What if you could create a new city? What rules would you choose? Where would you build it? How would you make it succeed? How would you attract people?
Really interesting article, Tomas. The images were inspiring, as well. And, I appreciate your making it available in both video and written formats as I prefer the latter. Thanks!
As I have noted before, there is a great deal of merit to creating "new" cities. Free from the baggage of incumbent vested interests, we could put forth the very best policies and experiment with new ones in ways that cannot be done currently. But I would begin any discussion of a new city with tax design and zoning; if we get that right, almost everything will can follow. For starters, we should minimize or abolish taxes on labor/production, focusing instead on taxing economic rents. Land value taxation, or LVT, would be the cornerstone of such an effort, but a distributed profit tax would also work.
From this basis, we could raise revenue needed for basic social programs while preventing rent-seeking from paralyzing the economy and political system down the line.
Form Based Codes , which deemphasize use/density restrictions and emphasize the interaction of buildings with the street level, look like a promising alternative.
One novel that explored the relationship between a state and a city with different regulations from the surrounding state was Niven and Pournelle's _Oath of Fealty_. Obviously a novel written so that Pournelle's favorite libertarian ideas perform well, it still presents many of the conflicts that will arise.
Very fascinating! Personally I see the value in leading with infrastructure because the aesthetic and vibe of a city are what attracts me. And probably people like me. To just have a few like minded people because of regulatory structures doesn’t interest me, and I worry it would feel like a commune until it was big enough to have all of the amenities and be fun. But it’s a fun topic to think about for sure!
You hit the nail on the head. Well said. I feel most people are like you, in fact. I'm reading books about urbanism right now. Rereading A Pattern Language for example. If I could build a new city from scratch, I sure would play with that!
Given our new digital infrastructure capabilities, do we continue with 'cities' at all? They seem archaic and stressful. Exven the exburbs can be frustrating at times.
I'll take a well-servicedmtown or village any day. But, there is no market of one, so I'll leave cities for another segment if the population
Cities come (theoretically) with better infrastructure: better schools, better hospitals, an airport, a more connected train station, better and more diverse leisure activities. I find life in a village pretty boring after a while.
We'll need to drill into what "better" means. If I get bored I hop in Jeep and hit the mountains, or a motorcycle, or play tennis. I can understand when your younger, because I've lived in a city. I can still get to the worlds largest airport in under an hour. Like I said, there is no market of 1. I guess we'll see what everyone wants. If they build smart cities, will they come?
Better schools and universities. Better hospitals. From my experience, in villages you can find elementary education and sub-financed hospitals, good enough to treat emergencies and basic stuff, but for more complicated case, that person will be sent to a bigger hospital in a city.
You can modify my statement to "the cost structure of emergency health care". The facilities that can be maintained close to small settlements would be based on the societies' assessment of costs and acceptable loss in terms of QALI.
On the other end, of course, for those who don't mind living in Tokyo(s), there is no upper limit. Earth could become an Ecumenopolis.
NEPA is a federal statute, and applies only to federal agency proposals likely to have a major impact on the environment. Of course, maybe you were using the acronym generically, as many states and cities have adopted similar statutes. And historically, cities that possess some of the characteristics described pass the cost of externalities onto neighboring communities. Maybe something to add to the things to think about.
I've been following his organisation since last year. As someone from a country rampant with government corruption and inefficiency on a massive scale I've been really interested in the concept of rebooting/creating cities.
My special spin is that blockchain technology can play an important role.
In terms of proveably fair voting, on-chain transparency for resource allocation, and even more importantly giving these new cities access to global funding via crowd funding/owning public infrastructure.
Tomas, what do you think of this? Something I'm missing here is your own opinion. I can sense in your questions that you don't agree 100% with Lutter. Do you think his project can work? You have been writing about how geography "created" cities, how does it stack against the idea of just choosing the best place to create a city?
I wrote about it in last week’s premium article. I go in depth there.
A lot of it makes sense, so Mark and I agree a lot. Also, he is probably more realistic than I am, so in many aspects I trust his opinion, especially on the more detailed aspects. For example, his thoughts on the chicken-and-egg issue are very valid. I also think that this is not binary: you can create many different new cities, and this is just one great approach.
If I were in his shoes, maybe I would be more top-down than him. I think the biggest draw of such a city could go beyond “a Caribbean destination with low permitting requirements and tech-friendly” (which is a perfectly fair pitch).
In my experience with companies and articles, when you lay out a beautiful and sensible vision, people respond they’re excited and want to join in. I am missing that so far.
If I were to build a city, maybe I would take a stance and be very consistent with it. For example: “this city is about human progress. We will not hinder growth like in these stagnant cities of today, but promote it with easy permitting and legislation. It will not be the Wild West. Rather, regulations will be very clear, stable, with enough constraints to create cohesion, but cautious of costs, and with enough freedom that no legitimate goal remains unachieved . We will look at sustainable ways to achieve it, and invite innovative green tech companies to try their ideas here. We will create a sense, human, livable environment, with streets full of greenery, security, and life, where the pedestrian is at the center. We will attract immigrants from north and south, to open new frontiers to the innovators, new opportunities to those looking for them, and low costs for everybody. Because life here will be as cheap as we can make it, so people can keep their wealth, and invest it in the region if they see fit, or in any other endeavor they prefer. We’re unabashed optimists who believe in the potential of human progress, and that to unleash it we just need to channel our impulses in the right direction.”
