I actually think this is a really good project compared to Telosa. It’s in a great location that’s not far from the Bay Area with good access to highways and potentially regional rail in the future. I understand why people are opposed but the benefits far outweigh any criticisms. It’s a large development but is not unheard of. It kind of reminds me of Walt Disney World Florida in a way with the huge land acquisition and comprehensive master plan. I hope it does succeed one day
You completely ignored what is by far the biggest criticism of the project, which is the lack of connectivity to the main parts of the Bay Area where all the jobs are. The urbanism within the city is great, but that doesn't change the fact that, without a good rail connection, people are still going to have to spend hours supercommuting on highways to their jobs which more than wipes out any benefits from the reduction of car trips within the city itself
@@alexanderrotmensz feels like that would've been worth bringing up in the video then, no? And plans by who? The people building California forever or the agencies themselves? This is certainly the first I've heard of this, and I've been following the project fairly closely It's easy for the California Forever developers to say that they're looking into a Bart or Amtrak extension, but that's rather meaningless unless the actual agencies are on board with it. Considering how both Bart and Amtrak have their hands full with other stuff (like fixing the existing/upgrading the existing Bart infrastructure and making sure the surfliner doesn't fall into the ocean), I hope you'll forgive me for being a bit skeptical that it's actually a priority for either of them This isn't even to mention a lot of the deceptive and under handed practices California Forever has used throughout this whole process. Some else has already mentioned the issues with water rights, but there's also the fact that the way they've been acquiring the land has been rather unethical as well. Instead of buying the land from a willing seller, they've effectively tried to use lawfare to strongarm the current landowners in court, lest they all go bankrupt from the legal fees I'm sorry - I've enjoyed a lot of your videos in the past, but the exclusion of these (very legitimate) criticisms of the project just make it come off as more of a puff piece than anything else
I did mention in the video that they are planning on connecting the city to the Bay Area via "Rapid Transit" but you're right that I didn't specifically name drop BART or Amtrak, so I will concede that I should have done so. I don't think they are in a position just yet, as a project still in its early preliminary stages, to know exactly how that would work in terms of funding. However, I will have an opportunity soon to ask and get a better answer for you. As for the land acquisition/water, I will investigate that more for a future video that will be out soon. I didn't want to go into it without getting a proper perspective on it due to its complex elements. Hope that clears a lot of these things up. This video is more meant to cover the plans purely from an urbanist standpoint rather than a political one, but you're right to indicate that the more political conversation is needed.
I just don't really see how this would alleviate Bay Area housing prices or not be just another form of profit seeking in the form of exurban development. I think there are ways to solve the infill development problem in our existing urban cores and their associated suburbs--but that would involve politicians actually doing their job...
Fantastic video, thanks for bringing light to this. I remember driving through that area on a recent trip and thinking it needed some sort of new urban development. Very cool to learn about this project.
Ive just checked the numbers. They want half a million people to want to live in that city apparently. And they want the urban area to take up 70 square kilometers. Which means that they intend to house 7150 people per square kilometer. Thats densities achivble with single family homes. I dunno, i would trust them about as much as any other billionaire. As in, not at all. Also, the massive solar panel area is quite questionable. Probably will just end up as a mansion district.
You've miscalculated that. The majority of the land they own will be the solar farm, agricultural land, and park space. From the actual built up area, it will be a density between 15-20k per square mi, which is about 3-4 times denser than a single family home neighborhood.
I live in Solano county. I think you need to research this project further. Its location in the county is disconnected from any transportation infrastructure. They say they have water rights, but they haven’t provided proof of that. Also, Solano county is not a rich county. If this city saddles the county with any external costs it’ll reduce the funds to fix the issues already facing the county. This plan was done in secret and the planners have not shown that they have a solid plan that will be effectively implemented over time. At the end of the day, the urban boundary laws of Solano county require the residents of our county to vote whether to add another city or not.
I agree. It's extremely difficult to just build a new city out of nowhere, even if you are funded by billionaires. The Google Village in San Jose won't be happening anymore. Neom in Saudi Arabia, New Cairo in Egypt, and Nusantara in Indonesia all have massive problems and are worth questioning why they are being built in the first place. California Forever seems to be the most promising out of all those examples, but we don't really have a good role model to compare this with. Cities planned entirely from the top-down are rare because they simply do not make sense logistically and financially. If billionaires want to help the housing crisis, they need to focus on existing cities where people actually live, not some random swamp in Solano County.
