Walmart Billionaire Marc Lore Is Planning a $500B “City of the Future”(architecturaldigest.com)
architecturaldigest.com
Walmart Billionaire Marc Lore Is Planning a $500B “City of the Future”
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/telosa-city-of-the-future
75 comments
I'm actually sad nobody is building moonshots like Rapture.
If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land).
We either have super far out (basically marketing BS) projects talking about Mars colonisation or things like this that's basically more of the same just another iteration. Building something that could withstand a couple of atmospheres of pressure, in a hostile environment (seawater) with currents, with full reliance on artificial air filtration, etc. - solve that and it doesn't matter what happens with climate change, super volcano eruptions, meteors, nuclear catastrophes, pollution etc. not to mention you have hard borders to prevent global pandemic outbreaks.
If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land).
We either have super far out (basically marketing BS) projects talking about Mars colonisation or things like this that's basically more of the same just another iteration. Building something that could withstand a couple of atmospheres of pressure, in a hostile environment (seawater) with currents, with full reliance on artificial air filtration, etc. - solve that and it doesn't matter what happens with climate change, super volcano eruptions, meteors, nuclear catastrophes, pollution etc. not to mention you have hard borders to prevent global pandemic outbreaks.
Nobody builds moonshots like rapture because there's low hanging fruit with easy and quick returns with nowhere near the risk.
Sure but that means nobody is building for tail risks. Also these kind of projects require solving problems nobody even tackled so far and they often shake out things that bring industries out of local minimum, providing long term value. Sort of like the space race.
Building a deep sea underwater city is likely more outrageous than an underground city on mars. You're not avoiding tail risks by doing something preposterously dangerous like this because you will almost certainly die regardless of the above world conditions. You'd have to deal with:
* needs to be anchored to something somehow * no sunlight * likely catastrophic vulnerability to any tectonic movement * no easily accessible soil * extremely high, extremely slow costs of expansion * no clear way to build the initial structure. * need for perfect protection from the salt * heating problems * likely complete dependence on the above world for materials and food.
mostly just going to be nuclear subs with a handful of additional disadvantages.
* needs to be anchored to something somehow * no sunlight * likely catastrophic vulnerability to any tectonic movement * no easily accessible soil * extremely high, extremely slow costs of expansion * no clear way to build the initial structure. * need for perfect protection from the salt * heating problems * likely complete dependence on the above world for materials and food.
mostly just going to be nuclear subs with a handful of additional disadvantages.
If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land).
We have ruined our land and air. We have polluted the oceans to an insane level. What makes you think that we'll do a good job with deep undersea cities? We are even polluting space with debris, are we not?
We have ruined our land and air. We have polluted the oceans to an insane level. What makes you think that we'll do a good job with deep undersea cities? We are even polluting space with debris, are we not?
> If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land).
I'm sure we'll figure out a way of replicating our environment-harming technologies but for underwater use, and eventually will pay the price for that as well.
I'm sure we'll figure out a way of replicating our environment-harming technologies but for underwater use, and eventually will pay the price for that as well.
>More seriously: I wonder how much city 500 billion dollars could really build? Given a blank slate of no planning or zoning conflicts.
That's it right there. Since he wants to keep ownership of the land like the government does. He can build stuff like condo buildings. Yet those costs are only in the ~50 million range for a big one. You obviously sell the units and have your government be the condo board. Basically recouping any costs here. There you have housing.
Next is food. Are they producing food? Maybe not necessary, truck it in via walmart.
Next you want walmart warehouses for food and goods. That builds itself, walmart is the one who takes on the cost because they'll pay that off in the long run.
Utilities are built in, bringing big power to the edge of your city will be costly, but we're talking less than 50 million. Anything more than that and you start looking at doing it yourself.
security and safety doesnt have a problem yet because you don't have that part of society. Stuff like police are paid for and expand with the population.
Next you need entertainment and similar. There's a big chunk of $. Probably going to be $5 billion and not pay for itself for a long time, but it will.
What more do you need? Small time stuff? Not going to really break the bank.
That's it right there. Since he wants to keep ownership of the land like the government does. He can build stuff like condo buildings. Yet those costs are only in the ~50 million range for a big one. You obviously sell the units and have your government be the condo board. Basically recouping any costs here. There you have housing.
