Plans For $400-billion New City In The American Desert Unveiled

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by KB0679

"The former Walmart executive..."

Say no more.

Well, the former Amazon executive just went to space.
Also, the founder of the Virgin Group went to space too.

People with billions and billions have the resources to dream big (this idea isn't well thought out though).

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by 10023

Here’s a question:

If you were going to build a brand new 5 million person city from scratch somewhere in the US, where would it go?

Boise? Although that would ruin the attractiveness of the area.

We've built bigger cities in more difficult areas, like San Francisco. Not much drinking water on a peninsula surrounded by salt water. Seismically active. Steep hills. Tsunami threat is real. Wildfires. Drought. Fractured built environment requiring tunnels and bridges to connect it to other areas. Built in an ecologically important environment.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

Here’s a question:

If you were going to build a brand new 5 million person city from scratch somewhere in the US, where would it go?

Where one doesn't already exist? Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Alabama, or similar. Maybe Iowa.

But I don't really think the U.S. needs another 5 million person city. Even if we lost one or two right now, that population could easily be absorbed into other places.

[MolsonExport]

the cleanliness of Brasilia, the diversity of Naypyidaw, and the social services of Putrajaya

[Razor]

Will this city eventually have their own take on Pizza?..And let me guess, they will win the Superbowl first year out of the gate!

Why be safe with the planning?. Why not just blend the equality of Pyongyang, the government transparency of Moscow, and the social safety net of Kabul with this new city..Put a wall around it, and see how it does in 50 years.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Camelback

Well, the former Amazon executive just went to space.
Also, the founder of the Virgin Group went to space too.

People with billions and billions have the resources to dream big (this idea isn't well thought out though).

It's just one guy's vision. A proof of concept. You have to convince people to invest, live and create jobs in this new city...no small feat. $400 billion...before cost over runs is a huge risk. Most would rather invest in an existing city with growth potential.

[dubu]

it could succeed if its not on a big old fashion grid or a big pretty circular grid. thats what id come up with first, thats just me. how about a simple nature city? nothing fancy for once.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Camelback

Boise? Although that would ruin the attractiveness of the area.

We've built bigger cities in more difficult areas, like San Francisco. Not much drinking water on a peninsula surrounded by salt water. Seismically active. Steep hills. Tsunami threat is real. Wildfires. Drought. Fractured built environment requiring tunnels and bridges to connect it to other areas. Built in an ecologically important environment.

San Francisco has plentiful ground water and had active streams when first settled so fresh water was not a problem. It was perhaps the greatest harbor in the world. Most of it is well out of the reach of tsunamis and those were where the early settlements were (the Presidio and mission church are way above sea level). When it was settled and for 100 years the site next to that marvelous harbor way outweighed the fact it was on a peninsula. Only when continent-spanning railroads became critical to moving cargo from the port did it begin to matter and when that happened the major port facilities moved to Oakland. Then passengers began to want easy access to the railhead too.

In fact, San Francisco was like most historic cities: A great port and defensible military fortification.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by 10023

Here’s a question:

If you were going to build a brand new 5 million person city from scratch somewhere in the US, where would it go?

Somewhere in Montana.

Or here would be pretty awesome: https://www.google.com/maps/@56.7078.../data=!5m1!1e4

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Somewhere in Montana.

Or here would be pretty awesome: https://www.google.com/maps/@56.7078.../data=!5m1!1e4

Seems like an untenable plan for the US. Just build out places like Reno, Boise, or smaller metros in the western states like Fort Collins, CO. It's sort of what we have been doing for decades - for example, Phoenix is now 5 million metro from a little more than 1 million in 1970.

[TWAK]

Time to finish California City, and guess what? It's in the desert!

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Where one doesn't already exist? Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Alabama, or similar. Maybe Iowa.

But I don't really think the U.S. needs another 5 million person city. Even if we lost one or two right now, that population could easily be absorbed into other places.

But what is the appeal of any of those places?

Maybe I should have added some criteria:
- a desirable geography/place to live (weather, scenery, etc)
- logistically practical (chiefly access to water)
- not an existing population center (ie, not just an edge city of an existing metro)

Otherwise the question is interesting mostly because the “old reasons” for choosing the location of a city, ever since ancient times, no longer really apply in a modern information/services economy. You don’t need a waterway or port or proximity to natural resources (other than fresh water). You just need to overcome the lack of established infrastructure.

Now what are we thinking?

It’s probably not somewhere in the North with a brutal winter, or Southeast with a miserable humid summer, or the Midwest with both. It is probably coastal or at higher altitude, because that’s where most of humanity has always settled for reasons of comfort. It’s probably quite sunny because rain sucks.

The high desert (southern CO, northern NM) would be an idea, but why is Albuquerque or Sante Fe not much bigger (aside from lack of investment). Personally, I’d ask why there isn’t a really large city between San Francisco and Portland. Beautiful terrain, coastline, desirable climate… no particular reason to found a city in the 19th century, but a place where people would happily live today. Thoughts?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Seems like an untenable plan for the US. Just build out places like Reno, Boise, or smaller metros in the western states like Fort Collins, CO. It's sort of what we have been doing for decades - for example, Phoenix is now 5 million metro from a little more than 1 million in 1970.

Reno doesn't have enough water or space to grow much (it's basically already filled in the valley) and enough water must reach Pyramid Lake. Don't know what the situation is like in Boise. Fort Collins would basically meld with Denver.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by 10023

But what is the appeal of any of those places?

