[HN Gopher] The Silicon Valley elite who want to build a city fr...
___________________________________________________________________
The Silicon Valley elite who want to build a city from scratch
Author : pulisse
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-08-25 20:05 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| geraldcombs wrote:
| For those wondering where the property in question is, there's an
| SF Chronicle article with a map:
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/flannery-associa...
|
| There's a sizeable overlap with the Montezuma Hills wind farm.
| It'll be interesting to see how a bunch of pre-existing wind
| turbines fit into their plans.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Thanks! The map didn't load for me (maybe because I'm in the
| EU?) but they got their date from regrid.com, and I took a
| screenshot of it.
|
| These are the properties (source regrid.com):
| https://ibb.co/9GvCr3x
|
| And this is satellite imagery of roughly the same area (source
| arcgis.com; esri world imagery): https://ibb.co/0j3Hmth
|
| EDIT: looks like a really large portion of their land is
| exactly where the wind farms are at. Are they going to destroy
| the wind farm, because how it looks on satellite imagery, there
| is no real space to build without destroying most of the wind
| turbines.
| black_13 wrote:
| [dead]
| jeffbee wrote:
| "Tens of thousands of homes" on 55,000 acres doesn't sound like a
| city, it sounds like more climate-torching bullshit. The Flannery
| parcels are nowhere near any kind of transportation facility, so
| unless they are planning a maglev to Sacramento, and unless the
| project is in fact 54,900 acres of open space and 100 acres of
| urbanism, than I remain highly skeptical.
| pulisse wrote:
| I'd really like to know whether they considered wildfire risk
| when they hatched this plan back in ~2017.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| There's not much to burn. It's basically flatlands with
| grasses.
| olliej wrote:
| In other words it is super flammable and an environment in
| which fire travels quickly?
| jahewson wrote:
| Fuel in the form of dry trees and wind on the hills are
| your big fire risk factors. Flat, grassy places are fine.
| Plus it's easy to cut the grass.
|
| Source: I live here.
| smugma wrote:
| Antioch BART is just a few miles away. Of course, there's a
| river in the way so that would be a 30 min drive unless they
| extended the line (would take 20-40 years?)
| jeffbee wrote:
| My friend, have you ever ridden from Antioch BART?
| labrador wrote:
| Ok, I'll bite. What's so bad or good about Antioch BART?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| It's a completely separate system running diesel trains
| on an entirely different rail gauge [0]. It also tends to
| be inaccessible a lot because BART can't keep the lines
| running, so getting to SF or Oakland often involves a bus
| transfer on top.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART
| smugma wrote:
| I had no idea!
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > 55,000 acres of farmland in northern California
|
| Sounds like it's already a utopia.
| kazen44 wrote:
| oh look...
|
| some other "tech elite" of his time actually already did this[0]
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordl%C3%A2ndia
| somethoughts wrote:
| I think what makes the most sense is to build in plans for future
| high density from the get go when the zoning is being first
| written.
|
| So the residential zoning starts out as 8000 square foot lots but
| each lot is enabled in the future for high density 3 story
| residential in 30 years. Commercial zoning is enabled for high
| density residential towers in 30 years as well.
|
| Additionally, while it's still farmland, demarcate the right of
| way for future train lines, bike paths mass transit and
| freeways/underpasses.
|
| I think what chafes NIMBY home owners is that the developers are
| able to change the residential single family zoning to high
| density residential post facto - and pocket the spoils. Basically
| changing the rules of the game via lobbying city council members.
| Meanwhile the rule following NIMBY home owner's zoning remains
| unchanged and they just have to deal with more traffic and less
| sunlight.
|
| And then make all home/property buyers sign documents attesting
| that this is the city charter and cannot be changed.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I don't know if we are still talking about California, but if
| we are, note that there is not an analog of the federal system
| within the state. Cities are not independent and do not have
| powers and cannot abrogate the state's powers with what amounts
| to an HOA. Cities in California are political subdivisions of
| the state and they exist to further and promote the policies of
| the state.
| somethoughts wrote:
| The general idea would fit in with the overarching California
| initiatives - particularly the California's Density Bonus
| Law/Builder's Remedy that recently has been in the news.
|
| The general idea is instead of assuming this new city will
| always be a sleepy suburban residential until eternity -
| assume from the get go that it will have the same "where are
| we going to stick all the 5 story towers" hot potato problem
| that San Jose/Santa Clara are having right now.
