= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
username2 comments on Open thread, Jan. 25 - Jan. 31, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (169)
Cities are where they are because of actual reasons of geography, not just people plopping things down randomly on a map. You need to get stuff into them, stuff out of them, have the requisite power and water infrastructure to get to them (ESPECIALLY in California)... they aren't something you plop down randomly on a whim.
There are planned desert cities in Arabian peninsula. If land value in California grows because people value geographical proximity to San Francisco that much at some point it will outweigh costs of having to build infrastructure in the middle of the desert.
There are multiple problems that need to be solved here. Buying land is one of them, and yes, it seems like a reasonable investment for someone who has tons of money. The other problem is water.
Yet another problem could be the transit from the new city to SF. Geographical proximity may be useless if the traffic jams make commuting impossible.