Rel said:
Earlier today I was considering the architecture of Sharn and I started to conceptualize how big the average towers are. Once I understood the size I was dealing with I started to comprehend the enormous amount of space that was compared to the population of the city.
See if my math is correct here:
According to Sharn: City of Towers, the largest towers are 2,500 feet in diameter and the smallest are 800 at the base. The tops narrow to between 200 and 600 feet. So the average diameter at the base is 1,650 feet and at the top is 400 feet. This gives us an average diameter from top to bottom of 1,025 feet. 512 feet in Radius.
We know that the tallest towers rise to heights of 5,000 feet but let's assume that the average tower is only half that at 2,500 feet. The total volume contained in such a tower is 655,360,000 cubic feet.
Now we don't usually think of living space in terms of cubic feet but rather square feet so we divide this by 11 because that is the height of an average floor of a tower (this number should probably be higher but that's what the books says). So now we're down to 59,578,182 square feet. That's more than twelve World Trade Center towers per average Sharn tower! But wait, there's more!
I've taken a long look and done a bit of counting of the numbers of little towers represented on the map of Sharn on page 10. A VERY conservative estimate would be that there are 500 towers shown as being in the city. So that means we're looking at at least 29,789,090,910 square feet contained within the towers within Sharn. That's nearly thirty billion square feet.
Ok, let's reel that in a bit. Buildings are not 100% living space so we need to take out what is commonly called the "core factor". This is the space taken up by walls and such. Given that these are stone towers with thick walls, we'll use the absurdly high figure of 30% core factor. That STILL leaves us with well over 20 billion square feet of living space.
The population of Sharn is listed at 211,850.
So every man, woman and child within the city has a minimum of 98,430 square feet of ENCLOSED space to live in. That is over two acres each! A family of four would, on average, have just over 9 acres of enclosed living space.
My conclusion is that Sharn, as written, is not really an urban environment; it's a vertical suburb!
Do I really take these numbers seriously? No. Will this hamper my enjoyment of the setting? No.
I just thought you might be interested in knowing. Either that or my math skills really stink and I'm way off base.
I guess my only problem with the numbers is that you've taken the average tower size, and multiplied by 500 towers. However, that average size is a figure derived from combining the maximum and minimum sizes, and dividing by two, correct?
In my mind at least, I don't get the impression that half the towers in Sharn are super tall. Probably, instead, there are several really tall ones, and a bunch of average or smaller ones. That might just be my interpretation though. But if there are far more shorter ones, that would bring down the numbers.
The point of your argument is valid though. Not only is Sharn underpopulated, but so is Khorvaire as a whole. I read a thread either here or at the WotC message boards that claimed that there were 3.6 million people in Khorvaire.....which is *far* less than medieval Europe had for a smaller area. There are factors to consider....indiginous monsters that people in real-life Earth didn't have to compete with, as well as a 100 year long war that raged, destroyed cities, towns, depopulated areas, probably wiped out the majority of entire generations of young men and women, etc. If WW2 had lasted for 100 years, what kind of effect would it have had upon the population of Europe?
I'm not sure why the numbers are so low. Maybe it's because of the war scenario, or maybe it's because the designers wanted to have more open areas, and less clutter, or an excuse for fewer high level characters, etc. But I read on those threads that the population as it's written isn't nearly enough to sustain a civilization.
The Midnight setting has the same problem. The difference there is that it's a world that *is* dying. Civilization is literally coming apart at the seams, organized agriculture is ending, a market economy is dying, people aren't travelling anymore. That's the kind of thing I'd expect in an underpopulated area. Eventually, if the trend in the setting continues, I'd expect villages to become ghost towns, and people to revert to hunter-gatherer type societies.
Given that Rome had upwards of 1,000,000 people in it at it's height, I don't see why Sharn shouldn't as well. It *is* the largest, most powerful city on the continent, isn't it?
A lot of the settings in 3E have been like this. I'm pretty sure Waterdeep is supposed to have 500,000-750,000 people in it, and Sigil has about 1,000,000, but both of them were created in 2nd. Ed. Sigil manages that population with only a 2 mile diameter to the torus....and most of that space is just the space in the middle of the ring, so I bet it has a whole lot less area than Sharn.
Banshee