Next is food. Are they producing food? Maybe not necessary, truck it in via walmart.
Next you want walmart warehouses for food and goods. That builds itself, walmart is the one who takes on the cost because they'll pay that off in the long run.
Utilities are built in, bringing big power to the edge of your city will be costly, but we're talking less than 50 million. Anything more than that and you start looking at doing it yourself.
security and safety doesnt have a problem yet because you don't have that part of society. Stuff like police are paid for and expand with the population.
Next you need entertainment and similar. There's a big chunk of $. Probably going to be $5 billion and not pay for itself for a long time, but it will.
What more do you need? Small time stuff? Not going to really break the bank.
I think infrastructure will be hugely expensive. When you want to build a city that is sustainable, you'll need to build subways, infrastructure for cars, bikes and walking, sewer systems, garbage collection, energy, communication and something for distribution of food and goods. All these things will be better when doing them collaboratively, instead of individualized. You'll need taxation to pay for them collaboratively. But they should be designed and built up-front, before anyone starts living there - because otherwise people will start doing things the wrong way (i.e. traveling by car instead of public transport) and after that it is very hard to change.
Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that.
Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.
Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that.
Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.
>I think infrastructure will be hugely expensive.
Typically in the scale of millions per year. Which is nothing to walmart guy. The scale of millions to billions is something completely else. When you get into multiple billions it's funny money. Society has rewarded you with so much wealth, society trusts you will use it correctly.
>All these things will be better when doing them collaboratively, instead of individualized. You'll need taxation to pay for them collaboratively.
That's the thing, this walmart guy isn't just paying for all of it out of pocket. There will be people who live and work there who pay taxes to his government.
>But they should be designed and built up-front, before anyone starts living there - because otherwise people will start doing things the wrong way (i.e. traveling by car instead of public transport) and after that it is very hard to change.
That's sort of the thing. The saudis are going to build a long city. When everything is straight, it's easy. Cars will be fine in their design. It's really what your intentions are.
In my design. I have a few things to consider.
The idea will be to generate a new giant city in northern ontario. With the idea of capturing: https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/ring-fire Society needs to start mining that stuff now.
But nobody lives there because the weather sucks bigtime. So we make it a dome city. We at the very same time are designing dome cities on mars. So it's a win in many ways.
>Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that.
I dont understand what you mean here. I suspect you're referencing Detroit as a key point.
>Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.
this is north america in a nutshell. Virtually everywhere you go there is examples of success, it just takes more than a lifetime for them to become so. Infrastructure that lasts is everything.
Typically in the scale of millions per year. Which is nothing to walmart guy. The scale of millions to billions is something completely else. When you get into multiple billions it's funny money. Society has rewarded you with so much wealth, society trusts you will use it correctly.
>All these things will be better when doing them collaboratively, instead of individualized. You'll need taxation to pay for them collaboratively.
That's the thing, this walmart guy isn't just paying for all of it out of pocket. There will be people who live and work there who pay taxes to his government.
>But they should be designed and built up-front, before anyone starts living there - because otherwise people will start doing things the wrong way (i.e. traveling by car instead of public transport) and after that it is very hard to change.
That's sort of the thing. The saudis are going to build a long city. When everything is straight, it's easy. Cars will be fine in their design. It's really what your intentions are.
In my design. I have a few things to consider.
The idea will be to generate a new giant city in northern ontario. With the idea of capturing: https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/ring-fire Society needs to start mining that stuff now.
But nobody lives there because the weather sucks bigtime. So we make it a dome city. We at the very same time are designing dome cities on mars. So it's a win in many ways.
>Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that.
I dont understand what you mean here. I suspect you're referencing Detroit as a key point.
>Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.
this is north america in a nutshell. Virtually everywhere you go there is examples of success, it just takes more than a lifetime for them to become so. Infrastructure that lasts is everything.
> Typically in the scale of millions per year. Which is nothing to walmart guy.
Building a modern subway network with a couple dozen stations will cost a few billion easily. And that is just one small thing on a long list. I think you underestimate what infrastructure for a city of millions would cost. Maybe you think cars are ok, but they really are not, if you want a great city.
> I dont understand what you mean here. I suspect you're referencing Detroit as a key point.
No, What I mean is that most US cities, especially those with large suburbs, cannot cover their existing maintenance costs unless they grow, this will stop working in the near future, see: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
> this is north america in a nutshell. Virtually everywhere you go there is examples of success...
