Dropping a quick comment as I just woke up and, as someone with a background on architecture, because I find this fascinating. I sense that there’s going to be knee jerk reactions that this is...
Dropping a quick comment as I just woke up and, as someone with a background on architecture, because I find this fascinating.
I sense that there’s going to be knee jerk reactions that this is going to be a capitalist dystopia.
But a broader perspective is needed. Some of the most livable urban areas started as company towns and master plans. There are nuances and different trade offs.
I can’t comment more at the moment, but hopefully someone with an extensive knowledge of urban history can jump in.
I think there are three main pools of discussion to be had on this post: What are the implications of this project happening, if it's a capitalist dystopia? What are the implications of this...
I sense that there’s going to be knee jerk reactions that this is going to be a capitalist dystopia.
But a broader perspective is needed.
I think there are three main pools of discussion to be had on this post:
What are the implications of this project happening, if it's a capitalist dystopia?
What are the implications of this project happening, if it's not a capitalist dystopia?
Will this be a capitalist dystopia or not?
IMO, Qs 1 and 3 are just boring and I want to see more Q2 discussion that skips right past the "capitalist dystopia" issue.
I mean, you've assessed the possibilities correctly, but IMO you've jumped to "I want more discussion about how unicorns are real." Feel free to discuss those, but I warrant the reason there's a...
I mean, you've assessed the possibilities correctly, but IMO you've jumped to "I want more discussion about how unicorns are real."
Feel free to discuss those, but I warrant the reason there's a lot less discussion around 2 is because it's basically a fantasy. A town's economics are the foundation of longevity and qol of that town.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and concept of planned cities. I'd love to see some proposed designs. But unless that land's ownership is going to be divested to the public that moves in, it's going to be a dystopian company town. Because all company towns are. Even in towns that are not explicitly company-owned, large employers have a disproportionate voice among local governments with the everpresent threat of 'appease us or we close shop.'
But 'shadowy trust fund quietly buying large quantities of farmland on and off market' is hardly a wholesome start. Finding out the core players are quite hostile to laborers is a black mark.
They easily could have done this in a more affordable area for pennies on the dollar for land almost literally anywhere else in the USA. But there's obviously other motives at play.
I think an interesting counter example is Disney World in Florida. Walt went around buying up massive amounts of land in secret for "The Happiest Place on Earth!" The resulting town and local...
I think an interesting counter example is Disney World in Florida. Walt went around buying up massive amounts of land in secret for "The Happiest Place on Earth!" The resulting town and local government (Reedy Creek Improvement District) is fully owned and operated by Disney but it's beloved by millions.
Sure you can argue capitalism bad and maybe there was a better use for that land, but they literally drained a swamp and created one of the most desirable vacation destinations on Earth. Even if you, like me, don't personally like Disney, you have to respect that private entities can create some truly desirable locales.
And many people here (myself included) consider that place a bit of a dystopian cesspool. You ever go to a fancy resort in an impoverished area, like say Egypt? Its a wonderful, beautiful...
And many people here (myself included) consider that place a bit of a dystopian cesspool.
You ever go to a fancy resort in an impoverished area, like say Egypt? Its a wonderful, beautiful experience as an ignorant tourist. Because you don't see the awful living conditions and pay for the staff.
Calling out Disney with an article about how a private equity firm ran a barely-related masterplanned community into the ground is misleading. That doesn't have anything to do with Disney World's...
Calling out Disney with an article about how a private equity firm ran a barely-related masterplanned community into the ground is misleading. That doesn't have anything to do with Disney World's incredible public transit or amenities: https://youtu.be/0czF1HB08vQ?si=BmI0cgH6Yqyp8c8T
The argument about living conditions and pay might be convincing...except that Disney World is unionized with an $18/hour minimum wage. Tourism in Florida is completely different from Egypt or a more impoverished nation.
Private corporations can make things that benefit the public; the average person can benefit from profit-driven decisions.
