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.
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.
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.
Readit News
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.
These... are still relatively unaffordable housing prices.
I'm not sure that means what you think it means.
Relative to the cost of housing in every nearby city, that's very affordable.
Look up housing prices in places in San Francisco or SV. Tear downs sell for more!
Deleted Comment
$600k gets you something great. Is there a hidden assumption of having 8 kids here, lol?
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?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
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.
https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/s...
Deleted Comment
Show me on the map where you want to put your island...
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.
[0] https://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_...
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.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68657703
Deleted Comment
For example We could admit new states as pairs to maintain the balance of power.
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)
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.