The Silicon Valley elite who want to build a city from scratch(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Silicon Valley elite who want to build a city from scratch
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/business/land-purchases-solano-county.html
220 comments
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
This problem is fundamentally a coordination problem, where land is conditionally valuable based on whether multiple lots can be purchased in tandem, and thus the value is based on getting everyone to sell at the same time. If the billionaires had known in advance that lots of existing landowners would pull this, they would have gone and bought land elsewhere, and the existing landowners would get nothing.
What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse and cause the coordination problems mentioned. And because they bought at well above market price, they're stuck with dead weight if they don't go through with the affair.
In other words: the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and 2) this mechanism/behavior of the existing landowners isn't useful to society/the economy as it makes it harder to do things that require lots of land. This is a textbook example of where government intervention is useful, if done competently and not corruptly.
What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse and cause the coordination problems mentioned. And because they bought at well above market price, they're stuck with dead weight if they don't go through with the affair.
In other words: the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and 2) this mechanism/behavior of the existing landowners isn't useful to society/the economy as it makes it harder to do things that require lots of land. This is a textbook example of where government intervention is useful, if done competently and not corruptly.
So you are saying, when someone has enough money, others MUST sell to them, because maybe it is beneficial for the economy?
"What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse "
When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse.
Building important infrastructure or mining critical ressources are rare exceptions for forced landsell, but not because someone wants to build a city for the rich on my land.
So sure, it is a tricky problem to buy from many owners, but getting the government to help you with your private project to force a contract on other people is kind of the definition of corruption.
"What's more, the billionaires are clearly offering a clearly profitable deal for everyone, specifically so that nobody has an excuse to refuse "
When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse.
Building important infrastructure or mining critical ressources are rare exceptions for forced landsell, but not because someone wants to build a city for the rich on my land.
So sure, it is a tricky problem to buy from many owners, but getting the government to help you with your private project to force a contract on other people is kind of the definition of corruption.
> When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse.
I guess in this case they do want to sell it, they just know that the ‘billionaires’ having already bought a bunch of land in the area don’t really have a choice and will have to pay significantly more than the market value was previously.
It’s not exactly a case of some mega corporation trying to rip off some poor farmer and “steal” his land…
> build a city for the rich on my land.
Not that I’m saying that the government should get involved but the only reason you own that land is because want to make as much money from it as possible.
I guess in this case they do want to sell it, they just know that the ‘billionaires’ having already bought a bunch of land in the area don’t really have a choice and will have to pay significantly more than the market value was previously.
It’s not exactly a case of some mega corporation trying to rip off some poor farmer and “steal” his land…
> build a city for the rich on my land.
Not that I’m saying that the government should get involved but the only reason you own that land is because want to make as much money from it as possible.
Pretty ironic that Laurene Powell Jobs is:
- a major investor in this project
- who got her money from Apple
- which makes a killing gouging you on cables with proprietary charging ports and dongles because their laptops/phones didn't have ports, and thus were forced to buy at a ridiculous price
- and is now mad she was forced to pay a ridiculous price for something
- a major investor in this project
- who got her money from Apple
- which makes a killing gouging you on cables with proprietary charging ports and dongles because their laptops/phones didn't have ports, and thus were forced to buy at a ridiculous price
- and is now mad she was forced to pay a ridiculous price for something
I’d say their price gouging for RAM/Storage is even more egregious since lightning was way better than micro-USB back in the day. But yeah (then again you seem to be blaming Apple both for adopting USB-C and not adopting it at the same time?)
If I own a sizeable stake in a public company, and I see that a billionaire is doing a hostile takeover, am I wrong to demand a higher price?
This is a risk of doing a massive land purchase like this. The seller is absolutely in the right to hold out as long as they want, and to maximize their profit.
If they won't sell, build around them.
This is a risk of doing a massive land purchase like this. The seller is absolutely in the right to hold out as long as they want, and to maximize their profit.
If they won't sell, build around them.
You definitely have a point and more or less agree.
However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas.
However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas.
> However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas.
