As a self-identified pro-housing (ie, YIMBY) advocate, I am not opposed to the California Forever plan. However, I very much doubt that it will end up being the type of community they are claiming it will be. I expect it will end up being another exurban car-centric community as it's still very far from the major job markets of the core SF Bay Area.
Given the location, I expect most potential residents would prefer to live in a community more like Mountain House, CA (with relatively larger private living space with a few schools and a single strip mall shopping center) than to live in a community with homes built like Noe Valley in SF but without all the benefits of urban amenities that come with living in SF because those benefits are endogenous to the urban economics of a place like SF.
edit to everyone talking about how the backers have the influence to attract tech jobs to their new city. Great, but even if that's the case ... a community like this can't be maintained by people who work in tech alone. It's going to require service workers who will need to live somewhere and while it's nice that the houses in this new city will cost less ($400k to $600k), the more affordable housing stock for service workers will mostly be found in the nearby (yet still to far for public transit so they will need cars) communities of vallejo, fairfield, antioch, stockton, etc. I have yet to read anything about how they plan to fund any subsidized housing in the community (this article only mentions subsidizing businesses). As a Georgist, I know they _could_ do it by establishing something like a community facilities district with much higher taxes on land, but as this project is fundamentally a speculative land investment for its backers I doubt they'd be interested in that.
I would think with the wealth and network of the folks sponsoring California Forever, they'd have enough pull to move offices to the community in order to create jobs for folks desiring to live there. That's the problem, right? People need jobs to live where they want to live. Building the housing alone isn't enough, you have to bring the jobs or otherwise make them available (if you're not supporting remote folks who can bring their own job with them to the housing).
If they actually do build Barcelona-style superblocks full of young families, then tech companies will be chomping at the bit for office space in those same blocks.
California Forever just seems like a bunch of VCs getting tired of watching increasing amounts of money go to vampire NIMBYism and fantasizing about how they could solve the problem.
> And then imagine that you can buy — hopefully you can buy — an apartment in the $400,000 range, or a nice house for $600,000. Those figures are a little bit up in the air, but it will definitely be more affordable.
These... are still relatively unaffordable housing prices.
Not sure why the position is so contentious. My only point is that the pricing for the new planned homes in this development seem to be pretty good pricing compared to the rest of the area. I don't know on a per sqft basis but looks like old turds like this house are selling for 4-500k and newer larger lots are in the million dollar range. A well planned community home for $600k sounds pretty nice.
There are only a couple transactions this year for that kind of price. None of them have interior photos, I'd assume run down. But yeah, it's a lot cheaper than I expected given that houses on the peninsula are 3-4x this price.
Totally agree, I suspect I got the downvotes because my poorly explained post appears that I am going the opposite direction. Most of the homes in the area are million dollar homes. If these new builds are $600k starting, that sounds like a really good deal for someone.
Have they talked about how local laws and elections will work? The backers are putting up a ton of capital and boot strapping it with $1B+ in community benefits and housing subsidies.
When it starts being populated, is it going to be run like a company town[0] where they control the stores and restaurants? How much control will they have over local elections?
Couldn't they simply incorporate?, in the municipal sense.
A quick search indicates this is the process in California:
> Today, incorporation means going through a rigorous and complicated process with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in the county where the community sits (each census-designated place must be contained within a single county). Before a community can even apply for incorporation, at least 25 percent of registered voters there (a community must have a minimum of 500 registered voters to qualify at all) must sign a petition stating their desire to make their community a city.
USA should continue its manifest destiny, build a new artificial island off the coast of California or in the Gulf of Mexico, found an entire new state with a city designed for the modern era for the ground up.
To be fair, a lot of things are the way they are not for any great reason, but because of historical baggage. Things are the way they are because that's how they were before.
We could just invade Canada - I think it’s been long enough that we should give it another shot. Without the British they don’t stand a chance this time around and we've got the fracking technology to exploit the land.
We can probably send the first Marine regiment over as undercover immigrants escaping the possibility of a second Trump regime and gain control of their weaponized maple syrup reserves before they even know what’s happening.
If the US goes for an invasion, I think we'd be way better off invading Baja California. Spice must flow! That is, we must keep up with demand from the Alameda-Weehawken burrito tunnel [0]?
> gain control of their weaponized maple syrup reserves before they even know what’s happening.
Not sure if the BBC is implicit in psyops, but they report the reserves are very low [1]. On the one side, that means the spoils of war are low, on the other side, it means they won't be able to mobilize their unique units.
i don't think so, if it looks like the new state is going to trend blue then the red states are not going to admit it to the union. If it looks like it's going to go red then the blue states are not going to admit it either. If it goes perfectly "purple" or in between then neither side will vote to allow it because it dilutes funding. I don't see a new state joining the union ever.. same goes for one state splitting into multiple or multiple states consolidating into one.
Just like you don't build a company and then look for a product, but instead start with a product and then build a company, she says you start with an economy and then grow a city, not grow a city and then look for an economy.
(looks like Solano is in the Bay Area's CSA, but still, after a bad experience I now have a firm rule: never live or work in a city that's younger than you are)
Not necessarily true, yes, but as a remote worker myself since last century, I've still always chosen places that already had something going on, because I appreciate when goods and services come (close) to me.