I would argue that most US cities rank low in quality of life comparisons when compared to cities in other developed parts of the world. When planning utopia, I would start looking in other places.
Building a modern subway network with a couple dozen stations will cost a few billion easily. And that is just one small thing on a long list. I think you underestimate what infrastructure for a city of millions would cost. Maybe you think cars are ok, but they really are not, if you want a great city.
> I dont understand what you mean here. I suspect you're referencing Detroit as a key point.
No, What I mean is that most US cities, especially those with large suburbs, cannot cover their existing maintenance costs unless they grow, this will stop working in the near future, see: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
> this is north america in a nutshell. Virtually everywhere you go there is examples of success...
I would argue that most US cities rank low in quality of life comparisons when compared to cities in other developed parts of the world. When planning utopia, I would start looking in other places.
You're missing an extremely important detail. When we write a check for our rent, we're really paying two rents. One is for the land rent (for the actual land beneath the building), the other is for our section of the building on top of that land.
In most developed areas, the land rent is really the vast majority of the cost. I.e. In a city, you can buy a building, tear it down, and somehow you haven't destroyed most of the capital you just purchased.
Under Lore's "Equitism" (fancy name for Georgism/Geoism), the land rent is recaptured by the thing that actually produced the increasing value - everything around the plot of land.
In most developed areas, the land rent is really the vast majority of the cost. I.e. In a city, you can buy a building, tear it down, and somehow you haven't destroyed most of the capital you just purchased.
Under Lore's "Equitism" (fancy name for Georgism/Geoism), the land rent is recaptured by the thing that actually produced the increasing value - everything around the plot of land.
"keep ownership of the land like the government does"
Which government are you talking about? Private land ownership predates the modern state. The western world is by and large a feudal society where the [land]lords have managed to even outsource security responsibilities back to the peasants.
Which government are you talking about? Private land ownership predates the modern state. The western world is by and large a feudal society where the [land]lords have managed to even outsource security responsibilities back to the peasants.
tl;dr Discount North Korea
Reminds me of Walt Disney's original idea for what Epcot was going to be. His lawyers eventually dissuaded him from the original concept because they told him the citizens would want representation and Walt didn't want people muddying up his vision for a perfect society. If anyone could have pulled it off it would have been him. It's good that the original plans were changed, though. I couldn't imagine what it would be like living under what The Walt Disney Company became after his death.
Disney (the company) did go on to found/develop Celebration, Florida:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida
The unwashed masses voting problem seems to be a non-issue there:
> The area is organized under state law as a community development district. As a result, voting is restricted to local landowners. The largest landowners are entities controlled by The Walt Disney Company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida
The unwashed masses voting problem seems to be a non-issue there:
> The area is organized under state law as a community development district. As a result, voting is restricted to local landowners. The largest landowners are entities controlled by The Walt Disney Company.
You can get a taste of it at Celebration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida
I've never been there but browsing around on Google maps it just looks like yet another car dependent suburb.
I've never been there but browsing around on Google maps it just looks like yet another car dependent suburb.
You would be singing “it’s a small world after all” in your head all day long.
Generally people have vision of a lot of "tech" in a futuristic city. To me, the following conditions are sufficient
- Free healthcare - Free high quality education - Everything else is free market (which includes legal but controlled access to drugs, prostitution, etc.) - No private ownership of vehicles; everyone MUST use public transportation which should be accessible - clean air - walkable - diversity of culture (so for example it should be as easy to find a Bible reading club as a psytrance nighclub)
- Free healthcare - Free high quality education - Everything else is free market (which includes legal but controlled access to drugs, prostitution, etc.) - No private ownership of vehicles; everyone MUST use public transportation which should be accessible - clean air - walkable - diversity of culture (so for example it should be as easy to find a Bible reading club as a psytrance nighclub)
Free healthcare would be great but if I am building my utopian society, I would first address the need for healthcare in the first place. Automation would make healthy living choices super easy so that people could naturally gravitate towards lifestyles that avoided the need for healthcare at our current demands. You will often see debates here on HN about who should pay for healthcare but I think that is a cart before the horse problem. At the current growth in chronic health issues I do not foresee nations continuing to exist. Who pays for what? Doesn't matter, nobody will be able to afford 8 billion people having chronic health issues. Someone has to solve that first, then we can figure out who pays for the remaining issues. The advanced housing tech would also be designed so that you already know 99% of your health issues without even walking into a clinic. All that data remains on premise and under your control. Acute issues? No problem, lay down in the operation chamber. The system renders you unconscious and you wake up fully repaired and more healthy.