Yes, wealth inequality and land development practices are reasons why housing is in such short supply.
Yes, wealth inequality and land development practices are reasons why housing is in such short supply.
But it is hard to proof, if someone just wants to make more money (which is legitimate), or if they genuinly want to keep the land. And government Intervention in those cases seem just recipe for corruption.
> the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and
The inherent value of the land is what market is willing to pay for it in the moment. If you accept that land is to be traded freely, then the seller can set the price as they choose or refuse to sell. What you suggest is that the government sets the price and force sale for the grater good. Even if we collectively decided that this is how it should be, this instance is a really bad example, because they haven’t shared what they want to do there. Why do you automatically think that their plan will be for the public benefit? Eminent domain had a narrow scope, at least originally, for public use. In 2005 things changed [1]. Actually Kelo vs New London is a very good example. The paned out redevelopment never happened, Pfizer closed down the facility in New London. City never recovered its loses.
[1] https://ij.org/case/kelo/
The inherent value of the land is what market is willing to pay for it in the moment. If you accept that land is to be traded freely, then the seller can set the price as they choose or refuse to sell. What you suggest is that the government sets the price and force sale for the grater good. Even if we collectively decided that this is how it should be, this instance is a really bad example, because they haven’t shared what they want to do there. Why do you automatically think that their plan will be for the public benefit? Eminent domain had a narrow scope, at least originally, for public use. In 2005 things changed [1]. Actually Kelo vs New London is a very good example. The paned out redevelopment never happened, Pfizer closed down the facility in New London. City never recovered its loses.
[1] https://ij.org/case/kelo/
Yeah, they could have had the threat of eminent domain to force a deal, but they should have gone that route instead.
Saying something like "sell to us or we'll force you to via eminent domain", buying the land, and THEN complaining about the price tag is ... brutal.
Saying something like "sell to us or we'll force you to via eminent domain", buying the land, and THEN complaining about the price tag is ... brutal.
2) this mechanism/behavior of the existing landowners isn't useful to society/the economy as it makes it harder to do things that require lots of land
I am confused by this statement, they are farmers. Farms are beneficial to the economy and society.
I am confused by this statement, they are farmers. Farms are beneficial to the economy and society.
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.
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.
> That's the rich for you
It’s one group of very rich people (possibly) trying to screw over other rich people, though.
> I just may not want to sell to you.
You almost definitely do though. You just want more money because you know that the buyer doesn’t really have a choice.
It’s one group of very rich people (possibly) trying to screw over other rich people, though.
> I just may not want to sell to you.
You almost definitely do though. You just want more money because you know that the buyer doesn’t really have a choice.
Wanting a sell at a certain price doesn’t mean you want to sell at a lower price. The desire to sell is often directly correlated to the price. If someone offered me double for our families house, I’d sell. If they offer me slightly over market value I’d just hang up the phone. For most people there is a price, it’s probably not what an average buyer sees as a reasonable price if it’s not on the market.
Deliberate wash sales to increase “market” price would be a trivial way to prove this. Otherwise it’s very speculative.
Or some type of record where the farmers got into a smoky room and said 'let's all agree to jack up the price!'
That said, wow, this seems like a blatantly horrible hardball tactic or probably a result of sour grapes for someone who was a fool with their money.
I hope this gets dismissed with extreme prejudice and flannery has to pay legal fees.
That said, wow, this seems like a blatantly horrible hardball tactic or probably a result of sour grapes for someone who was a fool with their money.
I hope this gets dismissed with extreme prejudice and flannery has to pay legal fees.
> sour grapes for someone who was a fool with their money
Maybe the unnamed investor was Softbank’s Masayoshi Son and after repeatedly being shafted by Neumann he said “No more!” and urged the lawsuit.
Maybe the unnamed investor was Softbank’s Masayoshi Son and after repeatedly being shafted by Neumann he said “No more!” and urged the lawsuit.
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.
Wouldn't this entirely destroy any price discovery in market? So you could not sell for example stock for higher price if it goes up? If you hear that other people are selling it?
