Or maybe he can call it "Rapture", and build it underwater.
More seriously: I wonder how much city 500 billion dollars could really build? Given a blank slate of no planning or zoning conflicts.
If we could build deep undersea cities we would basically have a template to mitigate all climate instability for future (even on land).
We either have super far out (basically marketing BS) projects talking about Mars colonisation or things like this that's basically more of the same just another iteration. Building something that could withstand a couple of atmospheres of pressure, in a hostile environment (seawater) with currents, with full reliance on artificial air filtration, etc. - solve that and it doesn't matter what happens with climate change, super volcano eruptions, meteors, nuclear catastrophes, pollution etc. not to mention you have hard borders to prevent global pandemic outbreaks.
* needs to be anchored to something somehow * no sunlight * likely catastrophic vulnerability to any tectonic movement * no easily accessible soil * extremely high, extremely slow costs of expansion * no clear way to build the initial structure. * need for perfect protection from the salt * heating problems * likely complete dependence on the above world for materials and food.
mostly just going to be nuclear subs with a handful of additional disadvantages.
I'm sure we'll figure out a way of replicating our environment-harming technologies but for underwater use, and eventually will pay the price for that as well.
We have ruined our land and air. We have polluted the oceans to an insane level. What makes you think that we'll do a good job with deep undersea cities? We are even polluting space with debris, are we not?
That's it right there. Since he wants to keep ownership of the land like the government does. He can build stuff like condo buildings. Yet those costs are only in the ~50 million range for a big one. You obviously sell the units and have your government be the condo board. Basically recouping any costs here. There you have housing.
Next is food. Are they producing food? Maybe not necessary, truck it in via walmart.
Next you want walmart warehouses for food and goods. That builds itself, walmart is the one who takes on the cost because they'll pay that off in the long run.
Utilities are built in, bringing big power to the edge of your city will be costly, but we're talking less than 50 million. Anything more than that and you start looking at doing it yourself.
security and safety doesnt have a problem yet because you don't have that part of society. Stuff like police are paid for and expand with the population.
Next you need entertainment and similar. There's a big chunk of $. Probably going to be $5 billion and not pay for itself for a long time, but it will.
What more do you need? Small time stuff? Not going to really break the bank.
Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that.
Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.
Typically in the scale of millions per year. Which is nothing to walmart guy. The scale of millions to billions is something completely else. When you get into multiple billions it's funny money. Society has rewarded you with so much wealth, society trusts you will use it correctly.
>All these things will be better when doing them collaboratively, instead of individualized. You'll need taxation to pay for them collaboratively.
That's the thing, this walmart guy isn't just paying for all of it out of pocket. There will be people who live and work there who pay taxes to his government.
>But they should be designed and built up-front, before anyone starts living there - because otherwise people will start doing things the wrong way (i.e. traveling by car instead of public transport) and after that it is very hard to change.
That's sort of the thing. The saudis are going to build a long city. When everything is straight, it's easy. Cars will be fine in their design. It's really what your intentions are.
In my design. I have a few things to consider.
The idea will be to generate a new giant city in northern ontario. With the idea of capturing: https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/ring-fire Society needs to start mining that stuff now.
But nobody lives there because the weather sucks bigtime. So we make it a dome city. We at the very same time are designing dome cities on mars. So it's a win in many ways.
>Also: paying for utilities and infrastructure from rising value of land seems not very sustainable at all. It can't cover maintenance in the long run. Many US cities already suffer from that.
I dont understand what you mean here. I suspect you're referencing Detroit as a key point.
>Utopian dreams like these usually do not end well. It took many decades for visionary developments that were planned in the Dutch polders (Almere) to become something approaching a good city, and the results are quite different then the original vision.
this is north america in a nutshell. Virtually everywhere you go there is examples of success, it just takes more than a lifetime for them to become so. Infrastructure that lasts is everything.
Building a modern subway network with a couple dozen stations will cost a few billion easily. And that is just one small thing on a long list. I think you underestimate what infrastructure for a city of millions would cost. Maybe you think cars are ok, but they really are not, if you want a great city.
> I dont understand what you mean here. I suspect you're referencing Detroit as a key point.
No, What I mean is that most US cities, especially those with large suburbs, cannot cover their existing maintenance costs unless they grow, this will stop working in the near future, see: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
> this is north america in a nutshell. Virtually everywhere you go there is examples of success...
I would argue that most US cities rank low in quality of life comparisons when compared to cities in other developed parts of the world. When planning utopia, I would start looking in other places.
In most developed areas, the land rent is really the vast majority of the cost. I.e. In a city, you can buy a building, tear it down, and somehow you haven't destroyed most of the capital you just purchased.
Under Lore's "Equitism" (fancy name for Georgism/Geoism), the land rent is recaptured by the thing that actually produced the increasing value - everything around the plot of land.
Which government are you talking about? Private land ownership predates the modern state. The western world is by and large a feudal society where the [land]lords have managed to even outsource security responsibilities back to the peasants.