Did you miss that Disney built said masterplanned community? Poorly, but they kept up with the maintainence. Then when costs got too high over a decade they offloaded it to a private equity firm,...
Did you miss that Disney built said masterplanned community? Poorly, but they kept up with the maintainence. Then when costs got too high over a decade they offloaded it to a private equity firm, which they could do because they retained ownership.
Disney World itself is an amusement park, not a town. Its an apples to oranges comparison, like stating the amenities at the ski resort are top notch compared to the trailer park 2 miles down the road where all the employees live.
Lots of beautiful homes for sale in Celebration. Prices seem to be up quite a bit. Seems like living in a cesspool would hurt real estate values more? Word would get out.
Lots of beautiful homes for sale in Celebration. Prices seem to be up quite a bit.
Seems like living in a cesspool would hurt real estate values more? Word would get out.
As they say, there's a sucker born every minute. Disney is like Mecca for some people, and I'd be surprised if these homes aren't being bought sight unseen.
As they say, there's a sucker born every minute. Disney is like Mecca for some people, and I'd be surprised if these homes aren't being bought sight unseen.
They obviously paid extra because it's reasonably close to (i.e. within 100 miles of) one of the biggest commercial hubs on the planet. Land in e.g. Montana is cheap, but less viable than an area...
They obviously paid extra because it's reasonably close to (i.e. within 100 miles of) one of the biggest commercial hubs on the planet. Land in e.g. Montana is cheap, but less viable than an area with arguably the most latent demand for housing in the entire country.
The "company quietly buying up land" is basically the only way acquiring this sort of land is possible - if others catch on, then they'll try to charge the most you can afford, not what the land is actually worth to literally anyone else.
This is rather similar to the problem that eminent domain was created to solve - lots of projects need multiple lots of land, and your ability to walk away drops the closer you get to buying all the land you need (because you've just bought a ton of land at above market rate), giving the last holdouts incredible bargaining power and incentive to hold out.
Chicago’s Pullman neighborhood was famous for this! It was built as a company town by a railroad car magnate in the 1880s, complete with public transit and sewer structures. The architecture is...
Chicago’s Pullman neighborhood was famous for this! It was built as a company town by a railroad car magnate in the 1880s, complete with public transit and sewer structures. The architecture is really remarkable, since it served the needs of the most entry level workers to the big managers.
I’m definitely not going to complain that housing is being built in California. Even if this is exclusively for very wealthy people it adds to the supply and helps develop expertise and...
I’m definitely not going to complain that housing is being built in California. Even if this is exclusively for very wealthy people it adds to the supply and helps develop expertise and infrastructure for building more new towns.
If all they are doing is creating housing and walkable infrastructure in a region where housing is scarce and expensive, they will make money and also benefit the region. It is entirely rational...
If all they are doing is creating housing and walkable infrastructure in a region where housing is scarce and expensive, they will make money and also benefit the region. It is entirely rational to invest in housing in the SF Bay area. We don't know enough to assess how good or bad this is.
I'm not sure I would consider a history of anti-consumer behavior that builds exclusively towards a bottom line vibes. These are the same folks that strong armed regulation changes to allow them...
I'm not sure I would consider a history of anti-consumer behavior that builds exclusively towards a bottom line vibes. These are the same folks that strong armed regulation changes to allow them to pay full time workers part time wages/benefits. I think everyone is entitled to skepticism in this case. I'm very pro-development, doubly so high density human centric development, but there is a reason they are setting up an entirely new town: control and avoidance of regulation. Corporate control of those things give me bad vibes.
What do you mean? Is there an Uber or Lyft connection I missed? Saying “these are the same folks” when we don’t know if they’re the same folks or not or what their opinions are would be an example...
What do you mean? Is there an Uber or Lyft connection I missed?
Saying “these are the same folks” when we don’t know if they’re the same folks or not or what their opinions are would be an example of vibes-based reasoning.
The funders of the project have a history of investing in anti-work/anti-consumer startups. Andreessen Horowitz is heavily invested in Lyft. Michael Moritz invested in InstCart and Klarna. They...