> The purchases burst into public view this spring when lawyers for Flannery filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, accusing landowners of colluding to inflate prices.
This is from the article linked.
This is from the article linked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only way I see if the residents cannot own the property and the land. Something like max 15 years rent.
The city should also be designed to be friendly to self driving cars and autonomous delivery robots.
A stated goal is to be "as walkable as Paris or the West Village in New York."
Why should it be friendly to cars at all, when neither Paris nor NYC are known to be car friendly?
Why should it be friendly to cars at all, when neither Paris nor NYC are known to be car friendly?
[deleted]
> when neither Paris nor NYC are known to be car friendly?
Both are super car friendly. They’re just anti private car ownership.
Both are super car friendly. They’re just anti private car ownership.
I've driven in NYC. No, it is not. Just about every other city in the US is more driver friendly. Here are others who agree that NYC is not super car-friendly compared to other places.
"Almost every New Yorker and anyone who has ever visited will encourage you not to drive in New York City." - https://www.tripsavvy.com/tips-for-driving-in-new-york-city-...
"Driving in NYC requires some serious skills and patience to conquer. Between the impatient and angry drivers, impossible street parking, inability to turn right on red, and the nightmare of getting stuck in the middle of an intersection, it’s definitely not the place you want to leisurely cruise between destinations. But if you should build the bravery to dive into the sea of yellow taxis in the Big Apple, you’ll want to be prepared with these safety survival tips." - https://shebuystravel.com/driving-in-nyc/
"We gave New York [State] a “Good” rating for Traffic and Road Quality, despite the New York metropolitan area being one of the most traffic-congested regions in America." _ https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/how-classic-car-frien...
Compare it to Salt Lake City - that's a super car-friendly city.
"Almost every New Yorker and anyone who has ever visited will encourage you not to drive in New York City." - https://www.tripsavvy.com/tips-for-driving-in-new-york-city-...
"Driving in NYC requires some serious skills and patience to conquer. Between the impatient and angry drivers, impossible street parking, inability to turn right on red, and the nightmare of getting stuck in the middle of an intersection, it’s definitely not the place you want to leisurely cruise between destinations. But if you should build the bravery to dive into the sea of yellow taxis in the Big Apple, you’ll want to be prepared with these safety survival tips." - https://shebuystravel.com/driving-in-nyc/
"We gave New York [State] a “Good” rating for Traffic and Road Quality, despite the New York metropolitan area being one of the most traffic-congested regions in America." _ https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/how-classic-car-frien...
Compare it to Salt Lake City - that's a super car-friendly city.
I am torn between shaking my fists at the ‘oligarchs’ and going ‘well done, boys!’.
I would do the same if I had a billion dollars or two to spare. The future is city states and networked small towns of 10k mixed population ..use the same seed idea as the Dunbar Number. Fwiw, I have already designed such cities for my own amusement with high density housing in 10% of the total land and the remaining as forests and food producing acres..underground tunnels for intra city transport and above ground, self driving cars and efficient public transport(maglev)…
it will be a three tiered city with skyscrapers, underground city and ground infrastructure. Etc etc.
What’s the point of being a billionaire if you can’t even build your own city?
I would do the same if I had a billion dollars or two to spare. The future is city states and networked small towns of 10k mixed population ..use the same seed idea as the Dunbar Number. Fwiw, I have already designed such cities for my own amusement with high density housing in 10% of the total land and the remaining as forests and food producing acres..underground tunnels for intra city transport and above ground, self driving cars and efficient public transport(maglev)…
it will be a three tiered city with skyscrapers, underground city and ground infrastructure. Etc etc.
What’s the point of being a billionaire if you can’t even build your own city?
>>Whats the point of being a billionare if you cant even build your own city?
Are you even hearing yourself? Cities existed before billionares did. Society existed before pricks with god complexes started thinking that order and society organized the other way around.
Get off from Rand. Learn some actual history.
Are you even hearing yourself? Cities existed before billionares did. Society existed before pricks with god complexes started thinking that order and society organized the other way around.