Withdrawing from the ballot shows they didn't get the support they expected. Those foreign examples are backed by states; as insane as Neom is, I'd bet on it over Cali Forever. Salt Lake City and Philadelphia were both top-down plans, but they had a religious drive to succeed behind them. If Cali Forever is just motivated by finance, it will be beaten by "not in my backyard"
I normally don’t rewatch videos, which is a shame because I really needed to with this one since it was kinda oddly formatted and I didn’t really understand what kind of point you were making, particularly in the first half. For example, you talked about urban areas being too sparse or too dense, but then showed a study that looked at housing types, not at actual housing densities. Also, some other points: -there isn’t really such a thing as housing that is “too dense” it’s more likely you are referring to housing quality or size. -Inner cities often bring a more ‘indecent’ (?) crowd with them because they have been underfunded for decades with little access to good education, healthcare and greenspace compared to the outer suburbs and even some of the inner suburbs. -you mention that the new project would inspire other places to change, but that’s not really the case, since it itself is inspired by already existing places anyways. Plus, as others mentioned it’s not connected to any mass transit. My own point, however, is this may be only affordable to more wealthy citizens, which is still a barrier. In fact, cities are already trying to change. Just some are slower than others. And often the bureaucracy in effect is not engaging or productive with the community, it often creates black and white situations, the worst for actually advocating for a project.
Building a whole new city without car-dependant infrastructure sounds too good to be true! I hope this it the direction future developments go in. That being said, it's probably much easier to legalize 2-4 unit dwellings and ADUs on 1-unit lots for a gentle increase in density
Strange video. So all of these videos on RUclips criticize the lack of density. Then we get the density. But then people criticize the 5 over 1 for using cheap materials. I would prefer actual high rises to 5 over 1. But the you criticize that as well. Sounds like you want something like Washington DC. Most cities are never going to be that though.
I never criticized 5 over 1s in any video of mine. However, I of course would want high quality buildings, architecturally and materially, 5 over 1 or otherwise. You also mention how most cities can never be DC in terms of height and density. Why not?
@alexanderrotmensz Because it isn't practical. You can’t be serious. DC is an administrative district with strict height limits. It isn't a city in the traditional sense. I think you want homogeneity in American cities and value utility or find a beautiful aesthetic in utility.
It does matter if they do BRT over rail. Buses suck compared to trains. They are less sustainable both economically and environmentally as well and don’t shift us away from car culture.
There are great BRT sections, especially in Asia, that function exactly like LRT. Overall it's just cheaper and more flexible. While I agree rail is more optimal, good BRT is a great option for places that can't afford it.
That's not the worst travesty here. They are planning for 500.000 people It's a greenfield. They aren't doing it in a existing city. Build a dam subway. Graz with its 300.000 inhabitants is getting a subway, and they have to use tunneling machines atleast in sections by virtue of building in a existing city. Lausanne has one with its 150k people Helsinki with its 400k people has one. Nürnberg with its 550k people has one. East solano could simply cut and cover and get a subway for comparatively cheap, atleast in comparison to having to add it in later. What are they doing?
I’d imagine this would be really appealing to people, so unless more of these were being built, it might not be so affordable due to sheer demand. Even then, this is close to how I would design cities if I ever could. If this venture was ever undertaken in the Midwest, then could be the chance for a renaissance of the American Foursquare type of house, which I think was one of our best styles of houses for how it looks and how it efficiently uses space.
Density doesn't equal affordability. The problem is that a lot of people want to live in the same place. That is why NYC is very un- affordable even though it is very dense. The phenomenon is called induced demand where an increase in the supply of a good or service leads to an increase in its consumption. That is especially true now when mega corporations like Blackrock are buying homes left and right. Cost to build a house is more or less the same across the country. The variables are cost of the land and cost of regulations. If you want affordable housing you need Sprawl. Build more roads, more mass transit. Aim to get gas and cars cheaper. Prohibit mega corporations like Blackrock from scooping all the homes. Invest in neglected neighborhoods and Towns. People follow work. If good jobs are found not only in major cities people will have more incentive to live in small towns (cheaper land cost). Also, traditional property taxes and Land Value Tax are a wealth taxs and will push people out their homes when Value of land or homes goes up.
Since I actually live not too far from the area they're proposing building the city, I think I might have some insight to give both to the vid and to people who've wondered what the local area is like. Northern California certainly does have beautiful scenery, but this area is certainly not one of them. The area is a dry, dusty grassland, filled with rather run-down looking farms and locals who can be somewhat unfriendly. The idea of developing it into a more dense environment that can house people is certainly worthwhile and won't damage any area of natural beauty. Further, with some people worried about the county being too strapped for cash, the plan would at least give the county a wealthier tax base to drawn funds from, especially without the long-term maintenance cost explosion of typical suburban development. Ideally, the city would serve as a proof of concept that this sort of denser urbanist design can work in the US, and thus could be used to convince those more troublesome localities, like San Jose, many LA suburbs, and my own locality that insists that everything remain in stasis. Heck, one idea would be eventually building a small rail station in this city and connecting it to Fairfield and Dixon, which could help breathe some life into those communities. As to concerns about where the money is coming from, I frankly don't care. The problem is cities refusing to densify and this offers a clear proof of concept that middle-density can work. If the problem is being solved, does it really matter if the money comes from some rich patron or some grassroots movement?
