12 ms·

I would love to see a city like this built today, but with a little less emphasis on experimental and more on starting with the best practices we know today, an

• nip180 6y ago
  I just have to wonder —- how do you create such a city in a way that insures it’s actually populated and doesn’t become a ghost town.
  • cogman10 6y ago
    Cheap housing and low utility bills would be prime selling points. IDK how you keep such a city from dilapidating though.
  • elihu 6y ago
    I think the main thing is having enough employers to provide jobs for the people. This could be done by coordinating the construction with some local large businesses or maybe a University that wants to open a new branch. Or just locate near enough to an existing town/city that has jobs.
    • nip180 6y ago
      Yeah but I wouldn’t move to a new city in rural montana until it has schools, hospitals, firefighters, police, trashmen, and maybe a dozen other services that require a local market or a local tax base to support.
      • WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
        What if there was a $20,000 per year remote tax write-off? Work in our city and get a $20,000 federal tax write off...?
        • wolco 6y ago
          That's what happens in northern Canada.
          • blaser-waffle 6y ago
            Not just northern, try "central" Canada -- still pretty dang far north compared to other places.
        • dwighttk 6y ago
          so the federal government is building these cities?
      • CyberDildonics 6y ago
        30 minutes north of san franscisco means you don't even have paved roads or cell phone service. I'm not sure why you think you would need to be in rural montana to plan some tall buildings.
        • BurningFrog 6y ago
          > 30 minutes north of san franscisco... California won't allow building a park bench there, much less a new major city.
          • mc32 6y ago
            I think Lucasfilm found out how much a counterforce there is to building things. Also a community center...
            • CyberDildonics 6y ago
    • nwatson 6y ago
      Brasília was built in the middle of nowhere in the 1950s/1960s. It took the mandate of federal government relocation to bring in the middle- and upper-classes who could afford life in the Plano Piloto (the Pilot Plan, the main part of the city). The government tried to expel or disincentivize permanent settlement by the temporary workers that did the initial construction of the city, the "candangos". They ended up instead in unplanned satellite cities usually at some distance from the main city. (Just one extreme example of a planned city.)
      • spanhandler 6y ago
        There was a Russian travel-photoblogger obsessed with street signs and fire hydrants whose blog I read a lot of a few years back, out of whose very extensive travels a few patterns and interesting observations emerged, one of which was: planned cities are almost always eerily empty, with streets way too wide and not enough in between them, and are typically just about the dullest cities to visit. [EDIT] and no, I don't have a link, I lost the URL years back and have repeatedly tried to find it again, failing every time.
        • prawn 6y ago
          I don't think it's necessarily that the cities are planned but that they're planned for cars. Dubai, Vegas and parts of Doha are pretty miserable to explore due to the scale. You're expected to be in an air-conditioned car between buildings, not wandering the streets.
        • michaelscott 6y ago
          In Brasilia's case the city was designed from a "bird's eye view" by an architect who didn't really understand the scale of that kind of liveable space. If you look at it out of the window of an aeroplane it looks well designed and pleasingly laid out. Walking through it at ground level, not so much.
          • spanhandler 6y ago
            That seems to be a mistake in a lot of "city of the future" concept art. All that empty space, tons of long strips of green and trees, very wide streets, huge squares everywhere, looks nice on a drawing or a render but is miserable to exist in because it means everything's really far apart and the scale of everything feels overwhelmingly. A lot of naïve attempts at a "green" city design have the same problem—in trying to incorporate all kinds of "eco friendly" green space they make an area less walkable, spread out the urban footprint, and make it a ton less eco-friendly.
  • mvn9 6y ago
    Universal basic income.
    • CyberDildonics 6y ago
      I'm not sure that balances the equation.
      • mvn9 6y ago
        Could you explain why? If you offer UBI for people who move into a new town, why shouldn't a huge number of people from all over the world take that offer?
        • luckylion 6y ago
          They probably will. And then what? You've now created a city that can't sustain itself and relies on being fed by others. And at some point the "others" (read: the rest of the country) will not want to pay to fund the cool new city.