Get off from Rand. Learn some actual history.
It’s not God complex. Society doesn’t come into existence by itself in hunter-gathering time. It starts off with someone self-identifying as the chief/shaman and who is socially approved.
Starting a small settlement / community is not a small feat. It requires lots of organizing top-level-down. And then fast forwards million of years later we have religions and government and we start paying taxes without asking lots of questions while also taking everything for granted.
Religions and governments were considered a progressive thing 2000 years ago. But then gradually in the past 100 years we started to see disentanglement between these two. And now we are here.
And now we are starting enter the aeon of AI. Now it is good time to fix many real-world problems.
Starting a small settlement / community is not a small feat. It requires lots of organizing top-level-down. And then fast forwards million of years later we have religions and government and we start paying taxes without asking lots of questions while also taking everything for granted.
Religions and governments were considered a progressive thing 2000 years ago. But then gradually in the past 100 years we started to see disentanglement between these two. And now we are here.
And now we are starting enter the aeon of AI. Now it is good time to fix many real-world problems.
> Society doesn’t come into existence by itself in hunter-gathering time.
Ummmmm… like how do you think cities got started?
Ummmmm… like how do you think cities got started?
There's no single answer. Most of them did indeed get started organically, but some got started by dukes who were in the city starting business:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Zähringen
Some got started by Roman Emperors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg
Some got started by a country wanting a new capital:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasília
And some grew organically, but were at some point or other subject to a massive master plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
https://thegreatestgrid.mcny.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Zähringen
Some got started by Roman Emperors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg
Some got started by a country wanting a new capital:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasília
And some grew organically, but were at some point or other subject to a massive master plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
https://thegreatestgrid.mcny.org
Sure all that is true but this guy was asserting that cities didn’t just come about organically, when… well a lot of them did lol.
[deleted]
So you think cities and villages just magically got built because people would come together and interact like some kind of brownian motion?
I already laid down my arguments from an anthropological perspective. There was something very special about the past 2000~4000 years (since the beginning of stone age 3 million year ago, and anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago) and that is why at the year 2024AD, things have progressed into the current state. (Or why have we not progressed faster as a civilization/species?)
It's about cost and the sustaining of people's attention and work. Even for communities that started so to speak "organically", they would have dependency on some form of leadership at some points, if not throughout, or it would not be self-sustainable and grow to scale up e.g. into a village/city.
I already laid down my arguments from an anthropological perspective. There was something very special about the past 2000~4000 years (since the beginning of stone age 3 million year ago, and anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago) and that is why at the year 2024AD, things have progressed into the current state. (Or why have we not progressed faster as a civilization/species?)
It's about cost and the sustaining of people's attention and work. Even for communities that started so to speak "organically", they would have dependency on some form of leadership at some points, if not throughout, or it would not be self-sustainable and grow to scale up e.g. into a village/city.
There are a lot of assertions in your post. Again, take an anthro class or at least read about the origin of cities.
Hell, we don’t even know if all the early ones were inhabitated year round. Nor do we know if many of the early cities required “leadership” in any real way.
Also, there may be more ways to measure “progress” than you’re aware of. Depending on the metric you choose… we may not be doing as well as you’d think.
Is this Steven Pinker’s nephews HN account?
Hell, we don’t even know if all the early ones were inhabitated year round. Nor do we know if many of the early cities required “leadership” in any real way.
Also, there may be more ways to measure “progress” than you’re aware of. Depending on the metric you choose… we may not be doing as well as you’d think.
Is this Steven Pinker’s nephews HN account?
you are totally missing the point. whatever. At this point none-technical discussion on HN has become almost like reddit.
What are you talking about?
This actually is a technical discussion.
You’re asserting things about the formation of cities that aren’t just unknown or mysterious, you’re asserting things that are patently untrue, then upset when someone calls you out for it lol. How Reddit is that?
You’re saying, “cities require strong leadership, planning, cost, and sustaining people’s attention, and work.” (To roughly paraphrase). I’m saying, “that’s not necessarily true, we don’t know enough about this to assert this. You should read some more about it or take an anthropology class.”