|
| By laying out the future high density area zones on a 30 year
| zoning map, buyers can know a priori that if they buy the
| single family house on this street, their grandkids can
| potentially either expect to stubbornly live there in the
| shadows of a 5 story condo complex with low income components
| or cash out for tens of millions to a RE developer.
|
| I think why this hasn't happened before is because it always
| seems silly when you just look at 500 acres of farmland to
| throw down BART access right of ways.
|
| But in reality given California's historical growth patterns,
| its probably realistic if looking at a 25-50 year time
| horizons.
| deepsun wrote:
| I think it doesn't matter, grandkids will vote out any
| development complexex in their time, nimbying out all the
| plans that were laid out 30 years ago.
|
| The only way I see if the residents cannot own the property
| and the land. Something like max 15 years rent.
| imtringued wrote:
| The city should also be designed to be friendly to self driving
| cars and autonomous delivery robots.
| screye wrote:
| * Silicon valley elites - let's spend billions in building a
| transit friendly urbanist utopia.
|
| * Also Silicon valley elites - let's try our darndest to ruin the
| pre-existing transit friendly urbanist utopia by putting the
| worst politicians in power.
|
| * Also Silicon valley elites - How dare you try to build a
| transit friendly urbanist utopia anywhere near where I live.
|
| I'm jaded. Californians have done everything in their power to
| ruin every genuine attempt at dense-urbanism and transit friendly
| development.
|
| Marc Andreessen (associated [1] with this project) had a great
| mask off moment [2] last year.
|
| > Subject line: IMMENSELY AGAINST multifamily development!
|
| > I am writing this letter to communicate our IMMENSE objection
| to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Atherton ...
| Please IMMEDIATELY REMOVE all multifamily overlay zoning projects
| from the Housing Element which will be submitted to the state in
| July. They will MASSIVELY decrease our home values, the quality
| of life of ourselves and our neighbors and IMMENSELY increase the
| noise pollution and traffic.
|
| Thanks for supporting dense urbanism 100s of miles away from you
| Marc.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/business/land-
| purchases-s...
|
| [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-
| andre...
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Do they even have sidewalks in Atherton?
| rayiner wrote:
| When was any transit in California ever utopian? There's an
| entirely consistent position that holds urbanism to be a good
| thing, but views California's government-run systems as
| incapable of achieving a functioning system.
| screye wrote:
| California had some of the world's best street car networks
| before they were bulldozed over. [1] [2]
|
| SF-proper's public transit & walkability is still utopian (by
| US standards). If only it wasn't destroyed by the most
| incompetent politics on crime and drug enforcement in the
| entire country (and maybe world?).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Electric_Railway
|
| [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/9b0x1j/i_mad
| e_a...
| rayiner wrote:
| They were bulldozed over because they were going bankrupt.
| [deleted]
| dave333 wrote:
| This is a bit like the way San Jose grew out of fruit orchards
| driven by tech firms in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Interesting that
| there is more thought about urban design going in. The land is
| mostly rolling grassland hills studded with windmills that will
| stay given that previous landowners will keep earnings from the
| power generated. There is a 10 mile long waterfront along the
| Sacramento river from Rio Vista down to the confluence with the
| San Joaquin river. If developed as a wide boulevard with at least
| sections of public water access that would form the basis of a
| city. As for housing there will be scope for various novel
| approaches like the shared backyards at nearby Village Homes to
| tiny house enclaves. Given the tech ethos driving this I expect
| Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language will be the
| development "bible."
| samwillis wrote:
| Previous discussion when the owners were anonymous:
|
| "'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising
| concerns" - 114 points - 35 days ago - 170 comments
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36816387
|
| There were all sorts of rumours, and concerns due its proximity
| to an important military base. I can't imagine the government and
| military not knowing that this prominent group were behind it.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| The idea that the tech elite will give up their 6000 square foot
| mansions and teslas so they can live in a walkable utopia like
| paris is laughable.
|
| But... you do you, tech elite. Enjoy your utopia where gardners,
| housekeepers, carpenters, electricians, teachers and shopkeepers
| are exiled outside the city walls.
| warkanlock wrote:
| It's fascinating, yet hardly surprising; we're moving toward a
| future where some corporations will seek to establish their own
| realms of autonomy
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Maybe local governments should clean up their cities then. Id
| rather live somewhere clean and safe.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Corporations have done that since the dawn of the corporate
| form.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Every day the world gets a little more cyberpunk
| raverbashing wrote:
| Crazy idea, if they actually built multi family homes to tell the
| NIMBYs to kiss it, this could be extremely profitable.
