design. Don't think about any of these things, because if you do your brain will break from the glaring obviousness of the problems. Just take a moment to appreciate the zoomy science-fiction cool factor, and get on with your day.

Re:Take it from an architecture major...

[MonsterTrimble]

It reminds me of a quote I heard in university: Architects make it pretty. Engineers make it work. Yes, it's a trollish quote but the more I deal with 'creative' types the more it's proven true.

Re:Aw Crap

[pixelpusher220]

'Crap' might be another consideration of things that no longer get to their intended destinations when buildings start moving...

Re:Take it from an architecture major...

[arcsimm]

You have no idea how many times I heard this line in studio: "Hey, you think like an engineer...!" followed by a question about basic structural issues or weatherproofing. It's very frustrating how few architects and designers actually know how a building goes together. I'm a far cry from an actual engineer (show me a load-transfer problem and my eyes glaze over and roll up into my head) but I like to have at least a general concept of how the things I draw actually translate into physical objects. That's a shockingly uncommon sentiment amongst my peers.

Sigh...

[ShooterNeo]

Problems :
Using rail does not remove the problems you would have with the obvious alternate way : trailers. You basically have all of the disadvantages of using mobile trailers stacked with ADDITIONAL problems from width limits on a rail line. I'm not even going to go into the problems associated with mobile homes/trailers, other than to say that every single one I have ever been in sucked.

And another additional problem : you can tow mobile homes and trailers over gravel and dirt roads that are dirt cheap to build and maintain (pun intended)

Rail is VERY expensive : about $1 million/mile. Totally economically unfeasible to build the additional rail segments this plan would need to work, as well as to bring the old abandoned track up to code that this architect has in mind to use.

Re:Like birds

[mcgrew]

It's still a dumb (albeit cool) idea, though. You can accomplish the same thing with older technologies far more efficiently and cheaply. Houses used to be built to the east of big trees, and indeed, often in a grove of them. The leaves and shade disappear in the winter when you need the sunlight. A central fireplace served to cool the house in the summer, etc.

I could probably heat my house all winter long with the fuel it would take to move the damned thing closer to the trees.