3 ms·

I think it’s weird we haven’t made any new cities in what, 100 years? We just keep trying to crowd into existing places.

MattGaiser 2y ago
People don't want to be part of founding new places. They don't want to go to small places.
- bachmeier 2y ago
  The exception to that is retired people. Everyone else needs to worry about job opportunities and schools for their kids.
  - nullindividual 2y ago
    Even retired people want to be near major hospitals.
bee_rider 2y ago
Apparently the population of Las Vegas was ~2k people in 1920. I think cities just take a while to grow.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Downtown Las Vegas was Tony Hsieh's baby and he sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into it to make it what it is today, and that's as part of an existing city. Cities take a lot of money to grow.
jackcosgrove 2y ago
South Korea built a new capital but most everyone there still tries to live in Seoul. There are very affordable cities in upstate New York within a few hours of New York City that are still losing population. This concentration in winner cities might swamp efforts to lower prices with new cities. Arguably the Sunbelt suburban cities are new cities. If 90% of a metro's population is new since 1945, that's a new city grafted onto an old town. In the US at least, we have built new cities, and we have also crowded into a smaller number of winner cities. Canada, despite being huge, actually has fewer opportunities for new cities because building on the Canadian shield is impractical.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
We settled the best spots already. There are huge economic returns for living in an urban area with other people, so its hard to bootstrap new cities. I think it would basically require starting as a company town. Epic medical records sort of did this in Madison
- syntactile 2y ago
  Epic has had a significant influence on Madison's economy but I'm pretty sure hosting one of the country's larger universities and state government have played a greater role in its growth than any private investments. It's Madison's consequently vibrant culture that makes its housing competitive.

MattGaiser 2y ago

People don't want to be part of founding new places. They don't want to go to small places.

bachmeier 2y ago
The exception to that is retired people. Everyone else needs to worry about job opportunities and schools for their kids.
- nullindividual 2y ago
  Even retired people want to be near major hospitals.

bee_rider 2y ago

Apparently the population of Las Vegas was ~2k people in 1920. I think cities just take a while to grow.

fragmede 2y ago
Downtown Las Vegas was Tony Hsieh's baby and he sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into it to make it what it is today, and that's as part of an existing city. Cities take a lot of money to grow.

jackcosgrove 2y ago

South Korea built a new capital but most everyone there still tries to live in Seoul. There are very affordable cities in upstate New York within a few hours of New York City that are still losing population. This concentration in winner cities might swamp efforts to lower prices with new cities. Arguably the Sunbelt suburban cities are new cities. If 90% of a metro's population is new since 1945, that's a new city grafted onto an old town. In the US at least, we have built new cities, and we have also crowded into a smaller number of winner cities. Canada, despite being huge, actually has fewer opportunities for new cities because building on the Canadian shield is impractical.

HDThoreaun 2y ago

We settled the best spots already. There are huge economic returns for living in an urban area with other people, so its hard to bootstrap new cities. I think it would basically require starting as a company town. Epic medical records sort of did this in Madison

syntactile 2y ago
Epic has had a significant influence on Madison's economy but I'm pretty sure hosting one of the country's larger universities and state government have played a greater role in its growth than any private investments. It's Madison's consequently vibrant culture that makes its housing competitive.