|
| Maybe put space for some offices from the big companies as well
| abeppu wrote:
| There's an interesting discrepancy between two parts of this:
|
| > Flannery has purchased land from farmers for several times more
| than the market value and become the biggest landowners in Solano
| county.
|
| > The firm has been sued by farmers who sold their land to the
| group over what the land owners describe as an "illegal price-
| fixing conspiracy".
|
| If a group is buying land at multiples of the market value, you'd
| think the "price-fixing conspiracy" narrative would come from
| would-be buyers who were priced out, not from sellers.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Theory (IANAL) - the conspiracy was the secrecy. If the final
| (say) 20% of the farmers had known, they would have been able
| to hold out for 10X their lands' previous market value. Or
| more.
| starkparker wrote:
| That phrasing is wrong in the article. _The firm is suing_ the
| farmers, as you intuited.
| https://www.agdaily.com/news/mysterious-company-sues-farmers...
|
| > A mystery company that has been buying up farmland around
| Travis Air Force Base in California in recent years is now
| suing the farmers it bought the land from, accusing them of
| conspiring to inflate the value of their properties.
|
| > Lots of questions and speculation are floating around about
| the buyer, Flannery Associates, which has invested close to $1
| billion to buy more than 50,000 acres farmland in the Jepson
| Prairie and Montezuma Hills area of Solano County. According to
| numerous reports, the company is filing suit for at least $510
| million against the farmers.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/some-california-lan...
|
| > A lawsuit accusing a group of California landowners of
| conspiring to inflate the price of their land by hundreds of
| millions of dollars will "drastically expand" the reach of
| federal antitrust law if it is not dismissed, attorneys for the
| property holders told a U.S. judge.
|
| > In a filing in Sacramento federal court, lawyers for the
| landowners in northern California on Friday urged U.S. District
| Judge Troy Nunley to reject "speculative" and "vague"
| allegations from agricultural land buyer Flannery Associates.
|
| > Flannery, seeking more than $510 million in damages for
| alleged price-fixing, in May sued various family land trusts
| and estates over the sale of properties in the Jepson Prairie
| and Montezuma Hills area of Solano County between San Francisco
| and Sacramento.
| pphysch wrote:
| What's the difference between price discovery and price
| fixing in this case?
|
| If you hear on the grapevine that a bunch of billionaires are
| keenly interested in buying a certain thing that you own, and
| willing to pay over current market prices, well...
|
| It's not like ALL of this land was simultaneously listed on a
| public market _before_ the rich guys came up with their plan,
| right?
| salawat wrote:
| That's the rich for you. I'll pay you over market price to
| get the thing I want, then hire lawyers to sue you to
| recover what I paid or ensure it mostly goes to the local
| lawyers you'll have to hire to defend yourself.
|
| If moneybags comes, keep in mind: you don't have to sell.
|
| Moneybags, keep in mind: the price I'm willing to sell at
| is not price fixing. I just may not want to sell to you.
| benatkin wrote:
| I thought the term was Smart City. Why can't we stick with terms?
| Why must people get rid of them at the slightest bad publicity or
| refuse to use them to say it will be completely different this
| time? I think this article should explain the project in terms of
| other Smart City projects.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| 5G smart city*
| dotnet00 wrote:
| 5G AI-managed Blockchain-driven Web 3.0 Smart City*
| mkl95 wrote:
| > This project would include a new city with tens of thousands of
| new homes, a large solar energy farm, orchards with over a
| million new trees, and over ten thousand acres of new parks and
| open space
|
| There are many similar places in North America and Europe. The
| main differences are that they don't want to be "cities with
| thousands of new homes" and they usually are not owned by
| investors.
| fh973 wrote:
| I wonder how something like zoning works in this case. How
| would they be allowed to build anything in farmland? And it
| they got permission before, of course it raises prices.
| mkl95 wrote:
| It sounds similar to those towns built by oil drilling and
| mining companies back in the day. I wonder how much zoning
| laws have evolved ever since.
| brap wrote:
| I wonder if this is going to be a for-profit, private city. A
| city-scale hotel, sort of.
|
| I feel like this is the model for future cities (which in my
| opinion, is a great thing -- as long as the city pays rent to the
| state).
| rayiner wrote:
| Why would you want to build a new city in California? They'll get
| buried alive in red tape.