I hope they don't strangle local business/housing affordability by making it some artificial master plan community with too many rules/regulations. We really need to just let people decide with their feet and their dollars what they really want. Too many regulations make getting what you want illegal.
Can you not buy appartments? I mean you said either live in appartment and give money to big owners or buy a house? I know an appartment is not the American dream but it's better than owning nothing
Technically an apartment that is bought rather than rented is considered a condo, afaik. Almost all new apartment complexes built are exclusively for rent.
It's not a bad idea. I don't know what the area currently looks like. But would not it be more cost efficient to make the nearby cities more pedestrian friendly than building a new city and ask people to move in? I guess there are too many obstacles to improve the existing cities?
The deep irony of all of this is the type of wealthy tech people who want to use their resources to build this instant city are the same ones who use their resources to actively block development in the cities that already exist. The rich owners of mansions on Telegraph or Russian hills have gathered together countless times to block housing towers for such crimes as "destroying the city’s beauty" (real fear; blocking their pricey views) and "changing the neighborhood character" (real fear: poor people moving in). This is happening all over the bay area. Down the peninsula, in the same towns where tech mega-corporations have their HQ campuses and 60 year old starter homes are worth a million dollars, the wealthy residents block small infill apartments with the fervor of a walled city fighting off an invading army, while the nurses, firefighters and teachers their communities rely on to function must live in Modesto to find housing. So my argument is this; how can a cabal of tech leaders "fix" urbanism when they are the same people who created the obstacles that broke it to begin with? If these billionaires have the influence to build a city from nothing, can they not influence their peers to stop preventing affordable housing construction? Can they not pay for pro urbanism PR campaigns to dispel misinformation? Can they not hire a team of lawyers to fight off the NIMBY lawyers at every turn? The truth is this plan is just a gated community with a urbanist wrapping. Sure, the McMansions have been swapped out for townhouses, but it's still just as controlled, just as manicured, just as homogenous, just as isolated from the rest of the region as the suburbs this town claims to be saving us from.
Too many obstacles 100%. It would simply be far more complicated and limiting. Like what're you going to do with San Jose? At this point you'd have to rip the roads out of the ground and start over again to make anything that is cohesive and properly urbanist.
There is a city where their changing its density and using walkable in the US called Carmel in Indiana you could do for a video that I think you’ll enjoy❤
Your point on De Moines is completely true, although a lot of the parking in the city center is just parallel parking or garages. Still, it's ridiculously cheap, too cheap.
This is a pretty good idea overall though I would assume a concern would be that this if funded by billionaires and not the government. I would ironically say billionaires have more of an incentive than the government to build a new city, and I'm glad it's a group of investors. I would prefer if it extended beyond Silicon Valley, but that's the reality in the Bay Area so I'm worried it would only go towards tech and nothing else, driving up prices and becoming the rest of California.
what do you mean "ironically"? capitalists always are better than politicians at everything, including lying. of course developers would be more incentivized to build a city than a government, and they would be more successful at it too. most of californias problems stem from thinking the government can solve all the problems, and punishing companies for making money
Part of these complaints about "the government" getting in the way ignores that a lot of the reason the government can do this is because the current residents of the cities in question are telling it to. It's the current residents, especially homeowners, who come out and block development that would change anything that could affect the "character" of the city, their property values, and other things particular to them. Sure, there are other vested interests. But if you look at who blocks changes that could eliminate parking, increase density beyond massive SFH lots, or introduce mixed-use or affordable housing, it's the current residents. Blaming "the government" in these chats seems to be completely ignoring this fact. It's the _people_ of these cities that block changes.
@@Rootiga Oh, I agree. I mentioned "ironically" in more of a condescending tone towards the federal government, not towards the billionaires. I support this because citizens can live more comfortably, people's voices are finally being heard, the billionaires make a nice profit, and it will make a positive impact on policies for decades to come. Always been supportive of decentralization and moving away from government and more meritocracy, though not in the same way China runs their own government.
It’s disturbing how there are in fact many cities in California like SLO and Monterey that are virtually empty. There is a lot of space and places people can live in California but not enough opportunities or feasibility for them.
I truly hope that it gets made. It’s definitely not without drawbacks, but considering all the thousands of horrible, unsustainable cities with urban sprawl that the US already have, what’s the harm in trying something different in just a handful of places? Even if it is funded by billionaires in an unattractive area. The fact that it is funded by the ultra rich also hopefully means less public money being wasted in case the project flops completely.