I completely agree, TP. I think a few dynamic new cities near the US or Europe (or carved out within them) would completely change our models of what is possible and desirable. I see reasonable nuclear reactors and desalination, cheap energy and water, smart building codes, and minimal regulation, rent seeking and bureaucracy.
This could establish a benchmark and constructive competitor which existing states could compare themselves to, leading to a positive dynamic.
I think the key is for the government(s) of the existing states to recognize that they need to foster this type of dynamic.
Thanks. Reading your reply, I thought of "government/democracy", how would that be inserted? In the pitches it seems like the city promoter is taking a benevolent dictator approach, but I guess they will need to set up democratic processes aligned with the host country. I think this hasn't been discussed.
Personally, the idea of a brand new city is not appealing. I don't find it realistic. To make a comparison, the idea of flooding areas below the sea level is also difficult, but the benefits look much greater to me, so I'm enthusiastic about that. But brand new cities? I do prefer to play with the constraints of existing cities, I think it can be much more relevant to the people (which are living in those cities) and to the planet (which can benefit from change in our current cities, much more -I assume- than from change in brand new cities).
These things are not mutually exclusive. Everybody is already working with existing cities.
Imagine that there were only 10,000 companies in the world, and no more could be formed. How dynamic do you think the world of business would be? The same is true for cities, and hence why we need new ones.
Singapore was a benevolent dictatorship and works really well. But yes over the long term you need some sort of social decision-making, and its design will be key to keep the spirit of the early times.
Really interesting article, Tomas. The images were inspiring, as well. And, I appreciate your making it available in both video and written formats as I prefer the latter. Thanks!
I want to live in a city that looks a bit like that!
Me, too!
As I have noted before, there is a great deal of merit to creating "new" cities. Free from the baggage of incumbent vested interests, we could put forth the very best policies and experiment with new ones in ways that cannot be done currently. But I would begin any discussion of a new city with tax design and zoning; if we get that right, almost everything will can follow. For starters, we should minimize or abolish taxes on labor/production, focusing instead on taxing economic rents. Land value taxation, or LVT, would be the cornerstone of such an effort, but a distributed profit tax would also work.
From this basis, we could raise revenue needed for basic social programs while preventing rent-seeking from paralyzing the economy and political system down the line.
I agree that I’d go for a Georgism approach.
What about zoning, beyond what is discussed here? Any ideas?
Form Based Codes , which deemphasize use/density restrictions and emphasize the interaction of buildings with the street level, look like a promising alternative.
One novel that explored the relationship between a state and a city with different regulations from the surrounding state was Niven and Pournelle's _Oath of Fealty_. Obviously a novel written so that Pournelle's favorite libertarian ideas perform well, it still presents many of the conflicts that will arise.
Very fascinating! Personally I see the value in leading with infrastructure because the aesthetic and vibe of a city are what attracts me. And probably people like me. To just have a few like minded people because of regulatory structures doesn’t interest me, and I worry it would feel like a commune until it was big enough to have all of the amenities and be fun. But it’s a fun topic to think about for sure!
You hit the nail on the head. Well said. I feel most people are like you, in fact. I'm reading books about urbanism right now. Rereading A Pattern Language for example. If I could build a new city from scratch, I sure would play with that!
Fantastic interview!
I had Mark on my podcast as well: https://rss.com/podcasts/stranded-technologies-podcast/732083/
And I created a map of new city projects here: https://twitter.com/NiklasAnzinger/status/1652651110174273536
Fantastic! I will quote it in the quarterly review
Where did you get those city-scape pictures from? AI?
Also just an awesome conversation
Thanks. Yes, I wrangled some ai!
Given our new digital infrastructure capabilities, do we continue with 'cities' at all? They seem archaic and stressful. Exven the exburbs can be frustrating at times.
I'll take a well-servicedmtown or village any day. But, there is no market of one, so I'll leave cities for another segment if the population
Cities come (theoretically) with better infrastructure: better schools, better hospitals, an airport, a more connected train station, better and more diverse leisure activities. I find life in a village pretty boring after a while.
We'll need to drill into what "better" means. If I get bored I hop in Jeep and hit the mountains, or a motorcycle, or play tennis. I can understand when your younger, because I've lived in a city. I can still get to the worlds largest airport in under an hour. Like I said, there is no market of 1. I guess we'll see what everyone wants. If they build smart cities, will they come?
Better schools and universities. Better hospitals. From my experience, in villages you can find elementary education and sub-financed hospitals, good enough to treat emergencies and basic stuff, but for more complicated case, that person will be sent to a bigger hospital in a city.
Super interesting topic. I’ve been thinking about it for a couple of years. I might write about it before the end of the year
In the lower limit, the answer is probably the cost structure of health care. Almost anything else can wait and be shipped from far.