| Magi604 wrote:
| They will also become a magnet for all kinds of protests and
| movements against the elites/wealthy.
| sangnoir wrote:
| 3 reasons well known in Real Estate: Location, Location,
| Location. California is the only state you can build a brand
| new city that is only 60 miles from SF.
| dntrkv wrote:
| Has there ever been a successful city built from scratch? I feel
| like organic growth is the only way, unless you can force people
| to move there.
|
| This example always jumps to mind:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
| [deleted]
| shawndrost wrote:
| Did you know Irvine, CA (now 300k people) was a planned
| community? It postdates UC Irvine and was incorporated in 1971.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_Company
| tjmc wrote:
| Australia's capital city Canberra was planned and built roughly
| halfway between Sydney and Melbourne. Turned out ok
| defrost wrote:
| Ok,
|
| if you _really_ like circles, kangaroos, bush fires, public
| servants, politicians, and occassional access to ski fields.
|
| But yeah, it's a decent example of a planned city.
| gardenfelder wrote:
| Group Flannery Associates, backed by prominent investors, quietly
| buy 55,000 acres of farmland in northern California
| bell-cot wrote:
| > ...from farmers _for several times more than the market
| value_ [emphasis mine] and become the biggest landowners in
| Solano county, an area 60 miles north-west of San Francisco.
| The land bought by the firm encircles Travis air force base in
| Fairfield, a city of about 120,000 residents and home to the
| Anheuser-Busch Co brewery and the Jelly Belly jelly bean
| factory.
|
| Wikipedia notes: "Travis Air Force Base handles more cargo and
| passenger traffic through its airport than any other military
| air terminal in the United States." So don't expect any "quiet
| / remote / idyllic" vibes. And a couple quick searches reveal
| some major soil & groundwater contamination issues at the AFB.
|
| Well...it'll likely be interesting. The article says ~zilch
| about the ideals of the "SV elites" involved. And notes that
| they'll probably face a very long, tough slog - through
| skeptical locals, NIMBYs, regulations, and red tape - before
| they can actually build much anything.
| tspike wrote:
| https://archive.is/1cYIj
| neontomo wrote:
| I'm getting Bioshock new-city vibes, and also this beauty by
| ProZD:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN9DW4rrEjY
| ooterness wrote:
| "This world is imperfect. If only I could wipe away the
| impurities, and make it as beautiful as me..."
|
| Yes, that's the vibe I'm getting too.
| melenaboija wrote:
| Interesting (and with some paranoia) discussion about this topic
| one month ago.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36816387
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Our great tech innovators are now buying real estate, the most
| regressive, old, non-tech investment. (It's not the first time
| either.) SV is thoroughly corrupted and needs disruption by some
| new innovators who actually have some value and ideas.
| gz5 wrote:
| Telosa is a similar idea on a larger scale. They are targeting 5M
| people population by 2050. Original idea was the citizens all
| have equity in the value of the combined land.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telosa
|
| https://cityoftelosa.com/
| AlbertCory wrote:
| At least it doesn't say "Bay Area land" anymore.
|
| Solano County is way the f&ck out. And land comes with carrying
| costs, i.e. property taxes. No one who wants a big, quick return
| on investment (looking at you, VC's) is going to buy it.
| aapl88889 wrote:
| VCs are obviously not funding this through their funds. These
| are private individual investors.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| So, probably no connection with tech, then?
| alephnerd wrote:
| So is Morgan Hill if you live in Marin and Marin if you live in
| Morgan Hill.
|
| Solano County is heavily connected economically and transit
| wise with Contra Costa County, San Francisco County, Marin
| County, and Alameda County.
|
| Most police officers, city workers, low wage service workers,
| construction workers, etc live in the various cities and
| suburbs in Solano County and commute into the East Bay, other
| parts of the North Bay, and San Francisco.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| It _is_ Bay Area. Solano County is one of the 9 "Bay Area"
| counties.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
| jjulius wrote:
| Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. Look at a map -
| Solano County literally runs along San Pablo Bay in Vallejo.
| dehrmann wrote:
| That's like saying Half Moon Bay is in the Bay Area because
| it's in San Mateo county.
| jjulius wrote:
| I mean, I'd consider Half Moon Bay as part of the Bay Area,
| sure.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Half Moon Bay is the Bay Area though. Plenty of people live
| in HMB and commute to San Mateo, Belmont, Palo Alto, etc to
| work.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Kind of interesting that at that location it'll get fed from UC
| Davis grads more than UC Berkeley.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Plenty of people who work in the city of Berkeley, as well as
| for the city of Berkeley and UC Berkeley live in Solano
| County. I have a family friend who works for the city of
| Berkeley and lives in Fairfield for example.