Classical buildings however were built during times of cheaper materials and labor. Idc if it looks Californian or classical or not, if it’s decent looking and has affordable units to live in then all fine by me.
@@leiregyp5814 I do, I just don’t like the chest puffing we do here. We’re obviously wealthy, but we just refuse to give free healthcare to our citizens, which blows my mind considering we’re also one of the more religious countries in the world.
Is the architectural style of the buildings in the rendering actually the style they're going for, or is is just a generic style that was easy to use for the pictures? Because if this project were to go through, they could likely go for more pleasing styles when the building process actually starts.
Have you heard of Developments like Seabrook in Washington State or places like the Wheeler District in Oklahoma? These are examples of developments trying to bridge out of the typical suburban development.
reminds me of a giant rockville town square. i used to work in rockville town square 10 years ago, in an office on the top floor of a cool building, and many of my coworkers also lived right around the corner...had to park in a nice dedicated parking building like 200m away, and nice little walk every morning and evening, but i used to eat my lunch in restaurants right there. *loved that location.* lol, and i only lived 10 minutes away, i had it super lucky for the dc metro area. 🤣
I heavily disagree with your drawbacks to the multi-family infill development. You say that those apartment buildings can be overly dense and discourage families from moving there, but the density in the picture you showed is only a little bit more than the buildings of Paris or Lyons. I don't see you complaining about those cities. You show pictures of homeless people, as if our current unaffordable housing isn't one of the driving factors that makes people homeless. These modern apartments are "frankly ugly"? First, you shouldn't be using asthetics as a main argument to a housing crisis. Second, they look much, much, less ugly than a lot of our current North American cities. Your only valid point is that these apartment buildings discourage homeownership, but even that is not necessarily true. There's no real reason why you shouldn't be able to buy a place instead of renting. And as much as I would love to see some missing middle housing, these high-density apartment buildings are still positive changes. Let's focus on improving the cities we already have rather than give up and start from scratch in some random swamp in Solano County.
These “high density buildings” are not enduring. He emphasized endurance in his video. Newly constructed, high density buildings all use reinforced concrete; a building material that won’t last more than 50 years. We’re constantly building and demolishing reinforced concrete high rises every 50 years. So how can that be sustainable from an ecological and human standpoint? Medium density construction on the other hand, uses traditional (enduring) construction materials such as stainless steel, brick, stone masonry, and lumber that can last more than 100+ years. A good example to learn from are the railroad buildings of New York or the Chrysler building. Well designed, beautiful and well located with maintenance being minimal compared to land value costs.
@@alexsmith-ob3lu I am all for steel & lumber and long-lasting buildings. We definitely need to focus a lot more on sustainability in our cities. That's exactly why I am against this new city in Solano County. Think about it, which do you think is more sustainable: improving currently existing cities, or constructing a new city from scratch?
@@blackbacon08 The issue you’re addressing now has nothing to do with urban sprawl/planning. If you really wanted infill development done at an incremental pace; you’d support tighter immigration policies and bringing on more financial/education incentives for blue collar trade work. Even if we were to infill all the parking lots; with our rate of immigration (both illegal and legal); we’re going to still end up bulldozing Californian farmlands and native habitats anyways.
@@alexsmith-ob3lu That's rich coming from someone who just completely changed the subject to immigration. International immigration is a whole other topic with which we can debate for days. I'm not interested in doing that here, especially when you already seem to hate foreigners based on your tone.
@@blackbacon08 Keep on coping, buddy. You can’t have it both ways; as environmental stewardship and good urban planning all tie into our immigration policies.
No city is perfect and neither are new proposed cities. But what matters is for them to be at least better than current cities. Modern cities clearly arent working. So if your new proposed city is the same thing thats been built for the last 50 years then its basically pointless. New cities should be built only if the design is something new and fixes problems of modern cities.
I actually think this is a really good project compared to Telosa. It’s in a great location that’s not far from the Bay Area with good access to highways and potentially regional rail in the future. I understand why people are opposed but the benefits far outweigh any criticisms. It’s a large development but is not unheard of. It kind of reminds me of Walt Disney World Florida in a way with the huge land acquisition and comprehensive master plan. I hope it does succeed one day
San Jose is the worst for this..... Damn urban city designers in the 50s. Literally the problem is the government
Government and corpos
You completely ignored what is by far the biggest criticism of the project, which is the lack of connectivity to the main parts of the Bay Area where all the jobs are. The urbanism within the city is great, but that doesn't change the fact that, without a good rail connection, people are still going to have to spend hours supercommuting on highways to their jobs which more than wipes out any benefits from the reduction of car trips within the city itself
There are preliminary plans to possibly extend BART and Amtrak into the new city.
