Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New Uutopias don't seem realistic considering where we are as a society. We have massive debt that can never be repaid, kids with useless college degrees who can't find jobs, an eroded industrial base, global de-dollarization, and a declining standard of living.
It will be quite the achievement if we're able to just maintain the status quo (which I doubt we'll be able to do).
A new utopia may work once our economic and political systems collapse and are rebuilt, but that's pretty far in the future.
IMO, the future looks less like Telosa and more like the shoppers in Mr. Lore's stores.
Last edited by Wayfarerz; 09-05-2023 at 07:01 PM..
This phrase, I think, dooms it.
“The most open, the most fair, and the most inclusive city in the world.” To me, that phrase is an advertisement calling for the most unqualified, unproductive people in the world to gather in one spot.
A utopian city of humans would be one who presents opportunity for those who will work for it. "Mouse Utopia" is a good example of what I am talking about. In that famous experiment, all problems for mice were solved and they responded by becoming lazy and narcissistic. They thrived for a while, and then died down to the last mouse.
There is nothing "fair" in the life of any animal on earth, including humans.
I am not going to infer or impose conclusions about humans from rats.
Opportunity society? Like Silicon Valley / San Francisco or New York City? Tokyo? Are they utopia? No they are not; at least for 60-80% of population. It is not that easy.
Cities are what 5-7,000 years old? First to 5000 people about 6,000 years ago, first to 45,000 about 4,000 years ago I am told. First to 100,000 about 3,000 years ago, then to a million about 2,000 years ago, then 10 million about 75 years ago. Now the biggest metros at about 40 million.
It took awhile before 100,000 could be sustained without collapse and then the same with 1 million.
Are cities, big cities, the right or most right structure? Which level? Will they reach 100 million?
Doesn't seem like much chance that big, ever larger cities / metros won't continue to be the dominant form for nearly all. Most select it. Still some alternatives for those that want them. Smaller cities, towns, rural, wilderness living. Different style cities around US and world. "New" cities.
There are judgments about better and worse cities, rules & conditions. Some cities have worked on it for thousands of years, some hundreds, some a few decades or less. It takes vision and work and probably compromise, trial and error. I don't expect Telosa will figure it all out exactly in seminars and the offices of planners and architects. But I am somewhat curious to see what they actually do, as with all attempts at change and improvement, though there are a lot of failures. Compare them to the pre-existing alternatives. I'd try something other than a 5 million person city myself. Plato suggested 5,000 long ago. Somewhere close to the middle might be my current guess.
A metro of 5 million is a pulling back from the largest current urban examples but an effort to maintain all the perceived advantages of today's biggest. It may be necessary to pull back further to gain or recover some of things or many things lost or not present in metros of 5, 10 or 40 million.
Telosa intends to have 36 "15 minute cities" form that 5 million person structure. These are not traditional suburbs but still a form of decentralization. Do you really need or want 36 side by side? I don't think so but that is a significant part of the debate.
Spatial design is tied up with political and economic design and over history often with religion. Lots of ways things could be changed. In search of general utopia or better for me or whichever "kind". (What will the robots or human / tech hybrids prefer?)
Greater city size has tended to coincide / correlate with greater inequality. Some are definitely for it, some against it. For many, it depends. They just haven't decided exactly what they think should occur / be allowed to occur. So others decide, directly and indirectly.
The group with 50,000 acres in Solano County CA (between San Francisco and Sacramento) is apparently called California Forever. They are promoting their new city as consistent with the best of California, best of its past. Stirring up controversy though with plan to displace a lot of agriculture and ranching and suing people who haven't agreed to sell yet.
An operative for the group has said they might build 1, 2 or 3 cities, splitting up to get around obstacles or to phase things or to stay closer to the California of the past. Have about 50% of area land, so can't begin to change everything yet. Converting ag water rights to urban use will be a critical battle.
Competing visions for same land. Haven't heard if Newsom is or will be on one side or other.
Long way to go for all these projects. But they have locations and some or all the land they intend to use. Telosa? Nope, at least not acknowledged publicly.
Is Telosa waiting on 2024 Presidential election? I dunno. Maybe. They have talked about wanting grants, partnerships.
Lore has barely contributed to political campaigns and only recently. To Biden and Democrats.
Could Trump want to get it on this construction? Would not be for the vision but rather the money. Could use federal support to leverage private investments and gains. No rumors to that effect, but could be plausible speculation. He seems to want in on many, many highrise builds, anywhere for anyone.
Howard Hughes Corporation developing Bridgeland TX near Houston. 12,000 acres. Plans for 65,000 people. Initiated 15 years ago, ground broken 10 years ago. 15% built.
Stuff actually happening is more interesting than talk.
It's possible to find like minded individuals who may want to share in the building of a community wherein the power base is a shared one, but the scale would necessarily be small.
Not only that, it probably wouldn't be "diverse".
"like minded" is the key word in your statement.
It's difficult to see how "like minded" individuals would handle cultural differences like obeying traffic laws, or public display of affection, lf inebriation, of drug use, or of obnoxiousness.
How would they handle different, strongly-held opinions about the power of religious doctrine? The role of women? How to discipline children?
One of the values of "like minded" is that it creates a high trust society. Different communities and cultures have different ideas of what you do when you find someone's wallet on the supermarket floor. Most people would return it. What about living in a community where most people will steal anything not locked down?
What about cultures that consider women out by themselves as fair targets for predation?
There’s also a “utopian” hellhole called California City way out in the desert that is partially built out. Communities need to be close to other cities so they don’t suffer from island effect. Humans by nature crave variety. Nothing worse than being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with no place to go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