|
| It's part of the Capital Corridor so it's commutable to both
| the Bay Area and Sacramento, the schools are decent, and the
| houses are nice and new.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Not really; sure, its a bit closer to Davis, but its close
| enough to both that which it gets fed by will be determined
| more by the kinds of jobs in demand compared to the program
| strengths of the schools, with distance as a trivial factor.
| ponderings wrote:
| more than twice the size of the line in saudi arabia
| houseatrielah wrote:
| I suspect it will be 100% private, including the streets, etc,
| like a mall. So they can kick people out for homelessness,
| trespassing and such. DW did an interesting doc on gated
| communities -- huge amount of Marseille is gated off. URL w/
| timestamp: https://youtu.be/0KMlDzaths8?t=1759
| [deleted]
| alephnerd wrote:
| It'll probably be a cookie community similar to the ones
| springing up around Lathrop and Tracy. Now that long distance
| public transit has become better in Northern California over
| the past 10-15 years thanks to Govs Brown and Newsom, that
| border area between the Bay Area and SJV will see a lot of
| construction as both the interior Bay Area and Sacramento have
| become much more expensive.
| aapl88889 wrote:
| It will be like Santana Row in San Jose, a walkable area
| without any homeless.
| [deleted]
| benatkin wrote:
| A walkable outdoor mall right across a busy street from an
| indoor mall. It's kind of big for a mall but only by a little
| bit. I find large closed communities much more worrying.
| toyg wrote:
| For a European, Santana Row is depressing. It's utterly
| soulless and fake. Just build an actual town, FFS.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Isn't Irvine, CA a corporate-owner and planned city as well?
| landemva wrote:
| There are various ways government and private ownership can
| provide accountability. I lived in a town where the property
| lines met on all sides, including through what appeared to be
| the roads. Each lot was encumbered with an easement which
| granted every other lot owner the privilege to travel over the
| easements so everyone can get to their houses. Taxes were
| mostly used by the town to maintain those roads (actually
| easements) and for police and building inspections. Importantly
| the town did not own the roads. The police enforced typical
| driving rules, but anyone who dug deep could find out none of
| it was really enforceable because it was private property. No
| parking on roads was enforced by a tow off the private
| property.
|
| If local government acted up against the wishes of residents,
| it would be a simple matter to repeal taxes and do the road
| maintainenace ourselves. The town had a calm neighborly feel
| and people were respectful of each other. It worked great, and
| local government always knew the people had the power.
| galkk wrote:
| Hey, buy they will probably be able to sustain REI store,
| unlike Portland
|
| https://oregonbusiness.com/rei-announces-closure-of-portland...
|
| Jokes aside, I live near Seattle and homelessness is a problem,
| and tents everywhere is not a solution.
| vernon99 wrote:
| Yes please! From your comment (maybe not intentionally?) this
| sounds like a bad thing. But for inhabitants being able to have
| stricter rules is a blessing.
|
| Ideally that would work like with the countries: different
| cities have dramatically different sets of rules and compete
| for citizens. Private ownership allows for much more
| flexibility here.
| consp wrote:
| And you also don't pay into the general issues in the country
| which are shoved off to the less fortunate home owners.
| vernon99 wrote:
| Leas fortunate in what? We don't even know housing prices
| there yet. It could be dirt cheap since they bought the
| land very cheaply, instead of having a stack of landlords
| from multiple generations taking their cut in price
| increase as in a usual city. Such cities have a chance of
| actually being affordable - at least initially. And the
| more we have them, the more competition will that create
| and more affordable they will be. How is it different from
| buying a permanent license to a software product - but the
| one you can also sell and buy a new one!
| hkt wrote:
| Or we could do something crazy like respect democratic norms
| rather than descending into a plutocratic hellscape.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The US is a huge country, it has plenty of space for
| experiments. It is not as if those people are taking over
| an ancient city of million people and bending it to their
| whim. Quite to the contrary, taking part in this project is
| entirely voluntary.
| landemva wrote:
| A neat thing about private property is you can be your own
| plutocrat and run it precisely how you desire. You can make
| a big paved area and open it up to car drifters, homeless,
| and lemonade stands. You can get it done exactly right.
|
| In fact, you can democratize it and let everybody who shows
| up have a vote about what they can do on your property.
