3 ms·

While I don't disagree with your premise of monotonically increasing home value, now it has me thinking: There's plenty of cheap land where we could make cheap

by cbanek 2y ago

While I don't disagree with your premise of monotonically increasing home value, now it has me thinking: There's plenty of cheap land where we could make cheap houses. It's just in the middle of nowhere. Why isn't America making more new big cities? It seems like most new cities are suburbs of large metro areas, which makes sense for jobs, but not for cheap housing. Of course the problem is in a new city you'll have people before you have jobs, but really you need jobs to have people be able to live there. Remote jobs could be the kickstarter here though, as long as you have reasonable internet. Or having a "company town," kind of like the car makers of old. This could increase housing supply, keeping prices cheap, while still keeping an ever increasing property value investment for those who live there. Really I think it comes down to the fact that we don't have new cities, and the small cities that could grow are very rural and are usually losing population. Am I missing something here? Maybe I just don't know about these hot new cities because they are still small?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
You need people who have strong guarantees their jobs will remain remote, or can be swapped when they need a new remote job. Private industry is never going to be a component in this regard (until remote/flexible work gets codified as a right, when possible, in labor law), but you could do it with federal government jobs (many of which already support this flexibility). Until then, workers will be forced to live where there is a lack of housing because jobs require it.
- cbanek 2y ago
  Right, although nobody really has a guarantee about their job, not even government jobs. I think what it comes down to is the number of jobs you could take if your job is eliminated (and this is where your point about remote work being safe enough to swap for another job). But as soon as you get a nucleus of remote workers, now you'll need to build more businesses in the city to support them, like gas station, restaurants, etc. Those jobs aren't remote jobs and will be filled by locals. You really need both to get it going. Agree government jobs would really help keep the stability.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Wouldn’t hurt to attract a sufficient population of retirees that had pension and social security income, thereby providing some measure of income base for the local economic system that couldn’t be revoked (unless they all moved out of course). Same way investment and retirement visas work.
    - cbanek 2y ago
      Totally. Having retirees would also quickly require a reasonable medical system - another thing that small towns struggle with providing.
quickthrowman 2y ago
> There's plenty of cheap land where we could make cheap houses. It's just in the middle of nowhere. Why isn't America making more new big cities? There’s a few reason, I’ll tackle the geographic one. Big cities already occupy most/all the spots that work for big cities. Big cities almost invariably share a few attributes: -Interstate freeway access -On a navigable waterway or ocean -Railroad infrastructure I personally believe that navigable waterway/ocean proximity is the main thing that allows large cities to develop. Take a look at the navigable waterway map of the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_Unit... There are only a handful of major cities that aren’t on a navigable river or on the coast: Denver, Phoenix, Dallas/Ft Worth, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Indianapolis (probably more I am missing) Minnesota is an interesting case, MPLS/St Paul is reachable from the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi, and Duluth is reachable from the Atlantic Ocean via the St Lawrence Seaway (and Great Lakes). As the crow flies, the ocean is 800-1000 miles away from MN but it’s still accessible by water.
- naijaboiler 2y ago
  historically cities developed along navigable waterways. Not as necessary in modern times. But lots of big cities are a continuation of existing cities
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  > (probably more I am missing) Pretty sure you're missing a lot of them Just from skimming the biggest 100 U.S. cities, these jump out to me * Austin * San Antonio * Colombus * Charlotte * Oklahoma City * El Paso * Albuquerque * Tucson * Fresno * Mesa * Colorado Springs * Raleigh * Bakersfield * Arlington * Wichita * Aurora * Anaheim * Henderson * Orlando * Lexington * Stockton * Riverside * Greensboro * Lincoln * Plano * North Las Vegas * Madison * Chandler * Gilbert * Reno * Fort Wayne * Lubbock * Laredo * Irving * Glendale * Winston-Salem * Scottsdale * Garland * Boise * Spokane * Richmond? So of the 98 cities which are in the contiguous u.s. and in the top 100 most populous cities, 47-48 of them are not connected to waterways on that map, though I realize many of these are parts of the same metro (like 4-5 of them in the dallas/ft worth area)
kelseyfrog 2y ago
At least in California, the rate at which cities are formed is nearly zero, but it didn't used to be the case[1]. California formed two(2) new cities between 2010 and 2020. The short of it is that in 2011 SB89[2] diverted money away from the creation of new cities. Or in other words, we spent the money on something else. 1. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/california-new-city-rare/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/california-new-cit... 2. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_89_bill_20110630_chaptered.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb...
- gedy 2y ago
  California made a huge mistake routing high speed rail through the central valley. It should have gone through to 101 corridor south of SF. Plenty of room for new cities along the rail and nicer weather.
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    The rail goes through Fresno and Bakersfield. Which are on the side of the central valley where people live. State Senator Scott Wiener I think had the right idea about building new housing. Have the state enforce a common zoning and permitting system near mass transit corridors. Nothing within 3/4 of a mile of a BART station for instance should be zoned R1. -gives Berkeley the stink eye-
addicted 2y ago
Or even easier, instead of building new cities, revive existing cities throughout the rust belt with new housing. Bonus, you get a lot of infrastructure, social networks, etc prebuilt for free.