The largest driver of chronic health conditions is people being fat, because they are poor and their diet is terrible.
Exactly. That is something this theoretical utopian system should address. Our planet has an abundance of resources that can be fully automated and self sustaining if done correctly.
and who pays the poor people whose jobs get automated out?
Nobody. Those people don't exist since we are building a new bubble from scratch. We are creating a utopian society funded by a multi-billionaire. There are no poor people. Everyone living in this theoretical bubble gets free food, housing, healthcare, entertainment, etc... But you are right, if this bubble has any dependencies on people outside of the bubble they might be poor and miserable. They would have to get on the list to migrate into this society.
In full disclosure, I don't see any of this as a utopia but rather a highly dystopian society. It is the basis for some movies and books. But I am just playing along with the idea.
In full disclosure, I don't see any of this as a utopia but rather a highly dystopian society. It is the basis for some movies and books. But I am just playing along with the idea.
> Everything else is free market
> diversity of culture (so for example it should be as easy to find a Bible reading club as a psytrance nighclub)
What if the market things your diversity is shit?
What if the market things your diversity is shit?
- Free healthcare - Free high quality education
There is no free anything.
Perhaps if you called it 'free-at-the-point-of-use-but-definately-paid-for-by-someone-else' it would clarify why such nice things are difficult to achieve in the real world.
There is no free anything.
Perhaps if you called it 'free-at-the-point-of-use-but-definately-paid-for-by-someone-else' it would clarify why such nice things are difficult to achieve in the real world.
Oh no, my 400€ taken from my salary help cover for an entire society and prevents me from going into life-crippling debt when taking an ambulance!
The US is the only country with such wealth that is unable to set it up, and pays more than double than any european country with free healthcare per inhabitant. The real world is calling, and it's telling you the US's approach to health care is more fitting of a third world country.
The US is the only country with such wealth that is unable to set it up, and pays more than double than any european country with free healthcare per inhabitant. The real world is calling, and it's telling you the US's approach to health care is more fitting of a third world country.
I couldn't agree with you more - I'm not an American either.
Perhaps you could take 5 minutes to ponder the assumptions you make about the nationality op anonymous posters.
Perhaps you could take 5 minutes to ponder the assumptions you make about the nationality op anonymous posters.
Laughs in 'rest of the developed world'.
Free education and free healthcare more than pay for themselves; not just psychologically and morally but economically.
Free education and free healthcare more than pay for themselves; not just psychologically and morally but economically.
Eh I’m not sure on the education piece of healthcare even. For education I mean that’s a no-brainer controversial one. Is it worth it for society to spend resources to train more writers or art history majors? Not sure it is. At least it isn’t obvious to me.
While I’m a proponent of UHC as well I think we do have to look at why people need healthcare. Is it because they are obese and just don’t care? If so more healthcare isn’t a good thing unless they also change underlying habits which lead to the need for healthcare in the first place.
And also obviously someone is paying for these things. “Laughs in the rest of the developed world” is a really immature comment, especially as we start to see universities in that developed world start to sneak back in fees for things. There is no free lunch. Everything costs something. Maybe we are taxing billionaires or w/e is in vogue right now but it still costs money. By making it “free” we also separate out useful market elements - like instead of going to school to be an art history major maybe for free, maybe you should bear some of the burden for a less useful degree than say computer science where there is a need, or plumbing or electricians.
“Liberal arts educations are valuable etc” yea read a book or use the Internet. If you’re not willing to do that freely on your own a university isn’t helping you there and I really doubt the costs are justified.
While I’m a proponent of UHC as well I think we do have to look at why people need healthcare. Is it because they are obese and just don’t care? If so more healthcare isn’t a good thing unless they also change underlying habits which lead to the need for healthcare in the first place.