| vernon99 wrote:
| Descending to a plutocratic hellscape (without dragging
| others and this project doesn't) is a basic human right we
| all should respect please!
| salawat wrote:
| There is an equally strong case for the person on the
| other side for the behavior they are trying to exclude to
| do the same. Just stop sucking please, they say.
|
| Not saying they are right, just saying pleas in that
| manner are already falling on ears deafened to them.
| [deleted]
| houseatrielah wrote:
| It's got pros and cons. Most people vacation in walkable
| areas with vibrant street life like buskers, musicians and so
| forth. You can't just take your saxophone and setup shop in
| the mall or do any sort of political/community-oriented
| activity. That's what you lose. The upside, of course, is no
| heroin needles, tent cities, etc.
| rayiner wrote:
| What you want in a vacation destination is very different
| from what you want where you live. Also, I've never
| vacationed anywhere with street musicians. Where are you
| talking about?
| vernon99 wrote:
| Why do you think you cannot have the good without the bad?
| What stops this new city council from allocating designated
| musician pods on the streets, having artist in resident
| programs, etc? The group from the list don't look stupid to
| me and these are some of the most obvious things.
|
| PS: HN is such a strange community. In one thread people
| complain about US cities and SF in particular crumbling due
| to government mismanagement. In another they think that a
| new city built by some of our own members will devolve into
| a dystopia and give it no praise. This is an amazing idea
| and they already have land! I wish them only the best and
| if they need any help, my email is in my bio :)
| houseatrielah wrote:
| Because you have fewer rights on private property than in
| public places. That's the fundamental reason. You can
| have the good without the bad -- a walkable city with
| some law enforcement and a DA that prosecutes. I suspect
| a new development won't be dense/mixed-use enough for
| interesting street life.
| jjulius wrote:
| >In another they think that a new city built by some of
| our own members will devolve into a dystopia and give it
| no praise.
|
| Because, as members of this community, we're typically up
| to speed with the history, thought processes, beliefs,
| actions, etc. of the people involved in these purchases,
| and it sounds like, based on that understanding, many
| people in here don't trust the goals, vision, and/or
| intentions of the people behind this. Just because one
| might think that "SF in particular [is] crumbling due to
| government mismanagement" doesn't mean they should
| blindly go, "Oh yay, an alternative!".
|
| Edit: I'd love to entertain ideas around how we can get
| cities to function differently but, I'm sorry, I don't
| want to hear what Marc Andreesen has to say on the
| subject.
| [deleted]
| vax425 wrote:
| Sounds like someone's been reading too much Ayn Rand and plans to
| build a real-life "Galt's Gulch."
| ilaksh wrote:
| I have been fascinated with the idea of new types of cities for
| many years.
|
| One of my main ideas is to construct buildings as public or semi-
| public facilities. Another idea is to have multiple levels of
| infrastructure such as roadways.
|
| I imagine something like a series of egg-shaped buildings
| connected by multiple levels of roads for autonomous (mostly
| single passenger) cars. Inside are several floors of large
| platforms with modular buildings stacked on them. The
| superstructure would not need to always provide a perfect climate
| inside but would aim for making things more tolerable and giving
| the heating or cooling of the interior modules a headstart.
|
| The buildings could have lush internal landscaping or even some
| type of agriculture.
| htrp wrote:
| so neom?
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's not very similar. Please study my comments and the Neom
| structure more closely.
| feedsmgmt wrote:
| They should name it EPCOT or Fordlandia.
| smugma wrote:
| "[Investors] include Mr. Moritz; Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-
| founder, venture capitalist and Democratic donor; Marc Andreessen
| and Chris Dixon, investors at the Andreessen Horowitz venture
| capital firm; Patrick and John Collison, the sibling co-founders
| of the payments company Stripe; Laurene Powell Jobs, founder of
| the Emerson Collective; and Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross,
| entrepreneurs turned investors. Andreessen Horowitz is also a
| backer"
| bloopernova wrote:
| This has shades of _RoboCop_ , 1 & 2.
|
| But it will probably end up being far more like the city in
| _Demolition Man_. Bland, no surprises, no swearing, etc.
| msie wrote:
| My crazy/naive idea is to build stable countries in South America
| and Africa to attract migrants and asylum seekers. It would be
| more economic and palatable than tackling regime change/culture
| change in troubled countries (mexico, el salvador, iran,
| afghanistan) where these migrants came from and lessen the need
| to beef up local infrastructure. Isn't this how cities emerged in
| the past?
