4 ms·

I'd love more company-designed-and-built towns. There's plenty of land. I'd be happy to look at a town built by a private company (probably a single-purpose e

by rdl 12y ago

I'd love more company-designed-and-built towns. There's plenty of land. I'd be happy to look at a town built by a private company (probably a single-purpose entity, but imagine if Whole Foods got into this?). As long as there's a basic level of legal protection from state/federal law, having municipal-level government handled by a hybrid of company (as vendor/owner) and residents would be interesting. It's also something people have looked at for outside the US -- e.g. the "Free Cities" projects, and various free trade zones around the world.

jonnathanson 12y ago
One of the most famous planned, corporate-developed communities in recent memory is Celebration, FL, originally developed by Disney. It's got a very Stepford feel to it. Almost like living in Main Street, USA in Disneyworld or Disneyland. Some people dig that, though. It's not unlike the community mentioned in this article. I wouldn't want to live there, but I can see the appeal to those who would, and I don't begrudge them their tastes. A little less extreme are some of the privately planned cities in Southern California, like Irvine or Mission Viejo. These are generally affluent "commuter cities" whose governments aren't necessarily privately run, but whose majority landholders (and de facto bosses) tend to be the original developers. I'd say the jury is still out on how successful these projects have been.[1] The SoCal privately planned communities have done pretty well for themselves, but they've benefitted tremendously from the expansion of the city, services, and infrastructure around and between them. It would seem much harder to make an isolated, self-sustaining community work. [1] As cities, that is. As corporations, they've done phenomenally well for their developers. The developer of Irvine is worth about $14 billion, which puts him in the running for richest man in Southern California.
- eclipxe 12y ago
  Irvine is definitely not a commuter city. It is the hub of business in Orange County with many people commuting from other cities and counties into Irvine. Mission Viejo on the other hand is a commuter city. Both are the brain child of Donald Bren (who happens to have donated a large sum to UC Irvine and the CS school is now named after him ) Zot.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
rsynnott 12y ago
You have potentially very serious problems if the company runs into trouble, or simply changes direction, though. If a local authority runs into financial trouble, then depending on the jurisdiction, it may be given more money by the central government, or bailed out, or given artificially cheap loans, or similar, but it will rarely just be _abandoned_. With a company-run town, however, you have a serious problem. What happens when things go wrong? One solution, of course, is that the local authority takes over, and this has happened a lot in many countries on a smaller scale, with privately managed housing estates and so on taken on by the local authority, but this really isn't a great solution; it's expensive for the local authority and an essential subsidy to the company, and couldn't be permitted on a very large scale. In particular, you'd expect a company run town to be a disaster waiting to happen in the case where a property bubble collapses. Of course, there are other problems; unless you're very careful, and regulate heavily, you'll end up with uncompetitive local supermarkets, and so on, for instance. And at a certain level of regulation, you're just using a private company to perform a government function, with the government telling it how to do it; this is almost never cost-effective.
- adventured 12y ago
  Detroit today rather acts as a proof against what you're claiming. And that involved a lot more people than a small corporate town ever could. In fact it was arguably the most important industrial city of the 20th century. They've allowed Detroit to just gradually erase from existence. It is being abandoned. They're demolishing parts of it that are decaying. In many parts of Detroit they can't pay police or teachers; they can't support fire fighters or other basic services.

by rdl 12y ago

jonnathanson 12y ago

One of the most famous planned, corporate-developed communities in recent memory is Celebration, FL, originally developed by Disney. It's got a very Stepford feel to it. Almost like living in Main Street, USA in Disneyworld or Disneyland. Some people dig that, though. It's not unlike the community mentioned in this article. I wouldn't want to live there, but I can see the appeal to those who would, and I don't begrudge them their tastes. A little less extreme are some of the privately planned cities in Southern California, like Irvine or Mission Viejo. These are generally affluent "commuter cities" whose governments aren't necessarily privately run, but whose majority landholders (and de facto bosses) tend to be the original developers. I'd say the jury is still out on how successful these projects have been.[1] The SoCal privately planned communities have done pretty well for themselves, but they've benefitted tremendously from the expansion of the city, services, and infrastructure around and between them. It would seem much harder to make an isolated, self-sustaining community work. [1] As cities, that is. As corporations, they've done phenomenally well for their developers. The developer of Irvine is worth about $14 billion, which puts him in the running for richest man in Southern California.

eclipxe 12y ago
Irvine is definitely not a commuter city. It is the hub of business in Orange County with many people commuting from other cities and counties into Irvine. Mission Viejo on the other hand is a commuter city. Both are the brain child of Donald Bren (who happens to have donated a large sum to UC Irvine and the CS school is now named after him ) Zot.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rsynnott 12y ago

You have potentially very serious problems if the company runs into trouble, or simply changes direction, though. If a local authority runs into financial trouble, then depending on the jurisdiction, it may be given more money by the central government, or bailed out, or given artificially cheap loans, or similar, but it will rarely just be _abandoned_. With a company-run town, however, you have a serious problem. What happens when things go wrong? One solution, of course, is that the local authority takes over, and this has happened a lot in many countries on a smaller scale, with privately managed housing estates and so on taken on by the local authority, but this really isn't a great solution; it's expensive for the local authority and an essential subsidy to the company, and couldn't be permitted on a very large scale. In particular, you'd expect a company run town to be a disaster waiting to happen in the case where a property bubble collapses. Of course, there are other problems; unless you're very careful, and regulate heavily, you'll end up with uncompetitive local supermarkets, and so on, for instance. And at a certain level of regulation, you're just using a private company to perform a government function, with the government telling it how to do it; this is almost never cost-effective.

adventured 12y ago
Detroit today rather acts as a proof against what you're claiming. And that involved a lot more people than a small corporate town ever could. In fact it was arguably the most important industrial city of the 20th century. They've allowed Detroit to just gradually erase from existence. It is being abandoned. They're demolishing parts of it that are decaying. In many parts of Detroit they can't pay police or teachers; they can't support fire fighters or other basic services.