6 ms·
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 bus
by 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 agoYeah 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 agoWhat 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 agoThat's what happens in northern Canada.
- blaser-waffle 6y agoNot just northern, try "central" Canada -- still pretty dang far north compared to other places.
- dwighttk 6y agoso the federal government is building these cities?
- CyberDildonics 6y ago30 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 agoI think Lucasfilm found out how much a counterforce there is to building things. Also a community center...
- CyberDildonics 6y agoYou realize they have two buildings there right?
- CyberDildonics 6y agoI think you are missing the point that there is a lot of free land. My question was why someone would bring up moving to rural montana, when most major cities are surrounded by uninhabited land. California is a state. You might be thinking of Marin county, which surrounds only about 12 miles of the 101 freeway, so this is nonsense from multiple angles.
- BurningFrog 6y ago> My question was why someone would bring up moving to rural montana, when most major cities are surrounded by uninhabited land I'll repeat my answer with less sarcasm: Because building new cities there is not legally allowed. It's physically, but not regulatorily possible.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoYou chose to ignore the actual point I was making that close ouskirts of major cities are still uninhabited and there is no need to go to 'rural montana'. Any large construction needs to go an approval process, the article talks about the same thing. This article is about a giant project, the point isn't about any single place that would be more or less resistant. It is about the fact that large amounts of unused land with close proximity to major cities is common.
- nwatson 6y agoBrasília 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 agoThere 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 agoI 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 agoIn 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 agoThat 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.