This is a highly technical subject, it’s just not one about computers or math or physics. Like, for some early cities we are unsure if they were even inhabited year round, for some cities it appears that there was absolutely no leadership. Maybe megalopolises requires strong central authority but I’m not so sure.
Even if you spend $8b and start your own version of Fordlandia you still may not succeed at building utopia because how do you maintain things how “you want them” when people like me exist who will try to flaunt your rules? Violence?
This actually is a technical discussion.
You’re asserting things about the formation of cities that aren’t just unknown or mysterious, you’re asserting things that are patently untrue, then upset when someone calls you out for it lol. How Reddit is that?
You’re saying, “cities require strong leadership, planning, cost, and sustaining people’s attention, and work.” (To roughly paraphrase). I’m saying, “that’s not necessarily true, we don’t know enough about this to assert this. You should read some more about it or take an anthropology class.”
This is a highly technical subject, it’s just not one about computers or math or physics. Like, for some early cities we are unsure if they were even inhabited year round, for some cities it appears that there was absolutely no leadership. Maybe megalopolises requires strong central authority but I’m not so sure.
Even if you spend $8b and start your own version of Fordlandia you still may not succeed at building utopia because how do you maintain things how “you want them” when people like me exist who will try to flaunt your rules? Violence?
At this point it sounds like I'm talking to gpt3.5 with the system prompt as "angry troll on the internet". Won't be surprised if I am.
If you are not a chatbot, here is my advice after reading this incoherent thing you wrote: go work on something to make the change you want to see in your life.
It saddens me that discussions on HN are now turning into dumpster fire like this.
If you are not a chatbot, here is my advice after reading this incoherent thing you wrote: go work on something to make the change you want to see in your life.
It saddens me that discussions on HN are now turning into dumpster fire like this.
You aren’t entitled to have people agree with you on the internet - especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re just making wild claims about society.
I disagree with you, but sure “I’m a chat bot.” This conversation saddens you? Lol, ok. That clearly elevates the discourse.
I disagree with you, but sure “I’m a chat bot.” This conversation saddens you? Lol, ok. That clearly elevates the discourse.
I don’t care if someone on the internet agrees with me. It saddens me to see more and more trolls on HN.
I’m not a troll - I just think you’re wrong. Everyone who disagrees with you is not a troll. Get over yourself.
So ..basically..repeat what has been done before and has failed?
I live in California. We need private citizens with god complex who can do better than a govt with a god complex.
I live in California. We need private citizens with god complex who can do better than a govt with a god complex.
The domed city trope is coming to life.
Usually a metaphor for physical separation of classes. The rabble have to deal with the environmental consequences of the elite's abuse of the planet, the elite shut themselves in.
Of course that's not what's happening here, it is the shining elite leading us to a better model of civilization! Right?
Usually a metaphor for physical separation of classes. The rabble have to deal with the environmental consequences of the elite's abuse of the planet, the elite shut themselves in.
Of course that's not what's happening here, it is the shining elite leading us to a better model of civilization! Right?
Yeah, the article reads like a “late stage capitalism” vs nasty nimby localism.
On one hand I don’t like the idea that a lot of land end up in hands of a small group of people, but on the other hand the accusation that they are tearing apart the community is a little weird, given than they have not started building anything yet. And most of land around Travis AFB is prairie, so used for grazing.
On top of that the lawsuit they filed against farmers is weird. Did they try to intimidate them into selling or got screwed by an alleged price fixing?
On one hand I don’t like the idea that a lot of land end up in hands of a small group of people, but on the other hand the accusation that they are tearing apart the community is a little weird, given than they have not started building anything yet. And most of land around Travis AFB is prairie, so used for grazing.
On top of that the lawsuit they filed against farmers is weird. Did they try to intimidate them into selling or got screwed by an alleged price fixing?
I fully agree, although it's a great way to quickly lose your billionaire status. Only the greatest of billionaires could afford to build an underground railway system for a city and still have money left to build some apartment buildings for people to live in them.