And also obviously someone is paying for these things. “Laughs in the rest of the developed world” is a really immature comment, especially as we start to see universities in that developed world start to sneak back in fees for things. There is no free lunch. Everything costs something. Maybe we are taxing billionaires or w/e is in vogue right now but it still costs money. By making it “free” we also separate out useful market elements - like instead of going to school to be an art history major maybe for free, maybe you should bear some of the burden for a less useful degree than say computer science where there is a need, or plumbing or electricians.
“Liberal arts educations are valuable etc” yea read a book or use the Internet. If you’re not willing to do that freely on your own a university isn’t helping you there and I really doubt the costs are justified.
> Laughs in 'rest of the developed world'.
Don't be a dick.
> Free education and free healthcare more than pay for themselves…
I didn't say they didn't. But they do require someone to pay for it.
And those someone's aren't normally the kind of people attracted to a frontier, libertarian concept like building a new city.
Don't be a dick.
> Free education and free healthcare more than pay for themselves…
I didn't say they didn't. But they do require someone to pay for it.
And those someone's aren't normally the kind of people attracted to a frontier, libertarian concept like building a new city.
From the article:
> Developers are hoping to find inexpensive desert land in the Midwest or Appalachia
I'm thinking Architectural Digest needs to hire authors that have left NYC at least once in their lives. In case you are wondering there is not much desert land is available in either of those places.
> Developers are hoping to find inexpensive desert land in the Midwest or Appalachia
I'm thinking Architectural Digest needs to hire authors that have left NYC at least once in their lives. In case you are wondering there is not much desert land is available in either of those places.
Not now, but with global warming and a decade?
They probably mean deserted / empty.
Governance Handbook for charter cities (Sept 2021, 280 pages), https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/post/governance-handb...
> Charter cities are new cities with new rules. The Governance Handbook is the most comprehensive undertaking to date that lays out what these new rules should be and how they should be structured to promote inclusive economic growth ... Building specifically on land with little or no existing development or population ensures that settling in a charter city is voluntary and that the rents enjoyed by local elites are not sufficiently altered to entice efforts to curtail critical reforms. What's more, these new cities are already being built—more than 120 new cities in more than 40 countries —and will continue to be built as urbanization continues apace."
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/telosa-marc-lore-blake-ing...
> A so-called "15-minute city design" will allow residents to access their workplaces, schools and amenities within a quarter-hour commute of their homes. Although planners are still scouting for locations, possible targets include Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas and the Appalachian region, according to the project's official website.
Marketing site: https://cityoftelosa.com
> Charter cities are new cities with new rules. The Governance Handbook is the most comprehensive undertaking to date that lays out what these new rules should be and how they should be structured to promote inclusive economic growth ... Building specifically on land with little or no existing development or population ensures that settling in a charter city is voluntary and that the rents enjoyed by local elites are not sufficiently altered to entice efforts to curtail critical reforms. What's more, these new cities are already being built—more than 120 new cities in more than 40 countries —and will continue to be built as urbanization continues apace."
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/telosa-marc-lore-blake-ing...
> A so-called "15-minute city design" will allow residents to access their workplaces, schools and amenities within a quarter-hour commute of their homes. Although planners are still scouting for locations, possible targets include Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas and the Appalachian region, according to the project's official website.
Marketing site: https://cityoftelosa.com
A rich business man founding his own city to show the state how this is done right... sounds like Night City from Cyberpunk.
Never played that game but from the screenshots it looks like it would be a pretty cool place to live. I see mass transit and high density, not sure why it's supposed to be a dystopia.
In a Night City-like city, almost no animals exist anymore, not even pets. Life in Night City is even more designed for speed and get rich or die trying lifestyle. In addition, cyber augmentations provide help with jobs and the like, but in the end you can't pay for them without getting into debt, which makes you a slave to the big companies that have de facto state power.
I have never understood why high density is considered good or desirable.
I have never understood why high density is considered good or desirable.
> I have never understood why high density is considered good or desirable.
Higher productivity, shorter commutes, easier access to private services (restaurants, etc), lower carbon footprint.
Higher productivity, shorter commutes, easier access to private services (restaurants, etc), lower carbon footprint.
Higher productivity remains to be seen, only because you are working long it does not mean you are productive.
Thanks to the internet I do not need to drive to my work at all.
Private services are neat but not a real dealbreaker.
Lower carbon footprint? City dwellers need less co2 to get to work, but they consume more than the others and also fly more frequently.