The funders of the project have a history of investing in anti-work/anti-consumer startups. Andreessen Horowitz is heavily invested in Lyft. Michael Moritz invested in InstCart and Klarna. They all heavily invested in Adam Neumann for We Work, and again even after the ponzischeme was revealed. I'm not looking at vibes, I'm looking at their past investments and the history of their treatment of workers. It's fine if you're excited about the development but I think it's equally fair for a number of us to view it with skepticism. The folks investing in it have proven that ROI is king, regardless of the downstream effects.
Okay, that's good info. I think venture capitalists invest in a lot of companies, though, without necessarily having much control over how the companies treat their workers day to day? If I were...
Okay, that's good info.
I think venture capitalists invest in a lot of companies, though, without necessarily having much control over how the companies treat their workers day to day? If I were considering working at a startup, I would be interested in whether they have funding and who their investors are, but not because I'd want to look up their other investments and see what working conditions were like at other companies the VC's invested in. Each company has its own business model and culture, so it doesn't seem all that predictive? Most companies aren't ride share companies or anything like WeWork.
And that's even more true of real estate. If I were buying a property in a planned community, I might want to know more about the company behind it because financial stability is a concern, particularly if there's still a lot of construction to be done. But I wouldn't expect that to affect my working conditions. Most people buying property don't end up working for the real estate developer. Instead, I would be interested in knowing whether they have an HOA and what it's like, what the various taxes and fees are, what the neighbors are like, and all that other real estate stuff.
There will likely be a point at which voters in Solano County have to make a decision, hopefully with a lot more information than we have now, but probably a lot less than they'd ideally have because the project isn't built yet.
I totally agree on most of your points, but I don't think I'm doing a good job of conveying why I have a gripe about this. I'm not actually concerned about the employees of the startup itself, I'm...
I totally agree on most of your points, but I don't think I'm doing a good job of conveying why I have a gripe about this. I'm not actually concerned about the employees of the startup itself, I'm sure they'll do fine and make a little mint if the projects ends up being a success. I'm more concerned about what this means for housing development in general, particularly in the Bay Area, and for non-career residents. I see this as a test bed for new development models, one that has top down control of development, no municipal regulations, and a focus on profitability. This is a personal opinion, but while municipal government may be slow real estate development, it also ensures that new development is in line was community interests. Or it's supposed to anyway. In towns like Mountain View it's meant that Google needs city approval before planning large expansions of commercial or residential projects. The outcome has been that Google will then work with the city to provide benefits to the wider community (new bike trails, additional low income housing, etc) - not just to themselves. If you remove this process then you can optimize for the companies that are investing in and establishing within your new city.
And that leads to the common thread between companies like WeWork, Lyft, or InstaCart. They rely on a class of worker - that these companies legally created - that has minimal legal protections, no benefits, and are paid in some cases below minimum wage. Not the folks in engineering, design, or sales; but the one's doing the manual labor of their operations: driving passengers, delivering groceries, doing laundry, etc. The jobs these folks would do are still necessary within any functioning municipality - barista, cleaners, launderers, garbage men, postal workers, etc - and the development Flannery is focusing on is no exception. The residential apartments will likely not be accessible to the average gig economy worker and my worry is that you create a city with two classes: the folks who live there and the ones that serve it. We've chatted in the past about your familiarity with the Monterey area and I think Pebble Beach is probably an apt comparison. Replace the wealthy tourist/retirement heavy emphasis with young urbanite and you have the proposed project. Likely, you'll see an exaggerated version of what we already have: poor folks diving an hour in from Vacaville to a job that runs through an app to serve the needs of the people within the town. For the profitability of the city those folks will need to be paid as little as possible, only after being suckered into taking those positions with bonuses, perks, and inflated rates similar to those Uber used during their market capture years. Once there is an established a base of workers that rely on those positions Flannery can reduce wages, remove perks, and maintain their city on an "optimized" budget.