Maybe I should have added some criteria:
- a desirable geography/place to live (weather, scenery, etc)
- logistically practical (chiefly access to water)
- not an existing population center (ie, not just an edge city of an existing metro)

Otherwise the question is interesting mostly because the “old reasons” for choosing the location of a city, ever since ancient times, no longer really apply in a modern information/services economy. You don’t need a waterway or port or proximity to natural resources (other than fresh water). You just need to overcome the lack of established infrastructure.

Now what are we thinking?

It’s probably not somewhere in the North with a brutal winter, or Southeast with a miserable humid summer, or the Midwest with both. It is probably coastal or at higher altitude, because that’s where most of humanity has always settled for reasons of comfort. It’s probably quite sunny because rain sucks.

The high desert (southern CO, northern NM) would be an idea, but why is Albuquerque or Sante Fe not much bigger (aside from lack of investment). Personally, I’d ask why there isn’t a really large city between San Francisco and Portland. Beautiful terrain, coastline, desirable climate… no particular reason to found a city in the 19th century, but a place where people would happily live today. Thoughts?

The terrain is challenging. Here is the largest flat spot, already partially urbanized:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7248.../data=!3m1!1e3

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's just one guy's vision. A proof of concept. You have to convince people to invest, live and create jobs in this new city...no small feat. $400 billion...before cost over runs is a huge risk. Most would rather invest in an existing city with growth potential.

A concept, if even that. Proof of concept, here or anywhere, would be a long way away.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by 10023

Here’s a question:

If you were going to build a brand new 5 million person city from scratch somewhere in the US, where would it go?

a broad valley or front range in the northern rockies. you’ll have to give up warm winters for water, but you’ll get winter sun and proximity to mountains/recreation.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 10023

Here’s a question:

If you were going to build a brand new 5 million person city from scratch somewhere in the US, where would it go?

It would be near a large freshwater source.

The best location for that in the US is on the Great Lakes.

Start with access to unlimited water. Everything else follows from that.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The terrain is challenging. Here is the largest flat spot, already partially urbanized:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7248.../data=!3m1!1e3

Redding and Chico are perhaps also strong bets for future large city status because, in spite of - or maybe even because of - being inland, it is more interconnected.

Boise is almost there, and may reach a metro area of one million plus in the next fifteen years.

Spokane is another possibility, particularly if it ends up absorbing Coeur D’Alene as a suburb (40 minutes away is firmly within a potential commuter belt) or combining their commuter belts in a multipolar metropolitan arrangement.

St. George in Utah has some interesting potential to blossom into a mid-size city, and already has skyrocketing growth.

Of the Montana cities, that could end up being any of them that one day catch fire and grows like a weed. They’ve got a bunch of well situated cities, each with its own strengths and weaknesses: Missoula, Butte, Bozeman, Great Falls, Billings, or Helena could easily rise above the pack over the coming decades. Even Butte, which most people poo poo on has its strengths: it is the best connected most centrally located in the state with easy access not only to the rest of the major cities within Montana, but also Idaho and Utah.

As for other options, they all have drawbacks and are too close to current major cities to ever truly blossom. Wyoming has Casper, but any growth there is just another step further removed from Denver vis-a-vis Fort Collins. Colorado Springs is the southern extreme of that. Pocatello and Idaho Falls are as close to SLC as they are to Idaho’s already primate Boise.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It would be near a large freshwater source.

The best location for that in the US is on the Great Lakes.

Start with access to unlimited water. Everything else follows from that.

yeah, that would be the most logical place. it’s counterintuitive but parts (western great lakes) of the great lakes are statistically the least mega disaster-prone areas of the u.s. as well.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Redding and Chico are perhaps also strong bets for future large city status because, in spite of - or maybe even because of - being inland, it is more interconnected.

Boise is almost there, and may reach a metro area of one million plus in the next fifteen years.

Spokane is another possibility, particularly if it ends up absorbing Coeur D’Alene as a suburb (40 minutes away is firmly within a potential commuter belt) or combining their commuter belts in a multipolar metropolitan arrangement.

St. George in Utah has some interesting potential to blossom into a mid-size city, and already has skyrocketing growth.

Of the Montana cities, that could end up being any of them that one day catch fire and grows like a weed. They’ve got a bunch of well situated cities, each with its own strengths and weaknesses: Missoula, Butte, Bozeman, Great Falls, Billings, or Helena could easily rise above the pack over the coming decades. Even Butte, which most people poo poo on has its strengths: it is the best connected most centrally located in the state with easy access not only to the rest of the major cities within Montana, but also Idaho and Utah.

As for other options, they all have drawbacks and are too close to current major cities to ever truly blossom. Wyoming has Casper, but any growth there is just another step further removed from Denver vis-a-vis Fort Collins. Colorado Springs is the southern extreme of that. Pocatello and Idaho Falls are as close to SLC as they are to Idaho’s already primate Boise.

Seems like an idea for a mega-master development - like Columbia, MD and Woodlands, TX. I know those cities are nowhere near 5 million but it was its proximity to DC/Baltimore and Houston respectively probably helped more than hurt. Or a mega Villages, FL. I bet Fort Collins and Denver may eventually merge as Denver is very expensive now and Colorado is a very desirable state for relocations. Spokane and Coeur D'Alene - according to Wiki - "The City of Coeur d'Alene has opted not to voluntarily merge with the Spokane MSA and to remain a distinct metropolitan area.[119] According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, the two MSAs will automatically be combined by the OMB when the employment interchange exceeds 25 percent; in 2011, 18 percent of residents commuted between Spokane and Kootenai counties for work".