Only a couple of them on the entire earth could pull it off probably. One of them has already done 3 similarly grandiose things and is now dabbling with social media. One of them is in his party on a yacht fase. One of them is starting to get a bit geriatric but also has always cared more about the people on the planet than the planet itself. And one of them seems to be on an internal journey discovering his masculinity.
There's a couple more for sure, but I guess they're not in the media enough for me to know what their excuses are.
Only a couple of them on the entire earth could pull it off probably. One of them has already done 3 similarly grandiose things and is now dabbling with social media. One of them is in his party on a yacht fase. One of them is starting to get a bit geriatric but also has always cared more about the people on the planet than the planet itself. And one of them seems to be on an internal journey discovering his masculinity.
There's a couple more for sure, but I guess they're not in the media enough for me to know what their excuses are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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).
>> (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.
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.
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.
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.
You don't need to be a drug trafficker. They just need to plant evidence and off you go.
galaxyofdoom(1)
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.
>>> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Upon reflection, you are right about the cause/effect wrt sanctions. While I don't see how sanctions can be part of a solution, I do now understand that they aren't the cause of instability either, as corrupt actors, or even completely legitimate governments can cause violent conflict over these sanctioned commodities.
But, the part about narco states still stands...I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption. Especially in South and Central America, narco-organizations and drug related violence predominates the causes of instability.
But, the part about narco states still stands...I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption. Especially in South and Central America, narco-organizations and drug related violence predominates the causes of instability.
> I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption.
El Salvador did it.
At some point, which Mexico already reached a long time ago, cartels metastasize beyond narcotics and can sustain themselves on protection rackets. It’s very tempting to treat drug prohibition as some sort of monocausal explanation for organized crime, but even if that were true at some point, that doesn’t mean legalization would solve the problem. And I think the existence of conflict diamonds and the like already demonstrate that drug prohibition isn’t even necessary for this kind of problem to emerge in the first place.
El Salvador did it.
At some point, which Mexico already reached a long time ago, cartels metastasize beyond narcotics and can sustain themselves on protection rackets. It’s very tempting to treat drug prohibition as some sort of monocausal explanation for organized crime, but even if that were true at some point, that doesn’t mean legalization would solve the problem. And I think the existence of conflict diamonds and the like already demonstrate that drug prohibition isn’t even necessary for this kind of problem to emerge in the first place.
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
But the UK High Court nixed it, because Rwanda is "not a safe country".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_asylum_plan
There's a big difference between needing asylum and needing asylum in a stable country with universal healthcare and a benefits system.
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.
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.
> 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.
Singapore achieved this as a city-state.
In how long? Don't forget the building of the institutions that predated Yew.
1959 was when Yew became Sg's first PM. in his famous televised speech, yew announced the separation from malayasian federation in 1965.
dont forget that singapore was under colonial rule before that. noone can deny the success of singapore, the city state with all the regional challenges. it took them about two decades.
i would give 5-10 years for our nation states to become functionally successful if they split and became city states.
its time for a change.
dont forget that singapore was under colonial rule before that. noone can deny the success of singapore, the city state with all the regional challenges. it took them about two decades.
i would give 5-10 years for our nation states to become functionally successful if they split and became city states.
its time for a change.
Singapore government definitely made smart moves and had a strong vision. But you can't omit that its geographical position gave it a tremendous advantage with regards to trade. It will be very hard to replicate elsewhere, others will have to find similar stable streams of income.
On top of that, Singapore has access to a very large low-paid workforce in the neighboring countries, which eases offloading necessary but low-value activities.
Oh, they are down to a half century now? Switzerland took 700 years to make. Progress!
I was thinking of South Korea, but they are extraordinary.
You think it has not been tried by the people in those countries?
[deleted]
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.
On a happier note, El Salvador seems to have sorted itself out in recent years.
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.
> South Africa, once a functioning country
A functioning country for a few white people; hell for everyone else.
A functioning country for a few white people; hell for everyone else.
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.
> 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'.
