Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plans for a new city in the American desert

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 268 posts

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#231

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

anamax wrote: post #170
lprubin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious to hear why you think it doesn't work. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just would like to know more.

If "affordable housing" means "under market price", in practice AH means that it goes to the connected at that price. If they can, they resell at market later, if they can't, well, they just got subsidized housing. Remember, housing prices in high-priced areas are driven by location, location, location, location, location (yes, two more locations than ordinary housing), so "it's small" doesn't translate to "the marke…

Some countries have what's called "buyer-funded development". Property buyers invest into shares of the development company which then uses the funds to buy land and build housing.

Investors get much cheaper prices, developers get easy liquidity. The downside is that you have to wait a year or two before moving in, and some theoretical risk. (Which can be managed with proper legislation.)

But the scheme works if you want affordable housing.

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#233

Post by anamax »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #231
anamax wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "affordable housing" means "under market price", in practice AH means that it goes to the connected at that price. If they can, they resell at market later, if they can't, well, they just got subsidized housing. Remember, housing prices in high-priced areas are driven by location, location, location, location, location (yes, two more locations than ordinary housing), so "it's small" doesn't translate to "the marke…

Some countries have what's called "buyer-funded development". Property buyers invest into shares of the development company which then uses the funds to buy land and build housing. Investors get much cheaper prices, developers get easy liquidity. The downside is that you have to wait a year or two before moving in, and some theoretical risk. (Which can be managed with proper legislation.) But the scheme works if you…

No, that scheme doesn't do what you think it does (and that scheme is occasionally done in the US, especially for luxury residences).

Suppose that the residences will be worth $1000 when built and it costs $500 to build them.

The pay-in-advance price will be around $1000 - interest.

The pay-in-advance price won't be significantly less than $1000-interest because the builder can borrow the $500, and sell for $1000 when built, repaying the bank and pocketing the rest.

The pay-in-advance price won't be significantly more than $1000-interest because if it is, folks who want to buy will wait and pay $1000 when the units are built (forcing the builder to borrow $500).

In other words, pay in advance doesn't result in below market prices.

If you add in some units which would sell for $500 but you're forcing the builder to sell them for $250, the question is "who gets them?" The answer to that question does not depend on when the payment is made.

In the US, the vast majority of the "below market" units will be split between friends of the local govt and the developer.

Yes, it would be nice if that wasn't true, but it is absurd to behave as if it isn't true (in the US).

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#234

Post by tdeck »

gumby wrote: post #229
myrandomcomment wrote: post #147

The cleanliness of Tokyo is 100% because of cultural issues, not because the government did anything special. Durning the major 2011 earthquake everything shutdown and you had to walk home. When you went into the “Konbini” (7/11, FamilyMart, Lawsons) in Tokyo there was always a bottle of water left. Why? Because culturally no Japanese would ever buy the last bottle.

I have never considered Tokyo especially clean, except right after a typhoon (first time I saw this I was astonished, amd it reminded me of how grimy the city is)

It's got dirt, but there's notably little trash lying around compared to other large cities I've lived in and visited.

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#235

Post by tdeck »

Bayart wrote: post #11

I feel every attempt at community-by-design bears within it the seed of inhumane horror. Forget about the energy equation of building a city in a desert, what's the on-boarding process for prospective inhabitants ? Putting the price of accommodation sky-high to make sure everybody's in the right tax-bracket (or even earns enough to not pay taxes) ? Going through an interview process to only take in people with the "r…

My first thought was this city/settlement built by a cult in the Oregon desert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram?wprov=sfla1

Not closely related to the article but a very odd story.

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#236

Post by tiagod »

nbzso wrote: post #206

I am a regular guy with a regular dream. Imagine small villages with self-sustained planning, energy efficiency and agriculture. Imagine living as a human being close to nature but with all benefits of civilization. We will have hyper-connectivity available soon. This pandemic situation has given me something valuable after all. I can live away from the big city and be happy, productive and healthy. This grandiose fu…

If everyone lived close to nature in small villages, there would soon be no more nature to live nearby.

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#237

Post by mindvirus »

leetcrew wrote: post #155
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a coworker who cries about everything the government spends money on because it doesn't directly put cash in his pocket. How do you explain that things like this are still beneficial to him? That a rising tide lifts all boats?

in this particular example (NYC subway), it is kinda hard to understand how that benefits people outside of the NYC metro area. I live in a much more distressed mid-atlantic city, and NYC already has one of the best public transit systems in the country. why would I be happy about my federal tax dollars subsidizing transit in one of the wealthiest US cities while my local public transit is barely off the ground?

NYC is about 8% of the US economy (and much more if you consider second order effects) - so their successes and failures are inevitably going to impact the entire country. At the very least, NYC (for example) being successful is something that I think should be of national interest not just local interest.

There are a lot of places like this in my opinion, where a large investment in a seemingly local thing would have national impact.

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#238

Post by TomSwirly »

mindvirus wrote: post #4

I love the ambition. One thing I've been really amazed about China has been the willingness to tackle big infrastructure projects - building cities like Shenzhen in a few decades and all of the infrastructure projects in the Pearl River Delta in general. I think we need more of that in the west. So I wish them luck - I hope real estate speculation doesn't ruin it. One thing I've noticed with US politics is that thing…

Interesting, because I hate ambition when it's used to do destructive things that only benefit the very rich.

> So I hope people see projects like this as points of national pride, even if they don't live there.

Why wouldn't this be a national _shame_? "We can't even keep our own citizens alive. We won't even try to protect you against climate change.

"Droughts are going to be a permanent feature of life for a lot of America, and our response to that is to spend billions on a city in the desert for the rich."

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#239

Post by TomSwirly »

finnh wrote: post #71
kiba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have lot of infrastructure projects here in America. It's called roads. Endless ceaseless expansion of roads. I think we need to stop mindlessly expand roads, and reconsider our infrastructure priority before we can start doing massive megaprojects.

Isn't a new city an example of priority reconsideration? I don't follow your argument.

A new city _in the waterless desert_ is a vanity project.

Re: Plans for a new city in the American desert

#240

Post by TomSwirly »

throwawaysea wrote: post #31
mindvirus wrote: post #4

I love the ambition. One thing I've been really amazed about China has been the willingness to tackle big infrastructure projects - building cities like Shenzhen in a few decades and all of the infrastructure projects in the Pearl River Delta in general. I think we need more of that in the west. So I wish them luck - I hope real estate speculation doesn't ruin it. One thing I've noticed with US politics is that thing…

I think with NYC it is the mismanaged part more so than underfunded. Limiting cities (and people) by having them live within their means forces better management. When that doesn’t work I feel the solution isn’t to pump more money in but rather to seek out alternatives. The market does that automatically - people will choose to live elsewhere to avoid ever higher local and state taxes, or to avoid an inadequate subwa…

> Limiting cities (and people) by having them live within their means forces better management.

New York State takes New York City's state taxes and gives a lot of them to a tiny number of upstate voters.

The US government takes New York City's federal taxes and gives a lot of them to do-nothing Republican states.

If New York City were allowed to keep all the state taxes it pays, it would not just "live within its means", it would run a huge surplus.

> the market

Here we are in 2021. "The market" is literally destroying our biosphere, and this only keeps accelerating. Surely no adult believes in the "Invisible Hand" by now?

Post reply on HN