          • ikiris 6y ago
            They burn thousands of times the cost on bullets. Its not that big of a problem.
          • mvn9 6y ago
            This assumes that UBI communities don't create value. But the city is not for free. UBI is just enough to pay for a basic life. If you want to eat great food, have a nice house or want to impress your friends or send your kids to a good school, money is needed. Money, that comes from taxable activities. The advantage of UBI is that there are no homeless people, no beggars, no petty crimes, no robberies. There is no excuse for robbing somebody because it clearly is a move to get luxuries. Punishment can be harsh, including expulsion from the city. Thus you have a friendly city where people can create value the most efficient way. All the people who don't create taxable value still create value. They create the network effect of the city and they manage the focus of the production processes. Somebody has to be an early adopter of a new restaurant or a new service. Who is better suited than somebody who has an entire day to spend? After all, money that is spent in the city is not lost. The only problem is spending money on external goods which can be managed by taxing imports.
  • LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    Why are you wondering about that when there are concepts for "seasteading" in international waters?
  • Shivetya 6y ago
    TL;DR Cynically, China could do it but not many places else have the ability, certainly not the US. First step, don't build in the US nor any country with strong property rights nor a free citizenry. You need a place where control of the project is not going to get stuck in the courts of law or public opinion. This same place would need sufficient funds to pull it off and the desire to do so if it gained the leadership sufficient fame. As in, you need a China or similar. I had a nice long reason for why it could never happen in the US but you can summarize it as, politicians and special interest groups would dictate every thing either directly, intimidation, or through the courts.
    • Merrill 6y ago
      Paris' straight, wide avenues and beautiful parks are the result of Emperor Napoleon III and Baron Haussmann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann
  • wolco 6y ago
    Offer startups free office space.
    • ghaff 6y ago
      So what do the employees do when the startups go out of business in a year or two?
      • prawn 6y ago
        Do what the founders themselves did and start up another business? Doesn't pay the bills, but then that potentially held true for the initial founders also. Federal or state agencies could be an option.
  • spankalee 6y ago
    I'm not a city planner, and this is just my fantasy, so... ? I think this is part of building to a larger initial scale and using partnerships to bootstrap the city. If you think about what features a thriving major city has, and which of those might be seeds to populations, things like universities and community colleges, large corporate campuses (if those ever matter again), and transportation/logistics hubs could be very good draws. Plus you'll need housing for the construction workers, food and services for them, etc. I would imagine that in the unlikely future of something like this happening, there would be major investors from philanthropists, corporations, that would help start the seed institutions as well. It's been a while since a billionaire started a new prestigious university with their name on it. Maybe Bezos, Buffett, or Page is game. Maybe Google or Amazon wants a new campus that's designed for a partial work-from-home employees and near suitable WFH housing with easy transportation to campus? One thing to keep in mind is that the centrally-planned Chinese cities that were criticized as ghost towns are now populated. Housing is expensive, and if there's a place with available housing, it'll likely be filled.
    • Taniwha 6y ago
      Look how Trump Uni turned out .....
  • WiseWeasel 6y ago
    Subsidized climate and air quality control could make many city centers more appealing. Bio-defense even seems relevant these days.
• jariel 6y ago
  That's odd because new Chinese cities, in my view, are probably the least exemplary, to the point of dystopian. Other than some pragmatism concerning density, there's nothing to love unless you like miles of fantastically ugly concrete. Think: if you didn't have to worry about work or money, and could live 'anywhere' - where would it be? Almost all of the aspirational places are not 'planned'. They're generally made before cars and therefore 'human sized'. Do you fantasise about living in the suburbs (ie generally more planned?) probably not. People live there because of space, lower prices, but not because they're otherwise idyllic. Some 'nice things' we get from 'planning' (more consistent rooftop solar) would be overwhelmed by all the inhuman artefacts. Most places in W. Europe offer 'good living standards' - beautiful and 'postcard idyllic' situations that go on and on and on. (The jobs are lacking, but not civic beauty). If we can somehow figure out transport without cars, and get a lot of the ugly infrastructure 'out of the way' - that would be nice. But otherwise, we already know how to make 'human sized' places. Edit: I should add, nobody wants to move to such planned cities, unless they are implored by their condition to seek opportunity, i.e. jobs. People in happy situations don't seek this out.