Think most of the smaller cities in the burbs either get collected into the county with the big cities. So they hardly ever grow into a bigger city. My small town is 1 block, its now 3, and even got a dollar general. TV/Internet and Cell service is provided by 1 tower for everyone. It wont ever be a city. Rural areas have a limited population to grow.
I seen a few people on yt buy remote land and try to make a small town, but you need enough people to incorporate and build a town before it could ever be built into a city. Unless some new resource is needed and a town/city pops up for workers.
I worked in a city that I commuted to. Downtown was actually pretty nice. It was probably also 12 square blocks to be generous with one nice apartment building. It was actually a separate city (old mill town) but probably not what most people wanting to live in a city have in mind.
The town of Paradise, CA is being rebuilt, after 90% of buildings were destroyed in the fire. There is infrastructure (roads, power, water), but all residential, commerical, and things like doctors are all being recreated and reassessed. It's interesting seeing how things shape up, but it's still a chicken-and-egg problem. A couple new grocery stores are going in, some other services.
Worthless softball interview. Some actual questions that people should ask if they can get this organization in the room: why do they keep saying they are building a city for 400k when an outcome equally compatible with their proposed zoning and design rules is 8 miles of strip malls between Rio Vista and Fairfield? There isn't anything in here that even hints at residential capacity of 400k. The zoned density that covers most of the site is 20 dwellings per gross acre, which is basically zero, and their circulation plan envisions some ludicrous stroads as much as 325 feet wide, which are clearly intended to accommodate car-based travel to the large-format retail and distribution centers that are permitted in all of their zones.
Yeah. When you build a new city you should really start by laying a high speed train line starting at the city center, going directly to a reserved land plot for a new airport exactly 30 minutes away.
I'd assume because there's nowhere with the amount of space required for one, not to mention the complaints you'd have to fight through from every single property nearby that doesn't want to live next to airport.
As a good example - Poland is currently building a new airport literally called "central national airport" with the ambition of it becoming one of the largest European hubs for travel like Frankfurt or Amsterdam, and.... it's being built in the middle of absolute nowhere. People complain about it saying who needs an airport that's not near anything interesting, but at the same time either ignore or don't realize that you couldn't possibly build an airport of that scale if it wasn't in the middle of nowhere.
My response to your first point was going to be "that's why you have to build the airport first" which is exactly why your second point is what it is.
It's probably not fair to let a city build up then plop an airport right next to a bunch of houses, marginally increasing their value to a vanishingly small minority of people for whom living near an airport is a plus and cutting it in half for most other people. But this is why eminent domain is also a thing - sometimes you just have to do it. The problem with airports specifically is that you'll get people from miles away who realistically will feel no ill effects complaining about it as well.
At time of writing, this is downvoted. I virtually never comment on voting/flagging, but this is maybe the most disappointing downvoting I've seen. The parent made a simple logical assertion based obviously on knowledge that was omitted, and was asked the obvious question of "why?". It doesn't get much more innocent than that. I can't know why it was downvoted, but I can't help think it had to do with the tendency to over-interpret tone/implication on controversial topics.
Many things backed by Silicon Valley cofounders seem to be fairly neoliberal (not a criticism, an observation.) But a new city built on the concepts of Barcelona-style streets, neighbourhoods, etc and providing affordable housing seems very public-interest. I love it.
I got the impression that the locals who hate it are the ones who sold land and then realized maybe they could have held out longer for a higher price.
Power infrastructure, water infrastructure, public services, telecom, road design, etc. are all things that very, very much benefit from central planning. Urban planning is not nearly the same as a centrally planned economy.
It's illegal essentially everywhere in the US to organically grow something low-density into a proper city. The only way a new city is getting built at all is to do it that way from the start.
Are you referring to zoning? Because that varies widely in the US and there are many places where zoning wouldn't be a barrier to organically growing a municipality.
There was no way to do it without doing that because the local landowners considered themselves alienated when these guys didn't tell them why they bought the land. Considering that low threshold for alienation, they went the whole way. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Given the location, I expect most potential residents would prefer to live in a community more like Mountain House, CA (with relatively larger private living space with a few schools and a single strip mall shopping center) than to live in a community with homes built like Noe Valley in SF but without all the benefits of urban amenities that come with living in SF because those benefits are endogenous to the urban economics of a place like SF.
edit to everyone talking about how the backers have the influence to attract tech jobs to their new city. Great, but even if that's the case ... a community like this can't be maintained by people who work in tech alone. It's going to require service workers who will need to live somewhere and while it's nice that the houses in this new city will cost less ($400k to $600k), the more affordable housing stock for service workers will mostly be found in the nearby (yet still to far for public transit so they will need cars) communities of vallejo, fairfield, antioch, stockton, etc. I have yet to read anything about how they plan to fund any subsidized housing in the community (this article only mentions subsidizing businesses). As a Georgist, I know they _could_ do it by establishing something like a community facilities district with much higher taxes on land, but as this project is fundamentally a speculative land investment for its backers I doubt they'd be interested in that.