@@alexanderrotmensz feels like that would've been worth bringing up in the video then, no?
And plans by who? The people building California forever or the agencies themselves? This is certainly the first I've heard of this, and I've been following the project fairly closely
It's easy for the California Forever developers to say that they're looking into a Bart or Amtrak extension, but that's rather meaningless unless the actual agencies are on board with it. Considering how both Bart and Amtrak have their hands full with other stuff (like fixing the existing/upgrading the existing Bart infrastructure and making sure the surfliner doesn't fall into the ocean), I hope you'll forgive me for being a bit skeptical that it's actually a priority for either of them
This isn't even to mention a lot of the deceptive and under handed practices California Forever has used throughout this whole process. Some else has already mentioned the issues with water rights, but there's also the fact that the way they've been acquiring the land has been rather unethical as well. Instead of buying the land from a willing seller, they've effectively tried to use lawfare to strongarm the current landowners in court, lest they all go bankrupt from the legal fees
I'm sorry - I've enjoyed a lot of your videos in the past, but the exclusion of these (very legitimate) criticisms of the project just make it come off as more of a puff piece than anything else
I did mention in the video that they are planning on connecting the city to the Bay Area via "Rapid Transit" but you're right that I didn't specifically name drop BART or Amtrak, so I will concede that I should have done so. I don't think they are in a position just yet, as a project still in its early preliminary stages, to know exactly how that would work in terms of funding. However, I will have an opportunity soon to ask and get a better answer for you.
As for the land acquisition/water, I will investigate that more for a future video that will be out soon. I didn't want to go into it without getting a proper perspective on it due to its complex elements. Hope that clears a lot of these things up. This video is more meant to cover the plans purely from an urbanist standpoint rather than a political one, but you're right to indicate that the more political conversation is needed.
I just don't really see how this would alleviate Bay Area housing prices or not be just another form of profit seeking in the form of exurban development. I think there are ways to solve the infill development problem in our existing urban cores and their associated suburbs--but that would involve politicians actually doing their job...
Fantastic video, thanks for bringing light to this. I remember driving through that area on a recent trip and thinking it needed some sort of new urban development. Very cool to learn about this project.
Ive just checked the numbers.
They want half a million people to want to live in that city apparently. And they want the urban area to take up 70 square kilometers.
Which means that they intend to house 7150 people per square kilometer.
Thats densities achivble with single family homes.
I dunno, i would trust them about as much as any other billionaire. As in, not at all.
Also, the massive solar panel area is quite questionable. Probably will just end up as a mansion district.
You've miscalculated that. The majority of the land they own will be the solar farm, agricultural land, and park space. From the actual built up area, it will be a density between 15-20k per square mi, which is about 3-4 times denser than a single family home neighborhood.
I live in Solano county. I think you need to research this project further. Its location in the county is disconnected from any transportation infrastructure. They say they have water rights, but they haven’t provided proof of that. Also, Solano county is not a rich county. If this city saddles the county with any external costs it’ll reduce the funds to fix the issues already facing the county. This plan was done in secret and the planners have not shown that they have a solid plan that will be effectively implemented over time. At the end of the day, the urban boundary laws of Solano county require the residents of our county to vote whether to add another city or not.
I agree.
It's extremely difficult to just build a new city out of nowhere, even if you are funded by billionaires. The Google Village in San Jose won't be happening anymore. Neom in Saudi Arabia, New Cairo in Egypt, and Nusantara in Indonesia all have massive problems and are worth questioning why they are being built in the first place.
California Forever seems to be the most promising out of all those examples, but we don't really have a good role model to compare this with. Cities planned entirely from the top-down are rare because they simply do not make sense logistically and financially. If billionaires want to help the housing crisis, they need to focus on existing cities where people actually live, not some random swamp in Solano County.
Withdrawing from the ballot shows they didn't get the support they expected. Those foreign examples are backed by states; as insane as Neom is, I'd bet on it over Cali Forever.
Salt Lake City and Philadelphia were both top-down plans, but they had a religious drive to succeed behind them. If Cali Forever is just motivated by finance, it will be beaten by "not in my backyard"
I normally don’t rewatch videos, which is a shame because I really needed to with this one since it was kinda oddly formatted and I didn’t really understand what kind of point you were making, particularly in the first half.
For example, you talked about urban areas being too sparse or too dense, but then showed a study that looked at housing types, not at actual housing densities.
Also, some other points:
-there isn’t really such a thing as housing that is “too dense” it’s more likely you are referring to housing quality or size.
-Inner cities often bring a more ‘indecent’ (?) crowd with them because they have been underfunded for decades with little access to good education, healthcare and greenspace compared to the outer suburbs and even some of the inner suburbs.