  • CyberDildonics 6y ago
    I've seen first hand many different places where tall building are merged with infrastructure of grocery stores, small markets, general shopping etc. and they incredibly convenient. Having so much immediately accessible gives an enormous amount of flexibility and takes a lot of planning out spending time on acquiring necessities. If people already know how to make 'human sized places' wouldn't that imply planning?
    • imgabe 6y ago
      > If people already know how to make 'human sized places' wouldn't that imply planning? No, it's what arises from a lack of planning when you let individual or small groups of humans build structures that fit their needs without too much meddling. A shop owner builds a shop the way he wants it to be. The apartment building next door is built the way that apartment building owner wants it to be. There's no central committee forcing them to adhere to a grand central plan that makes everything look alike. That's how you end up with varied, idiosyncratic architecture that has personality instead of the vast, lifeless spaces that were designed by committee to be all things to all people and end up being nothing to no one. There does have to be some central coordination to help mediate disputes and ensure one person doesn't infringe too much on others, but it should be minimal.
• headcanon 6y ago
  The vast majority of cities are where they are for a reason. Usually that reason means proximity to some form of transportation infrastructure, whether that be a river, highway, railroad, or ocean. This is true even for Las Vegas, which which some consider to be "built in the middle of nowhere". Any city without a solid economic reason for its existence quickly withers and dies. Sadly, Flint Michigan is an example of this, as are many now-ghost towns in the far west that died after the interstate system was built in the 50s and 60s. You can't just plop down a fully-furnished city on some unpopulated plot of land and expect anyone to move there. China as you say is trying this, but some of these are basically ghost towns on arrival, despite the massive top-down planning and investment. [1] Any realistic plan for urban development reform is going to have to work with what exists currently. If you want to create a "demonstration" city from scratch, much faster and cheaper to do it virtually and simulate it. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTDU8MZRYw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTDU8MZRYw Edit: wording
  • the_reformation 6y ago
    What's the reason for Las Vegas?
    • ghaff 6y ago
      Aquifers.
    • dwighttk 6y ago
      a bunch of water and power right down the road in one direction, and a lot of population to attract to their gambling in the other? Just a guess.
    • qppo 6y ago
      From wikipedia, it was a waypoint between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, then the railroad came and used it as a stop and the city built up around it. Then they legalized casinos and the mob took over.
    • derefr 6y ago
      IIRC Las Vegas was originally the company town for the workers building the Hoover Dam.
• blahedo 6y ago
  > There's a lot of space in Montana, Wyoming, the Dakaotas, and we'll need more space for population there as we have to migrate north. The problem with the states you mention is that they're also very dry. Water will be the resource issue of the 21st century (it already is becoming so); the place you want to be looking is the Great Lakes area (and, probably, specifically within the drainage basin of the Great Lakes so you don't run afoul of the interstate water compact).
  • Accujack 6y ago
    > the place you want to be looking is the Great Lakes area (and, probably, specifically within the drainage basin of the Great Lakes so you don't run afoul of the interstate water compact Actually, not so much. There's a lot of water in the lakes, but it's not being replaced quickly. Lake superior actually has a mean retention time of 191 years. If a lot of people start drawing water out, the lake will shrink. Also, the water resources compact is international, not just between states, and even being in the states' area doesn't mean you can source water from the lakes.
    • reaperducer 6y ago
      Right now Lake Michigan water levels are at a record high, and the lake is eating some Chicago neighborhoods. This is only expected to get worse as sea levels rise and the lakes can't drain as effectively into the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
      • Taniwha 6y ago
        I don't expect that will be an issue in Michigan until after sea level rise tops Niagra Falls
        • mbreese 6y ago
          This is already an issue in Michigan as soil erosion around the lakeshore is causing major property damage. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/17/great-lakes-water-levels-records-erosion-damage/5450910002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/17/g...