Outside of emergencies and standard stuff, can't you ship most treatments out, since you can wait for them?
You can modify my statement to "the cost structure of emergency health care". The facilities that can be maintained close to small settlements would be based on the societies' assessment of costs and acceptable loss in terms of QALI.
On the other end, of course, for those who don't mind living in Tokyo(s), there is no upper limit. Earth could become an Ecumenopolis.
NEPA is a federal statute, and applies only to federal agency proposals likely to have a major impact on the environment. Of course, maybe you were using the acronym generically, as many states and cities have adopted similar statutes. And historically, cities that possess some of the characteristics described pass the cost of externalities onto neighboring communities. Maybe something to add to the things to think about.
Thank you for the clarification! Yes I meant it in that way, but I haven’t dug enough in the state vagaries. I shall!
Great article Thomas. I watched the video too.
As someone from a developing country, I know there's high demand for better and more open cities.
It would just have to recruit aggressively and primarily online. And have an attractive vision.
I think in the future there'll be a place for everyone's inclination.
I agree!
Whereabout? As Mark mentioned, they’re building many cities in the global south. Maybe you’ve heard of some of their initiatives?
I've been following his organisation since last year. As someone from a country rampant with government corruption and inefficiency on a massive scale I've been really interested in the concept of rebooting/creating cities.
My special spin is that blockchain technology can play an important role.
In terms of proveably fair voting, on-chain transparency for resource allocation, and even more importantly giving these new cities access to global funding via crowd funding/owning public infrastructure.
I gave a talk on this last year at Web3Lagos: https://youtu.be/-LCN0g5IMl4
I do agree that blockchain can have a role to play in some city services. But it can easily be an overkill.
Tomas, what do you think of this? Something I'm missing here is your own opinion. I can sense in your questions that you don't agree 100% with Lutter. Do you think his project can work? You have been writing about how geography "created" cities, how does it stack against the idea of just choosing the best place to create a city?
I wrote about it in last week’s premium article. I go in depth there.
A lot of it makes sense, so Mark and I agree a lot. Also, he is probably more realistic than I am, so in many aspects I trust his opinion, especially on the more detailed aspects. For example, his thoughts on the chicken-and-egg issue are very valid. I also think that this is not binary: you can create many different new cities, and this is just one great approach.
If I were in his shoes, maybe I would be more top-down than him. I think the biggest draw of such a city could go beyond “a Caribbean destination with low permitting requirements and tech-friendly” (which is a perfectly fair pitch).
In my experience with companies and articles, when you lay out a beautiful and sensible vision, people respond they’re excited and want to join in. I am missing that so far.
If I were to build a city, maybe I would take a stance and be very consistent with it. For example: “this city is about human progress. We will not hinder growth like in these stagnant cities of today, but promote it with easy permitting and legislation. It will not be the Wild West. Rather, regulations will be very clear, stable, with enough constraints to create cohesion, but cautious of costs, and with enough freedom that no legitimate goal remains unachieved . We will look at sustainable ways to achieve it, and invite innovative green tech companies to try their ideas here. We will create a sense, human, livable environment, with streets full of greenery, security, and life, where the pedestrian is at the center. We will attract immigrants from north and south, to open new frontiers to the innovators, new opportunities to those looking for them, and low costs for everybody. Because life here will be as cheap as we can make it, so people can keep their wealth, and invest it in the region if they see fit, or in any other endeavor they prefer. We’re unabashed optimists who believe in the potential of human progress, and that to unleash it we just need to channel our impulses in the right direction.”
This is after thinking about this for 5m. WDYT?
I completely agree, TP. I think a few dynamic new cities near the US or Europe (or carved out within them) would completely change our models of what is possible and desirable. I see reasonable nuclear reactors and desalination, cheap energy and water, smart building codes, and minimal regulation, rent seeking and bureaucracy.
This could establish a benchmark and constructive competitor which existing states could compare themselves to, leading to a positive dynamic.
I think the key is for the government(s) of the existing states to recognize that they need to foster this type of dynamic.
I agree!
Thanks. Reading your reply, I thought of "government/democracy", how would that be inserted? In the pitches it seems like the city promoter is taking a benevolent dictator approach, but I guess they will need to set up democratic processes aligned with the host country. I think this hasn't been discussed.
Personally, the idea of a brand new city is not appealing. I don't find it realistic. To make a comparison, the idea of flooding areas below the sea level is also difficult, but the benefits look much greater to me, so I'm enthusiastic about that. But brand new cities? I do prefer to play with the constraints of existing cities, I think it can be much more relevant to the people (which are living in those cities) and to the planet (which can benefit from change in our current cities, much more -I assume- than from change in brand new cities).
These things are not mutually exclusive. Everybody is already working with existing cities.
Imagine that there were only 10,000 companies in the world, and no more could be formed. How dynamic do you think the world of business would be? The same is true for cities, and hence why we need new ones.
Singapore was a benevolent dictatorship and works really well. But yes over the long term you need some sort of social decision-making, and its design will be key to keep the spirit of the early times.