-you mention that the new project would inspire other places to change, but that’s not really the case, since it itself is inspired by already existing places anyways. Plus, as others mentioned it’s not connected to any mass transit. My own point, however, is this may be only affordable to more wealthy citizens, which is still a barrier.
In fact, cities are already trying to change. Just some are slower than others. And often the bureaucracy in effect is not engaging or productive with the community, it often creates black and white situations, the worst for actually advocating for a project.
Building a whole new city without car-dependant infrastructure sounds too good to be true! I hope this it the direction future developments go in.
That being said, it's probably much easier to legalize 2-4 unit dwellings and ADUs on 1-unit lots for a gentle increase in density
Strange video. So all of these videos on RUclips criticize the lack of density. Then we get the density. But then people criticize the 5 over 1 for using cheap materials. I would prefer actual high rises to 5 over 1. But the you criticize that as well. Sounds like you want something like Washington DC. Most cities are never going to be that though.
I never criticized 5 over 1s in any video of mine. However, I of course would want high quality buildings, architecturally and materially, 5 over 1 or otherwise.
You also mention how most cities can never be DC in terms of height and density. Why not?
@alexanderrotmensz Because it isn't practical. You can’t be serious. DC is an administrative district with strict height limits. It isn't a city in the traditional sense. I think you want homogeneity in American cities and value utility or find a beautiful aesthetic in utility.
It does matter if they do BRT over rail. Buses suck compared to trains. They are less sustainable both economically and environmentally as well and don’t shift us away from car culture.
@@StLouis-yu9iz I definitely agree! If we're building a new city from scratch, why wouldn't we build the best modes of transportation?
There are great BRT sections, especially in Asia, that function exactly like LRT. Overall it's just cheaper and more flexible. While I agree rail is more optimal, good BRT is a great option for places that can't afford it.
That's not the worst travesty here.
They are planning for 500.000 people
It's a greenfield. They aren't doing it in a existing city.
Build a dam subway.
Graz with its 300.000 inhabitants is getting a subway, and they have to use tunneling machines atleast in sections by virtue of building in a existing city.
Lausanne has one with its 150k people
Helsinki with its 400k people has one.
Nürnberg with its 550k people has one.
East solano could simply cut and cover and get a subway for comparatively cheap, atleast in comparison to having to add it in later.
What are they doing?
@@alexanderrotmensz California Forever is literally being funded by billionaires. How are the richest men on Earth not able to afford this?
I’d imagine this would be really appealing to people, so unless more of these were being built, it might not be so affordable due to sheer demand. Even then, this is close to how I would design cities if I ever could.
If this venture was ever undertaken in the Midwest, then could be the chance for a renaissance of the American Foursquare type of house, which I think was one of our best styles of houses for how it looks and how it efficiently uses space.
Density doesn't equal affordability. The problem is that a lot of people want to live in the same place. That is why NYC is very un- affordable even though it is very dense. The phenomenon is called induced demand where an increase in the supply of a good or service leads to an increase in its consumption. That is especially true now when mega corporations like Blackrock are buying homes left and right.
Cost to build a house is more or less the same across the country. The variables are cost of the land and cost of regulations.
If you want affordable housing you need Sprawl. Build more roads, more mass transit. Aim to get gas and cars cheaper. Prohibit mega corporations like Blackrock from scooping all the homes. Invest in neglected neighborhoods and Towns.
People follow work. If good jobs are found not only in major cities people will have more incentive to live in small towns (cheaper land cost). Also, traditional property taxes and Land Value Tax are a wealth taxs and will push people out their homes when Value of land or homes goes up.
Since I actually live not too far from the area they're proposing building the city, I think I might have some insight to give both to the vid and to people who've wondered what the local area is like. Northern California certainly does have beautiful scenery, but this area is certainly not one of them. The area is a dry, dusty grassland, filled with rather run-down looking farms and locals who can be somewhat unfriendly. The idea of developing it into a more dense environment that can house people is certainly worthwhile and won't damage any area of natural beauty. Further, with some people worried about the county being too strapped for cash, the plan would at least give the county a wealthier tax base to drawn funds from, especially without the long-term maintenance cost explosion of typical suburban development.
Ideally, the city would serve as a proof of concept that this sort of denser urbanist design can work in the US, and thus could be used to convince those more troublesome localities, like San Jose, many LA suburbs, and my own locality that insists that everything remain in stasis. Heck, one idea would be eventually building a small rail station in this city and connecting it to Fairfield and Dixon, which could help breathe some life into those communities. As to concerns about where the money is coming from, I frankly don't care. The problem is cities refusing to densify and this offers a clear proof of concept that middle-density can work. If the problem is being solved, does it really matter if the money comes from some rich patron or some grassroots movement?
I hope they don't strangle local business/housing affordability by making it some artificial master plan community with too many rules/regulations. We really need to just let people decide with their feet and their dollars what they really want. Too many regulations make getting what you want illegal.