Thanks to the internet I do not need to drive to my work at all.
Private services are neat but not a real dealbreaker.
Lower carbon footprint? City dwellers need less co2 to get to work, but they consume more than the others and also fly more frequently.
All it takes is mass transit and high density to not be a dystopia?
[deleted]
No, but places that have those tend to be more livable in my experience.
There are a few places like that dotted around the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bournville
They are desirable places to live, people are attracted to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bournville
They are desirable places to live, people are attracted to them.
It's funny how this shall be a city of the future, when obviously it can only be built with technology from the present. Claiming that in the city there will be self driving cars, when this technology clearly isn't ready yet seems like an odd bet on what the future will be more than anything.
Self driving becomes much easier if you build it into the infrastructure
Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_(rapid_transit)
I don't see any sports fields in any of the pictures. Sports are a great way to get exercise but most sports inherently have winners and losers. Not only in each game played, but also for the best players. It's not equal. Will sports not be allowed?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to build the “City of the Future” in a place with more of a future, I.e. not in the middle of a desert?
If the more pessimistic of climate oracles are to believed, deserts are the future.
How is Lore raising $500B to engage in a project he has zero experience in? So far it seems like a website full of future speak is his only selling point. I foresee an underfunded, overstretched attempt coming under federal inquiry to account for "lost" funds.
How will this be prevented from just becoming a retirement community? Will they only allow certain people to move here?
How will the city avoid criticisms of ageism if most of the people who want to move here are old people looking for a nice place to retire with free healthcare?
How will the city avoid criticisms of ageism if most of the people who want to move here are old people looking for a nice place to retire with free healthcare?
I don't really think it's possible to avoid a blizzard of accussations in your face when you're rolling out your own social policies. You have to be a certified teflon politician to touch this - I mean how are you going to fight the twitter mob demanding racial quotas?
I am looking forward to it.We dont build enough new large cities and I suspect this is mainly because there just is not a place to build them.
Building a new city in some american desert and making it high tech and sustainable is a nice dream to have and it could work but...
You are still subject to american regulations and laws (the good and the bad ones of course).
I think a truly new city to rival cities like Singapore has to be very open and accepting, in a good climate and looking forward rather than sticking to just things that work (trying to compete on infrastructure (bike, public transit with cities that already have that is just foolish).
Building a new city in some american desert and making it high tech and sustainable is a nice dream to have and it could work but...
You are still subject to american regulations and laws (the good and the bad ones of course).
I think a truly new city to rival cities like Singapore has to be very open and accepting, in a good climate and looking forward rather than sticking to just things that work (trying to compete on infrastructure (bike, public transit with cities that already have that is just foolish).
So many billionaires wanted to build they paradise city/state of the future. I wonder if there is some books or blogs tracking their progress
I have only heard of this in the U.S. Does this happen in other countries?
NEOM of Saudi Arabia, for example
> He’s devised a “reformed version of capitalism” with Telosa he calls “equitism,” where anyone can build and sell homes, but the city retains ownership of the land underneath.
Yeah, I currently rent in one of those modern private estates or "resorts" even as they are marketed in London. Apartment leaseholders are being held hostage by the landowner, in some cases paying more in service charge than mortgage. They are struggling to sell, because they would have to find bigger idiots than themselves and those are getting hard to come by. Never in my life would I agree to that.
Yeah, I currently rent in one of those modern private estates or "resorts" even as they are marketed in London. Apartment leaseholders are being held hostage by the landowner, in some cases paying more in service charge than mortgage. They are struggling to sell, because they would have to find bigger idiots than themselves and those are getting hard to come by. Never in my life would I agree to that.
Most US cities seem to just be ultra short term, under resourced, clones of each other. I understand why, free movement of people, capitalism, unengaged electorates and short-termism are facts in western (english speaking) society.
Meanwhile anywhere with a bit more soul, from NYC to San Fran, from Austin to Denver see huge demand.
I doubt his plans will work because building cities is hard. But at least whatever results won't just be another underfunded, grid pattern of ultra low cost ghettos specializing in nothing but cutting taxes for the next quarter...
Meanwhile anywhere with a bit more soul, from NYC to San Fran, from Austin to Denver see huge demand.
I doubt his plans will work because building cities is hard. But at least whatever results won't just be another underfunded, grid pattern of ultra low cost ghettos specializing in nothing but cutting taxes for the next quarter...