| cellis wrote:
| You can't build stable countries in those places as long as
| narcotraffickers and commodity smugglers exist, and they will
| exist as long as we have repressive laws on drug use (in the
| United States and other Rich Nations) and sanctions on
| commodities from the same. The problem is these combined
| policies incentivize defacto states that aren't democratic and
| will extort or thwart any well meaning developers. In countries
| without a strong rule of law you won't get far (absent finding
| a way to monopolize force yourself).
| toss1 wrote:
| >> (absent finding a way to monopolize force yourself)
|
| Exactly this.
|
| Any person who wants to live a self-determined life, and have
| a self-determined govt must be (individually or collectively)
| better armed and better prepared than everyone form the
| wannabe local lunch bully, regional warlord, or national
| authoritarian. IF not, they will take your lunch and your
| government every time.
|
| The GP's plan is great, but (s)he will need to start with a
| significant well-managed armed force. Otherwise, the local
| drug lord, warlord, mafia don, or authoritarian will ignore
| you until you create value, then decide they want it for
| themselves. If you cannot defend it, it will be theirs until
| they destroy it.
| philwelch wrote:
| You're putting the cart before the horse here. If there isn't
| a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come
| under the control of protection rackets and other armed
| factions. That's completely independent of any drug
| prohibitions or commodity sanctions. When it comes to
| commodity sanctions you're even reversing cause and effect;
| the sanctions are usually imposed as a half measure against
| whatever armed faction ends up controlling commodity
| extraction in a particular failed state.
| cellis wrote:
| >>> If there isn't a strong rule of law, any economic
| activity is going to come under the control of protection
| rackets and other armed factions.
|
| I think you're restating what I said. Narco traffickers are
| able to subvert the rule of law via corruption. Their
| ability to perform corruption is a function of their
| profitability, which in turn is a function of the demand
| (and their ability to supply it), in rich countries. The
| demand is unmet domestically because of our prohibitions
| and draconian federal enforcement.
|
| So the rule of law breaks down _there_ due to strong rule
| of law _here_. We are essentially exporting the market
| making there, and that sort of market making, while risky,
| is profitable in the extreme.
|
| As for the commodity sanctions while most maybe are well
| intentioned, they only serve to again allow those willing
| to take the risk of market making to rack up obscene
| profits. This is regardless of what circumstances lead to
| them, they empower actors who aren't particularly
| altruistic and certainly aren't democratic, to subvert the
| rule of law.
| philwelch wrote:
| > I think you're restating what I said.
|
| I'm not. Let me restate what _I_ said, with emphasis:
|
| If there isn't a strong rule of law, _any economic
| activity_ is going to come under the control of
| protection rackets and other armed factions.
|
| Any. Economic. Activity. Not just drug trafficking. I'm
| very familiar with the argument that drug prohibition
| creates organized crime, but it's not a fully general
| explanation for global instability or the resource curse.
|
| > As for the commodity sanctions while most maybe are
| well intentioned, they only serve to again allow those
| willing to take the risk of market making to rack up
| obscene profits.
|
| You still aren't explaining how Western sanctions on
| conflict diamonds are capable of traveling back through
| time and creating the problem of conflict diamonds in the
| first place.
| janalsncm wrote:
| You can, but it requires a strong authoritarian hand. China
| used to be rife with corruption and organized crime, now
| corruption has been significantly reduced and organized crime
| is essentially nonexistent. Singapore is broadly considered
| one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. Mandatory
| death penalty for drug trafficking and people will simply go
| around your city.
|
| You may think those punishments are unreasonably harsh, but
| then again you're probably not a drug trafficker. And it's
| not like the American punishments (decades in dangerous
| prisons) are much better.
| imtringued wrote:
| You don't need to be a drug trafficker. They just need to
| plant evidence and off you go.
| galaxyofdoom wrote:
| [flagged]
| orangepurple wrote:
| Yes, but that is true of many countries at the highest
| levels.
|
| Example:
|
| New US government memos obtained by Just the News through
| a FOIA lawsuit reveal that the Obama Administration was
| still actively communicating with former Ukrainian
| Prosecutor Victor Shokin after Biden's December 2015
| threat to withhold $1 billion in US aid unless then-
| President Petro Poroshenko fired him.
|
| Senior State Department officials sent a conflicting
| message to Shokin before he was fired, inviting his staff
| to Washington for a January 2016 strategy session and
| sent him a personal note saying they were "impressed"
| with his office's work.
|
| U.S. officials faced pressure from Burisma emissaries in
| the United States to make the corruption allegations go
| away and feared the energy firm had made two bribery
| payments in Ukraine as part of an effort to get cases
| settled.
|
| A top U.S. official in Kyiv blamed Hunter Biden for
| undercutting U.S. anticorruption policy in Ukraine
| through his dealings with Burisma.
|
| "10% for the big guy"
| hgsgm wrote:
| UK has an agreement with Rwanda to send refugees to Rwanda.
|
| But the UK High Court nixed it, because Rwanda is "not a safe
| country".