• Accujack 6y ago
  Building a city that way probably isn't the way of the future. Do a google for the concept of "arcologies".
• aww_dang 6y ago
  It could be done privately under the right circumstances. Government could incentivize it with a special economic zone. There's also a large exodus of Hong Kong residents who've proposed to build a city in Ireland. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/hong-kong-property-tycoon-ivan-ko-pitches-new-city-idea-to-ireland https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/hong-kong-prop...
• CarbyAu 6y ago
  I can't help but think that rail mass transit needs work too. Thoughts I am sure have appeared elsewhere: - instead of cars, have a car cabin with standardised externals. Like a tiny shipping container with windows and aircon. - self driving and loading vehicles and railways take your cabin where you want to go and park it when you get there. - your cabin is treated like a packet on the transport network
  • icebraining 6y ago
    That seems massively complicated compared to dropping the user by the train. What are you trying to optimize?
    • LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      Probably minimizing interaction with the unwashed masses.
      • CarbyAu 6y ago
        :-) I don't have an issue with unwashed masses. But many people do so I would absolutely see that as a benefit. Especially apparent during COVID times. But the idea is to see beyond "self driving cars". If you jump in a car and just wait for your arrival, why not jump into a car-like cabin and let the transport network figure out the most efficient way to get you from A-B. Including use of rail where that works. Why not flights too? Obviously this is fantasy stuff, but we're talking about fantasy cities here of which transport is a big part. Once you have "transport as a service" that is as good as cars(door-to-door), you can then design cities with more walking spaces in mind too. For those inclined to mingle with the unwashed masses. :-P
        • LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
          Cryogenic rejuvenation coffins to use the lost transport time in the most efficient way and allow for maximum packing density!
• iso1631 6y ago
  > Either rooftop solar, or green roofs everywhere If you want a dense city, you want green roofs - with access. Land in a city is too valuable to waste on solar - stick that stuff out in the desert where nobody wants to be. > Cut-and-cover highway tunnels Take an existing dense city like Manhattan and build a new platform above the roads. Existing ground floor becomes basement, new platforms become park/pavements/plazas rather than for cars and trucks. Cities rise anyway - look at down town Seatle for a high speed example, but if you go to old cities in the UK, say Cambridge, and look at buildings 1000 years old, they're a significant drop down from today's "ground level".
  • mbreese 6y ago
    > Cities rise anyway - look at down town Seatle for a high speed example, but if you go to old cities in the UK, say Cambridge, and look at buildings 1000 years old, they're a significant drop down from today's "ground level". Or, if you’re someplace like 1850-1860s Chicago, you just lift the entire city up a few feet to create a new ground level. This too was for infrastructure reasons, but instead of transportation, it was for a sewer/drainage system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago This then repeated itself in Chicago (and elsewhere). In the twentieth century, buildings were constructed over existing (and working) rail lines. These are existing example of using air rights to hide infrastructure to make the rest of the city more livable. https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/technology-that-changed-chicago-air-rights/ https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/technology-that-changed... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights Even more recently, capping a highway was proposed by Cincinnati in their bid for Amazon’s HQ2. https://cincinnatiideas.com/2017/09/25/how-cincinnati-could-land-amazons-hq2/ https://cincinnatiideas.com/2017/09/25/how-cincinnati-could-...
  • 3131s 6y ago
    My dream is to live in a city of large "superblocks" with public roof spaces that are interconnected by skyways.
    • LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
• kleiba 6y ago
  Such a city would have sounded like a dream to my mid-20-year old self. Today, many years later, I most certainly would not want to live in a place like that.
• simonebrunozzi 6y ago
  I tried to do that, by founding a startup in 2017. I left after ~20 months (amicably), while the company took a different direction. [0] I came to the realization that to build something this large you need to be a billionaire to start with. Problem is, most billionaires probably don't have a good idea of why or how to do this in the first place. [0]: https://www.fabrica.land https://www.fabrica.land