It wasn't functional before the end of apartheid. 'Functional for a small minority' != 'functional country'.
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.
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.
Building heaven on earth is a good aspirational political goal.
Build Heaven in your own heart - you won't be sorry :)
Immanentize the Eschaton am I rite?
Just like the Gnostics, Marxists, communists, Obama, Trump ...
Just like the Gnostics, Marxists, communists, Obama, Trump ...
>Immanentize the Eschaton
What else can you do with the Eschaton?
What else can you do with the Eschaton?
Yes!!
Outer Heaven?
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.
build stable countries
> 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.
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.
Get your AI army ready to enforce law, I guess.
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.
We need immigrants in North America, why send them somewhere else
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
This example always jumps to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_Company
https://www.irvinestandard.com/2022/americas-safest-city-for... - allegedly the safest city of its size in the US
Many colonial cities and capital cities were basically built from scratch and populated by settlers. The Romans got quite good at this.
"List of purpose-built national capitals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_purpose-built_national...
"List of purpose-built national capitals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_purpose-built_national...
[deleted]
Milton Keynes, UK
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes
oh look...
some other "tech elite" of his time actually already did this[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordl%C3%A2ndia
some other "tech elite" of his time actually already did this[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordl%C3%A2ndia
> 55,000 acres of farmland in northern California
Sounds like it’s already a utopia.
Sounds like it’s already a utopia.
I'm getting Bioshock new-city vibes, and also this beauty by ProZD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN9DW4rrEjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN9DW4rrEjY
"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.
Yes, that's the vibe I'm getting too.
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
Maybe put space for some offices from the big companies as well
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
And you also don't pay into the general issues in the country which are shoved off to the less fortunate home owners.
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!
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.
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 :)
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 :)
>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.
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.
city council from allocating designated musician pods on the streets
'Sorry we don't like your new song, you have been designated a trespasser and fined $10,000, this decision is not subject to appeal or further inquiry.'
A city run by SV elites will be just as well run as tech companies terms of service are famous for fair dealing and customer cooperation, ie not at all.
'Sorry we don't like your new song, you have been designated a trespasser and fined $10,000, this decision is not subject to appeal or further inquiry.'
A city run by SV elites will be just as well run as tech companies terms of service are famous for fair dealing and customer cooperation, ie not at all.
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.
> Why do you think you cannot have the good without the bad?
In theory I think you are right, but I can't recall the last time I saw a busker in a private space like a mall or airport. Maybe the incentive to encourage this is just never strong enough for the owners?
In theory I think you are right, but I can't recall the last time I saw a busker in a private space like a mall or airport. Maybe the incentive to encourage this is just never strong enough for the owners?
I can't recall the last time I saw a busker in a private space like a mall or airport.
While not buskers per se, a lot of private spaces hire musicians to play in their spaces to provide entertainment or background music. Many airports I've been to have someone on a piano playing in a corner
I've also seen places like trainstations where they have a licensing system. IE you audition, apply for a license and then get given a spot and a time slot when you can busk.
While not buskers per se, a lot of private spaces hire musicians to play in their spaces to provide entertainment or background music. Many airports I've been to have someone on a piano playing in a corner
I've also seen places like trainstations where they have a licensing system. IE you audition, apply for a license and then get given a spot and a time slot when you can busk.
If you are renting property to businesses for commercial purposes, why would you give, rent, or tolerate the occupation of that space by someone who is paying less per square foot in rent, unless they are consistently doing something that increases the rent you can get from your other customers?
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?
Paris, London, Rome, Athens, NYC... Maybe you're not a city person?
[deleted]
Or we could do something crazy like respect democratic norms rather than descending into a plutocratic hellscape.
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.
In fact, you can democratize it and let everybody who shows up have a vote about what they can do on your property.
Descending to a plutocratic hellscape (without dragging others and this project doesn’t) is a basic human right we all should respect please!
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.
Not saying they are right, just saying pleas in that manner are already falling on ears deafened to them.
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.
Isn't Irvine, CA a corporate-owner and planned city as well?
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.
