Mostly by happenstance, though. The real criticisms are pointing out specific issues that could be addressed. Even the cost could be reduced with designs that do not need as much custom work.
… Not to say it was a good idea, as I’m positive the maintenance cost would be VERY likely to be even more balk-worthy than the building cost. It’s not trivial to keep something artificial afloat, especially something the size of an airport. All the people who bought floating houses almost certainly learned that the hard way, especially the weirder one-off constructions.
RetroFed
ɯsnN
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
The pneumatic stabilized platform (PSP) was proposed as a means for constructing a new floating airport for San Diego in the Pacific Ocean, at least three miles off the tip of Point Loma.[6] However, this proposed design was rejected in October 2003 due to very high cost, the difficulty in accessing such an airport, the difficulty in transporting jet fuel, electricity, water, and gas to the structure, failure to address security concerns such as a bomb blast, inadequate room for high-speed exits and taxiways, and environmental concerns.[7]
So, uuuuh, Norm was correct
Mostly by happenstance, though. The real criticisms are pointing out specific issues that could be addressed. Even the cost could be reduced with designs that do not need as much custom work.
… Not to say it was a good idea, as I’m positive the maintenance cost would be VERY likely to be even more balk-worthy than the building cost. It’s not trivial to keep something artificial afloat, especially something the size of an airport. All the people who bought floating houses almost certainly learned that the hard way, especially the weirder one-off constructions.