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_asylum_plan
| soligern wrote:
| Refugees are trying to flee to a developed country with
| healthcare, jobs and safety. Why would you want to go to
| Rwanda? I realize it has improved by leaps and bounds but
| very few people are going to want to emigrate to an African
| country.
| gizajob wrote:
| There's a big difference between needing asylum and needing
| asylum in a stable country with universal healthcare and a
| benefits system.
| jacknobody wrote:
| The country you seek is called Heaven. I don't blame you for
| recognising the need - I'm the same. Sadly many of our
| companions would rather see themselves in charge, just to make
| sure everyone is treated justly of course, but that always
| causes Hell for somebody.
| imbnwa wrote:
| Outer Heaven?
| azmodeus wrote:
| Building heaven on earth is a good aspirational political
| goal.
| jacknobody wrote:
| Build Heaven in your own heart - you won't be sorry :)
| nicup12345689 wrote:
| Immanentize the Eschaton am I rite?
|
| Just like the Gnostics, Marxists, communists, Obama, Trump
| ...
| jacknobody wrote:
| Yes!!
| nicup12345689 wrote:
| You think it has not been tried by the people in those
| countries?
| MrMan wrote:
| We need immigrants in North America, why send them somewhere
| else
| jmopp wrote:
| This is one of my long-term goals with my home country, South
| Africa. We've got the legal starting point with a progressive
| constitution and a reasonably independent judiciary/media. The
| economy could be doing better, though, and we'd need to bring
| equal opportunity to all. And there's a lot more in the future
| that could hamstring this idea. But I do believe that it's
| possible in my lifetime.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The magic handwavy part is the first step:
|
| > build stable countries
|
| If you know how to do that, please tell the world. Stable
| countries need a half-century or more to create, and that's
| with existing institutions and culture, and still the outcome
| is very uncertain.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Oh, they are down to a half century now? Switzerland took 700
| years to make. Progress!
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I was thinking of South Korea, but they are extraordinary.
| RGamma wrote:
| Get your AI army ready to enforce law, I guess.
| kwere wrote:
| such places would be flooded by desperate people in millions,
| creating slum town around it, a good breeding ground for crime.
| South Africa, once a functioning country got "invaded" by
| Zimbabweans escaping their hellhole, distorting the labour
| market and creating tension/crime. Too many people, unless you
| create hundreds of such experiments around the world.
| weard_beard wrote:
| So... America from 1850 to 1920. If you can anticipate and
| scale up industrial production to meet the wave of
| immigration and not just pen them up in refugee camps you
| have yourself another BRICS nation.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > South Africa, once a functioning country
|
| A functioning country for a few white people; hell for
| everyone else.
| nradov wrote:
| South Africa was still functional after the end of
| apartheid. It really only became a failed state during the
| Zuma administration. Despite the history of
| institutionalized racism the country had enormous
| potential, but sadly a few corrupt politicians sacrificed
| the future of the country for their own benefit.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > South Africa was still functional after the end of
| apartheid.
|
| It wasn't functional before the end of apartheid.
| 'Functional for a small minority' != 'functional
| country'.
| monomers wrote:
| > mexico, el salvador, iran, afghanistan
|
| None of those are in South America or Africa. Maybe it would be
| good to first understand the problem, including the geography,
| before proposing ideas.
| [deleted]
| philwelch wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand your idea; the only way to build a
| stable country in these regions would be to regime change a
| less stable country, or perhaps carve out some territory from
| the existing countries. At any rate, many of the countries on
| both of those continents were founded as attempts to build
| stable countries.
|
| On a happier note, El Salvador seems to have sorted itself out
| in recent years.
| soligern wrote:
| If the settlement is doing better than the actual country it is
| in, it is going to be overrun with locals. The only way to do
| that would be to fence out the locals and no country is going
| to agree to that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-26 23:02 UTC)