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.
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.
Sigh, "The uploader has not made this video available in your country" (France)
It will be like Santana Row in San Jose, a walkable area without any homeless.
For a European, Santana Row is depressing. It's utterly soulless and fake. Just build an actual town, FFS.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
At this point, even starting a new hi-tech company of any size in the Bay Area immediately runs into the problem of housing. You wanna hire 20,000 workers? Where will they live?
Buying 50,000 acres of land and covering it with manhattan-style skyscrapers full of condos and apartments solves that problem quite nicely.
Its even self-funding, because no matter how high a salary you pay them, they'll pay over half of it back to you. While you are making a huge profit from the sale. Its a brilliant plan, even for high-tech investors.
Buying 50,000 acres of land and covering it with manhattan-style skyscrapers full of condos and apartments solves that problem quite nicely.
Its even self-funding, because no matter how high a salary you pay them, they'll pay over half of it back to you. While you are making a huge profit from the sale. Its a brilliant plan, even for high-tech investors.
Housing in the Bay Area has been a problem for decades, and the tech industry did well.
If this becomes a functioning dense city with plenty of housing, it would be hugely needed in the region!
"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.
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?)
My friend, have you ever ridden from Antioch BART?
Ok, I'll bite. What's so bad or good about Antioch BART?
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
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART
I had no idea!
I'd really like to know whether they considered wildfire risk when they hatched this plan back in ~2017.
There's not much to burn. It's basically flatlands with grasses.
They had better build some pretty fantastic water catchment systems
Group Flannery Associates, backed by prominent investors, quietly buy 55,000 acres of farmland in northern California
> ...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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
Christopher Alexander, wrote a famous essay called "A city is not a tree" which talked about how cities emerge, and are not planned top down http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexan...
It's fascinating, yet hardly surprising; we're moving toward a future where some corporations will seek to establish their own realms of autonomy
Maybe local governments should clean up their cities then. Id rather live somewhere clean and safe.
Every day the world gets a little more cyberpunk
> we're moving toward a future
or back to the past...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I15_KUsOzs (Merle Travis - Sixteen Tons (original version) from 1947)
or back to the past...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I15_KUsOzs (Merle Travis - Sixteen Tons (original version) from 1947)
Corporations have done that since the dawn of the corporate form.
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/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telosa
https://cityoftelosa.com/
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is Bay Area. Solano County is one of the 9 "Bay Area" counties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. Look at a map - Solano County literally runs along San Pablo Bay in Vallejo.
VCs are obviously not funding this through their funds. These are private individual investors.
So, probably no connection with tech, then?
Kind of interesting that at that location it'll get fed from UC Davis grads more than UC Berkeley.
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.
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.
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.
I am not entirely opposed to the idea. The governance of CA is a goat rodeo run from Sacramento. With lame goats. But I don’t necessarily trust the intentions of this group given that they have already sued the ex land owners.
“[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”
Interesting (and with some paranoia) discussion about this topic one month ago.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36816387
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36816387
[deleted]
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.
They should name it EPCOT or Fordlandia.
[deleted]
How about instead of building some dumb utopian metropolis, we return the land to its natural state?
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.
But it will probably end up being far more like the city in Demolition Man. Bland, no surprises, no swearing, etc.
Sounds like someone's been reading too much Ayn Rand and plans to build a real-life "Galt's Gulch."
more than twice the size of the line in saudi arabia
* 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...
* 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...
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.
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_made_a...
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_made_a...
They were bulldozed over because they were going bankrupt.
Do they even have sidewalks in Atherton?
rayiner(2)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But... you do you, tech elite. Enjoy your utopia where gardners, housekeepers, carpenters, electricians, teachers and shopkeepers are exiled outside the city walls.
Ok, but please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You may not owe "tech elite" better but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You may not owe "tech elite" better but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Plenty of "tech elite" live and walk San Francisco all the time, so...
Are you suggesting San Francisco was launched as a gated community for the tech elite? 'cause I'm fairly certain it wasn't.
infamouscow(3)
"'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.