Can you not buy appartments? I mean you said either live in appartment and give money to big owners or buy a house? I know an appartment is not the American dream but it's better than owning nothing
Technically an apartment that is bought rather than rented is considered a condo, afaik. Almost all new apartment complexes built are exclusively for rent.
It's not a bad idea. I don't know what the area currently looks like. But would not it be more cost efficient to make the nearby cities more pedestrian friendly than building a new city and ask people to move in? I guess there are too many obstacles to improve the existing cities?
The deep irony of all of this is the type of wealthy tech people who want to use their resources to build this instant city are the same ones who use their resources to actively block development in the cities that already exist. The rich owners of mansions on Telegraph or Russian hills have gathered together countless times to block housing towers for such crimes as "destroying the city’s beauty" (real fear; blocking their pricey views) and "changing the neighborhood character" (real fear: poor people moving in). This is happening all over the bay area. Down the peninsula, in the same towns where tech mega-corporations have their HQ campuses and 60 year old starter homes are worth a million dollars, the wealthy residents block small infill apartments with the fervor of a walled city fighting off an invading army, while the nurses, firefighters and teachers their communities rely on to function must live in Modesto to find housing. So my argument is this; how can a cabal of tech leaders "fix" urbanism when they are the same people who created the obstacles that broke it to begin with? If these billionaires have the influence to build a city from nothing, can they not influence their peers to stop preventing affordable housing construction? Can they not pay for pro urbanism PR campaigns to dispel misinformation? Can they not hire a team of lawyers to fight off the NIMBY lawyers at every turn? The truth is this plan is just a gated community with a urbanist wrapping. Sure, the McMansions have been swapped out for townhouses, but it's still just as controlled, just as manicured, just as homogenous, just as isolated from the rest of the region as the suburbs this town claims to be saving us from.
Too many obstacles 100%. It would simply be far more complicated and limiting. Like what're you going to do with San Jose? At this point you'd have to rip the roads out of the ground and start over again to make anything that is cohesive and properly urbanist.
Great Video!!! Love the beginning of it!
There is a city where their changing its density and using walkable in the US called Carmel in Indiana you could do for a video that I think you’ll enjoy❤
Your point on De Moines is completely true, although a lot of the parking in the city center is just parallel parking or garages. Still, it's ridiculously cheap, too cheap.
This is a pretty good idea overall though I would assume a concern would be that this if funded by billionaires and not the government. I would ironically say billionaires have more of an incentive than the government to build a new city, and I'm glad it's a group of investors. I would prefer if it extended beyond Silicon Valley, but that's the reality in the Bay Area so I'm worried it would only go towards tech and nothing else, driving up prices and becoming the rest of California.
what do you mean "ironically"? capitalists always are better than politicians at everything, including lying. of course developers would be more incentivized to build a city than a government, and they would be more successful at it too. most of californias problems stem from thinking the government can solve all the problems, and punishing companies for making money
Part of these complaints about "the government" getting in the way ignores that a lot of the reason the government can do this is because the current residents of the cities in question are telling it to. It's the current residents, especially homeowners, who come out and block development that would change anything that could affect the "character" of the city, their property values, and other things particular to them. Sure, there are other vested interests. But if you look at who blocks changes that could eliminate parking, increase density beyond massive SFH lots, or introduce mixed-use or affordable housing, it's the current residents.
Blaming "the government" in these chats seems to be completely ignoring this fact. It's the _people_ of these cities that block changes.
Agreed, better billionaires than government. Still waiting on high-speed rail from the government.
@@Rootiga Oh, I agree. I mentioned "ironically" in more of a condescending tone towards the federal government, not towards the billionaires. I support this because citizens can live more comfortably, people's voices are finally being heard, the billionaires make a nice profit, and it will make a positive impact on policies for decades to come. Always been supportive of decentralization and moving away from government and more meritocracy, though not in the same way China runs their own government.
@Rootiga I for one welcome our billionaire overlords.
It’s disturbing how there are in fact many cities in California like SLO and Monterey that are virtually empty. There is a lot of space and places people can live in California but not enough opportunities or feasibility for them.
"They call it paradise, I don't know why. You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye." ~ The Eagles, "The Last Resort"
I truly hope that it gets made. It’s definitely not without drawbacks, but considering all the thousands of horrible, unsustainable cities with urban sprawl that the US already have, what’s the harm in trying something different in just a handful of places? Even if it is funded by billionaires in an unattractive area. The fact that it is funded by the ultra rich also hopefully means less public money being wasted in case the project flops completely.
