You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

_rpd comments on Open thread, Jan. 25 - Jan. 31, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: username2 25 January 2016 09:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (169)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 January 2016 06:34:16PM *  0 points [-]

If I look in Google Maps at California there seem to be huge open spaces. What's stopping new cities in California to be build on land that's outside of the existing cities?

Comment author: _rpd 27 January 2016 01:05:21AM 0 points [-]

High quality infrastructure and community services are expensive, but taxpayers are reluctant to relocate to the new community until the infrastructure and services exist. It's a bootstrap problem. Haven't you ever played SimCity?

Comment author: polymathwannabe 27 January 2016 03:18:18PM 0 points [-]

Then how are new cities ever founded? How did Belmopan, Brasília, Abuja and Islamabad do it? Look at the dozens of new cities built just in Singapore during the past half century.

The OP's proposal to build a city in the middle of the desert strikes me as similar to the history of Las Vegas. What parts of it can be replicated?

Comment author: _rpd 27 January 2016 07:16:42PM 1 point [-]

How did Belmopan, Brasília, Abuja and Islamabad do it?

Well all of these are deliberate decisions to build a national capital. They overcame the bootstrap problem by being funded by a pre-existing national tax base.

dozens of new cities built just in Singapore during the past half century

Again, government funding is used to overcome the bootstrap problem. Singapore is also geographically small, and many of these "cities" would be characterized as neighborhoods if they were in the US.

Las Vegas

Well, wikipedia says it began life as a water resupply stop for steam trains, and then got lucky by being near a major government project - Hoover dam. Later it took advantage of regulatory differences. An eccentric billionaire seems to have played a key roll.

There seem to be several towns that exist because of regulatory differences, so this seems a factor to consider - at least one eccentric billionaire seems fairly serious about "seasteading" for this reason. Historically, religious and ideological differences have founded cites, if not nations, so this is one way to push through the bootstrap phase - Salt Lake City being a relatively modern example in the US. Masdar City - zero carbon, zero waste - is an interesting example - ironically funded by oil wealth.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 January 2016 03:48:55PM 1 point [-]

similar to the history of Las Vegas. What parts of it can be replicated?

By traditional mythology, the reason Las Vegas exists is because the mob (mafia) wanted to have a playground far far away from the Feds :-)

Comment author: tut 27 January 2016 05:48:37PM 0 points [-]

Or because it's the place closest to San Francisco where gambling was legal.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 January 2016 06:19:13PM *  0 points [-]

San Fran is not that special :-P

Besides, gambling was legalized in the entire state of Nevada and there are certainly places closer to SF in there (like Reno).

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 January 2016 10:55:57AM 0 points [-]

It's expensive but interest rates are low and the possible profit is huge.

Comment author: _rpd 27 January 2016 11:41:23AM 0 points [-]

But similar profits are available at lower risk by developing at the edges of existing infrastructure. In particular, incremental development of this kind, along with some modest lobbying, will likely yield taxpayer funded infrastructure and services.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 January 2016 12:00:11PM 0 points [-]

It seems like you can't do incremental development by building more real estage inside the cities because of the cities not wanting to give new building permits that might lower the value of existing real estage.

Comment author: _rpd 27 January 2016 12:26:45PM 0 points [-]

I think Seattle's South Lake Union development, kickstarted by Paul Allen and Jeff Bezos, is a counter example ...

http://crosscut.com/2015/05/why-everywhere-is-the-next-south-lake-union/

Perhaps gentrification is a more general counter example. But you're right, most developers opt for sprawl.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 January 2016 02:14:46PM 0 points [-]

I think Seattle's South Lake Union development, kickstarted by Paul Allen and Jeff Bezos, is a counter example ...

No, it's not in California. In California a city like Mountain View blocks a company like Google from building new infrastructure on it's edges.

Perhaps gentrification is a more general counter example.

In what sense? Gentrification simply means that rents go up in certain parts of the city. It doesn't have directly something to do with new investments.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 January 2016 03:43:26PM 1 point [-]

Gentrification simply means that rents go up in certain parts of the city.

Not at all. Gentrification is the replacement of a social class by a different social class. There are a LOT of consequences to that -- the character of the neighbourhood changes greatly.

Comment author: _rpd 27 January 2016 03:13:16PM 0 points [-]

Gentrification simply means that rents go up in certain parts of the city. It doesn't have directly something to do with new investments.

In my experience gentrification is always associated with renovation and new business investment. The wikipedia article seems to confirm that this is not an uncommon experience.