by cbanek 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago

You need people who have strong guarantees their jobs will remain remote, or can be swapped when they need a new remote job. Private industry is never going to be a component in this regard (until remote/flexible work gets codified as a right, when possible, in labor law), but you could do it with federal government jobs (many of which already support this flexibility). Until then, workers will be forced to live where there is a lack of housing because jobs require it.

cbanek 2y ago
Right, although nobody really has a guarantee about their job, not even government jobs. I think what it comes down to is the number of jobs you could take if your job is eliminated (and this is where your point about remote work being safe enough to swap for another job). But as soon as you get a nucleus of remote workers, now you'll need to build more businesses in the city to support them, like gas station, restaurants, etc. Those jobs aren't remote jobs and will be filled by locals. You really need both to get it going. Agree government jobs would really help keep the stability.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Wouldn’t hurt to attract a sufficient population of retirees that had pension and social security income, thereby providing some measure of income base for the local economic system that couldn’t be revoked (unless they all moved out of course). Same way investment and retirement visas work.
  - cbanek 2y ago
    Totally. Having retirees would also quickly require a reasonable medical system - another thing that small towns struggle with providing.

quickthrowman 2y ago

> There's plenty of cheap land where we could make cheap houses. It's just in the middle of nowhere. Why isn't America making more new big cities? There’s a few reason, I’ll tackle the geographic one. Big cities already occupy most/all the spots that work for big cities. Big cities almost invariably share a few attributes: -Interstate freeway access -On a navigable waterway or ocean -Railroad infrastructure I personally believe that navigable waterway/ocean proximity is the main thing that allows large cities to develop. Take a look at the navigable waterway map of the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_Unit... There are only a handful of major cities that aren’t on a navigable river or on the coast: Denver, Phoenix, Dallas/Ft Worth, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Indianapolis (probably more I am missing) Minnesota is an interesting case, MPLS/St Paul is reachable from the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi, and Duluth is reachable from the Atlantic Ocean via the St Lawrence Seaway (and Great Lakes). As the crow flies, the ocean is 800-1000 miles away from MN but it’s still accessible by water.

naijaboiler 2y ago
historically cities developed along navigable waterways. Not as necessary in modern times. But lots of big cities are a continuation of existing cities
pcthrowaway 2y ago
> (probably more I am missing) Pretty sure you're missing a lot of them Just from skimming the biggest 100 U.S. cities, these jump out to me * Austin * San Antonio * Colombus * Charlotte * Oklahoma City * El Paso * Albuquerque * Tucson * Fresno * Mesa * Colorado Springs * Raleigh * Bakersfield * Arlington * Wichita * Aurora * Anaheim * Henderson * Orlando * Lexington * Stockton * Riverside * Greensboro * Lincoln * Plano * North Las Vegas * Madison * Chandler * Gilbert * Reno * Fort Wayne * Lubbock * Laredo * Irving * Glendale * Winston-Salem * Scottsdale * Garland * Boise * Spokane * Richmond? So of the 98 cities which are in the contiguous u.s. and in the top 100 most populous cities, 47-48 of them are not connected to waterways on that map, though I realize many of these are parts of the same metro (like 4-5 of them in the dallas/ft worth area)

kelseyfrog 2y ago

At least in California, the rate at which cities are formed is nearly zero, but it didn't used to be the case[1]. California formed two(2) new cities between 2010 and 2020. The short of it is that in 2011 SB89[2] diverted money away from the creation of new cities. Or in other words, we spent the money on something else. 1. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/california-new-city-rare/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/california-new-cit... 2. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_89_bill_20110630_chaptered.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb...

gedy 2y ago
California made a huge mistake routing high speed rail through the central valley. It should have gone through to 101 corridor south of SF. Plenty of room for new cities along the rail and nicer weather.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  The rail goes through Fresno and Bakersfield. Which are on the side of the central valley where people live. State Senator Scott Wiener I think had the right idea about building new housing. Have the state enforce a common zoning and permitting system near mass transit corridors. Nothing within 3/4 of a mile of a BART station for instance should be zoned R1. -gives Berkeley the stink eye-

addicted 2y ago

Or even easier, instead of building new cities, revive existing cities throughout the rust belt with new housing. Bonus, you get a lot of infrastructure, social networks, etc prebuilt for free.