2:48 NEWPORT BEACH MENTIONED 🔥‼️💯💯🗣️🗣️🗣️
Classical buildings however were built during times of cheaper materials and labor. Idc if it looks Californian or classical or not, if it’s decent looking and has affordable units to live in then all fine by me.
Building more housing, especially dense housing, can’t be bad
Edit: architecture that is fancy is going to cost more
Richest country in the world and worrying about the cost of something is insane.
@@chrisbartolini1508 because you clearly dont understand how a country's wealth is measured.
@@leiregyp5814 I do, I just don’t like the chest puffing we do here. We’re obviously wealthy, but we just refuse to give free healthcare to our citizens, which blows my mind considering we’re also one of the more religious countries in the world.
Dresden rebuilt its historic city centre and the added costs for the decorations were a stunning... 5%.
_It is 100% possible, stop making excuses._
@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva I’m so glad someone finally said this. Too many excuses.
Edit: BRING BACK THE ORIGINAL PENN STATION
Is the architectural style of the buildings in the rendering actually the style they're going for, or is is just a generic style that was easy to use for the pictures? Because if this project were to go through, they could likely go for more pleasing styles when the building process actually starts.
Have you heard of Developments like Seabrook in Washington State or places like the Wheeler District in Oklahoma? These are examples of developments trying to bridge out of the typical suburban development.
reminds me of a giant rockville town square. i used to work in rockville town square 10 years ago, in an office on the top floor of a cool building, and many of my coworkers also lived right around the corner...had to park in a nice dedicated parking building like 200m away, and nice little walk every morning and evening, but i used to eat my lunch in restaurants right there. *loved that location.* lol, and i only lived 10 minutes away, i had it super lucky for the dc metro area. 🤣
I heavily disagree with your drawbacks to the multi-family infill development.
You say that those apartment buildings can be overly dense and discourage families from moving there, but the density in the picture you showed is only a little bit more than the buildings of Paris or Lyons. I don't see you complaining about those cities.
You show pictures of homeless people, as if our current unaffordable housing isn't one of the driving factors that makes people homeless.
These modern apartments are "frankly ugly"? First, you shouldn't be using asthetics as a main argument to a housing crisis. Second, they look much, much, less ugly than a lot of our current North American cities.
Your only valid point is that these apartment buildings discourage homeownership, but even that is not necessarily true. There's no real reason why you shouldn't be able to buy a place instead of renting.
And as much as I would love to see some missing middle housing, these high-density apartment buildings are still positive changes. Let's focus on improving the cities we already have rather than give up and start from scratch in some random swamp in Solano County.
These “high density buildings” are not enduring. He emphasized endurance in his video.
Newly constructed, high density buildings all use reinforced concrete; a building material that won’t last more than 50 years.
We’re constantly building and demolishing reinforced concrete high rises every 50 years. So how can that be sustainable from an ecological and human standpoint?
Medium density construction on the other hand, uses traditional (enduring) construction materials such as stainless steel, brick, stone masonry, and lumber that can last more than 100+ years. A good example to learn from are the railroad buildings of New York or the Chrysler building. Well designed, beautiful and well located with maintenance being minimal compared to land value costs.
@@alexsmith-ob3lu I am all for steel & lumber and long-lasting buildings. We definitely need to focus a lot more on sustainability in our cities. That's exactly why I am against this new city in Solano County.
Think about it, which do you think is more sustainable: improving currently existing cities, or constructing a new city from scratch?
@@blackbacon08 The issue you’re addressing now has nothing to do with urban sprawl/planning.
If you really wanted infill development done at an incremental pace; you’d support tighter immigration policies and bringing on more financial/education incentives for blue collar trade work.
Even if we were to infill all the parking lots; with our rate of immigration (both illegal and legal); we’re going to still end up bulldozing Californian farmlands and native habitats anyways.
@@alexsmith-ob3lu That's rich coming from someone who just completely changed the subject to immigration.
International immigration is a whole other topic with which we can debate for days. I'm not interested in doing that here, especially when you already seem to hate foreigners based on your tone.
@@blackbacon08 Keep on coping, buddy.
You can’t have it both ways; as environmental stewardship and good urban planning all tie into our immigration policies.
Lol I'm from the SJ area and recognized every screenshot of the place you put. Such wasted potential, that place
Yoooooooo lets gooooo
No city is perfect and neither are new proposed cities. But what matters is for them to be at least better than current cities. Modern cities clearly arent working. So if your new proposed city is the same thing thats been built for the last 50 years then its basically pointless. New cities should be built only if the design is something new and fixes problems of modern cities.
Very well said
California ain’t becoming utopian with Gavin Newsom as governor.
Alright…alright
Fantastic
Calling a mediocre European city, a Utopia, is the most American thing on here
when you all understand this is on purpose you will see the game being played. they want us to own NOTHING
fart slave pfp
Please elaborate lol