I wrote this in a recent article [1]:<p><i>Today, if a wealthy benefactor wanted to emulate a Renaissance patron and fund an architect or artist to create a new town square or city park, it’s unclear how he or she would even go about doing so. There don’t appear to be any financial instruments specifically designed for rewarding investors that fund integrated artworks. The design of the public space would almost certainly be watered down and subject to various governmental councils and community groups. Hostile attitudes toward the wealthy would probably result in the park being vandalized, if it were actually built.</i><p>The hostility toward ideas like this new city is a major reason why we don’t have Renaissance-quality architecture anymore. Some of the most beautiful cities in the world were funded by the past equivalent of billionaires.<p>Today, there is too much resentment and tall poppy syndrome and any attempts to use private funds toward architectural projects is immediately criticized as being a bad thing.<p>1. <a href="https://onthearts.com/p/modern-culture-is-too-escapist-part" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://onthearts.com/p/modern-culture-is-too-escapist-part</a>
Such an outmoded idea — when will the effort to build utopia stop?<p><a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-the-luster-is-fading-on-once-vaunted-smart-cities" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-the-luster-is-fading-on-o...</a><p>Health care. Living wage. Alternative transport. Small affordable homes.<p>Please stop trying to build Disneyland and just focus on reducing regulation and corruption happen and letting innovation happen in existing cities.
Other than generic finger wagging that happens anytime rich people do anything, can anyone cite an actual problem with this?<p>Seems like it’s not harming anyone and more experiments and innovation in cities seems like a good thing.
The US already had to deal with the corporate cities problem, btw. Its nothing new. First, as a tragedy, now as a farce.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town</a>
SillyCon Valley is a National Security Threat. It's destabilising. It has tons of cash but it has no clue how to spend it. The greatest misallocation of capital in the history of mankind.<p>They are not going to build a city on this land. Only a fool would believe that.
“By land grab” they mean. Offering 4x market rate for land nobody else is much interested in. To build a dense urban environment because none of the other cities in the area seem to be able to get out of their own way.
No idea if it will work out or be a net positive or not. History is littered with failed attempts.<p>But that’s a pretty negative framing right out of the gate.
woud this be like HN but a city? Can't say or do fun things that aren't "adding value" or engage in discourse with an unpopular view unless you get shadow-banned (they throttle so much, I can't have a discourse if more than 2-3 people reply to anything I post here lol). The goal is to add value, to protect value which means maintain appearances and orderliness and conformity so that the sensibilities of the elite are guarded and the majority of the desirables come and stay.<p>Ugh, at least there will be a lot smart and kind people there? And a lot of niche cities like austin, portland, seattle and such are already very tribal like this? But too much like living in a billionaire's mansion for my taste.<p>There could be a far worse group to start a city. I think this is a net benefit for CA, more housing and infra is always good and I am glad more people will find a place they belong at.<p>My only problem with this would be if they plan on building a lot of short or single family housing. More tall multi family housing will improve the overlall situation.
It will be like that episode of the Simpsons "They Saved Lisa's Brain" - where the super-intelligent take over Springfield and its a disaster
Why build an entire city instead of improving an existing one?<p>I imagine it’s because of pesky governments run by elected citizens who share common interests with their constituents.<p>What unholy shenanigans will these billionaires force on their residents who will undoubtedly have no role in the government?
This the right path: entire city that is wholly owned by one company, with nothing for sale, only rentals. Gated. City council is same thing as company's board of directors. Police are private guards. You fail to pay the rent of violate rules, you are escorted off the premises: no homelessness, no unemployment, and minimum crime. Near-equality and almost flat social structure, no hate or envy.
It will be expensive, but personally i'd love to pay twice to live in a place like that.