> He’s devised a “reformed version of capitalism” with Telosa he calls “equitism,” where anyone can build and sell homes, but the city retains ownership of the land underneath.
And who owns the city? Is it, by any chance, Lore or his arms-length foundation?
> Exactly where this 21st-century Eden will be located is still to be determined: Developers are hoping to find inexpensive desert land in the Midwest or Appalachia.
In other words, a place nowhere near economic activity or water supplies?
And who owns the city? Is it, by any chance, Lore or his arms-length foundation?
> Exactly where this 21st-century Eden will be located is still to be determined: Developers are hoping to find inexpensive desert land in the Midwest or Appalachia.
In other words, a place nowhere near economic activity or water supplies?
If they do it right, might be an experimental verification of the principles of Georgism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Which would be cool.
Which would be cool.
Yep. Equitism seems like a rebranded Georgism/Geoism. To answer GP’s question, the land would be owned by a fund held by the residents of the city. Similar to Singapore. Unsurprisingly it has massive public infrastructure budgets because the public captures the return on its investments, instead of whatever random landowners happen to have land near those investments. See: the value of land near a new subway station or school.
So everything is public invest then? I fail to see any incentive for private investment. It seems like this would lead to a dull and monoclonal existence. Not to mention putting all the power in a single governing body. What am I missing?
I'm surprised he hasn't looked at California City.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/california-city
https://allthatsinteresting.com/california-city
Sounds like some kid with an inferiority complex playing the banker role in Monopoly.
When will Branson, Bezos, and Musk be tweeting their plans for a Utopian Society?
Developed by a billionaire ? I smell something more like a Elysium on earth, an ultra-rich ghetto with all the latest gadgets...
With a big fence around for protecting from the plebeians when all starts falling appart elsewhere .
But sure, inside they will be all equal.
This just proves to me that the weed and coke the ultra-wealthy have access to is not the same weed and coke lowly merely comfortable people like me have access to.
I appreciate this as a joke, but on a serious note, I'm not sure if I should mock or encourage this project.
My intuition is that, if the intention is indeed as they portray it, then this sounds totally doable and commendable. Designing a city from scratch, knowing what we know now about cities, technology, transportation, could be great. It could also be dystopic, of course.
My intuition is that, if the intention is indeed as they portray it, then this sounds totally doable and commendable. Designing a city from scratch, knowing what we know now about cities, technology, transportation, could be great. It could also be dystopic, of course.
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. Anytime a billionaire tells you he's working on a "new model for society", watch out.
In this case, his comment about creating "a new model for society, where wealth is created in a fair way" is especially curious. I mean, does he believe that his wealth was not created in a fair way?
In this case, his comment about creating "a new model for society, where wealth is created in a fair way" is especially curious. I mean, does he believe that his wealth was not created in a fair way?
He’s probably a Georgist, which is basically capitalism with the exclusion of unearned wealth from land ownership. Returns from labor = legitimate, returns from capital = legitimate, returns from just claiming a slice of nature as your own and charging others for access to it = illegitimate.
I.e. In its most extreme form, keep 100% of what you create and none of what you don’t. Land owners do not create land, so should not get any upside from it. Whatever is built on the land is their creation, so whoever created it shouldn’t be taxed on any of its investment or returns. This applies even if the landlord and the developer are the same person.
Note it’s not actually that new. Lots of places with extreme natural wealth (like Alaska’s oil) create systems like this. The only “innovation” here is recognizing that urban growth also generates obscene amounts of wealth “in the ground.”
I.e. In its most extreme form, keep 100% of what you create and none of what you don’t. Land owners do not create land, so should not get any upside from it. Whatever is built on the land is their creation, so whoever created it shouldn’t be taxed on any of its investment or returns. This applies even if the landlord and the developer are the same person.
Note it’s not actually that new. Lots of places with extreme natural wealth (like Alaska’s oil) create systems like this. The only “innovation” here is recognizing that urban growth also generates obscene amounts of wealth “in the ground.”
i cannot take this seriously, even fiction has more believable backstories for futute dystopias.
[deleted]
Or maybe he can call it "Rapture", and build it underwater.
More seriously: I wonder how much city 500 billion dollars could really build? Given a blank slate of no planning or zoning conflicts.