The investors we're talking about have a track record of not only enabling this type of relationship but advocating for it. This is one more step of removing government oversight, something I'm not particularly excited about. I don't think it's going to be a catastrophic hell scape, in fact I think it's going to be quite pleasant for the folks that live there. They'll get to live in a bubble without needing to think about anyone who doesn't look, think, or dress like they do. But for the people who service the town - I'll keep my fingers crossed for them. The boat didn't work, but this might.
Since we only vaguely know what they're proposing and don't have any idea what kinds of concessions they might want, it seems a little soon to be making assumptions about who will move there, how...
Since we only vaguely know what they're proposing and don't have any idea what kinds of concessions they might want, it seems a little soon to be making assumptions about who will move there, how they'll live, what kind of work they'll do, or how much diversity there will be? I expect there will be problems of some sort since there always are, but there's no good way of guessing what they might be.
I'm also having trouble imagining how this could turn into an end-run around the people who live there. These investors bought a lot of farmland, but it has to be zoned differently and they can't do that without permission.
It doesn't seem much like some crazy seasteading scheme, or Uber or AirBnB coming to town for that matter, where they just started doing it? Real estate doesn't work that way in California. My guess is that it won't be all that different in spirit from Google's negotiations with Mountain View. They'll have to get buy-in from local officials and make the deal attractive somehow to the voters.
I agree I don't think it's going to be the end of the world, however it is valid to flag concerns. You're right, we don't know that much about it, but we do know is who is funding it and their...
I agree I don't think it's going to be the end of the world, however it is valid to flag concerns. You're right, we don't know that much about it, but we do know is who is funding it and their expectations on scale of return. I can't imagine these folks would have sunk this much into farmland without a good bit of due diligence, or confidence that with enough capital even rigid regulations can be changed. This project is a departure from traditional real estate development because Flannery seeks to make its own self contained town. While I am making leaps about what the outcomes of this project might look like, I'm looking at the outcomes from companies these groups have funded and the history of company towns to inform them.
If I can flip our conversation a bit, can I ask what about this project is so exciting for you? I'm also a big proponent of high density, human centric development so I can see the appeal there. Do you have concerns about who is spearheading the efforts?
I think people deciding to build some kind of new town, apparently at a fairly large scale, is interesting in itself. I’m curious what they’re up to. Among the many things we don’t know yet is how...
I think people deciding to build some kind of new town, apparently at a fairly large scale, is interesting in itself. I’m curious what they’re up to.
Among the many things we don’t know yet is how self-contained it will be. Fairfield exists and maybe there will be close connections? What will they do for transit? It’s on an interstate highway and fairly close to Davis, but what else? Mixed-use development is trendy and seems more likely than a bedroom community, but how much commercial development will they attract? Do they have some kind of “anchor tenant” in mind?
But I’m not curious enough to do any research. I figure that it will be hard to find much now, compared to waiting a couple weeks. I will read more news as it comes in.
I didn’t have any particular conversation in mind, I just wanted to post some interesting news. Maybe it would have been better to wait until more is known. Or at least, suggesting some discussion topics rather than leaving it to chance.
I hear you and as much as I'm suspect of the funders I'm really glad you posted the article. A big take away from this is regardless of political stance or socio-economic level I think we're all...
I hear you and as much as I'm suspect of the funders I'm really glad you posted the article. A big take away from this is regardless of political stance or socio-economic level I think we're all jonesing for the housing kind of housing they are describing. Well, maybe the younger demographics. I would be so excited to see mixed-use development integrated into the planning.
Also, they might totally surprise me. Centralized planning makes it so much easier to build with a number of considerations in mind (climate resilience, transit/accessibility, pedestrian centric mobility, community engagement, greenspace...) so there is the potential for some really cool urban design. Initially, I was really excited about the Toronto "smart city" waterfront before realizing that Google sunsets a huge number of their products and that would leave a city up shit creek. This might mitigate some of those effects - as they own the city so it's in their interest not to let that happen - while still allowing for integrated systems. There are merits to the project.
I also realize I've taken us away from the point of the article and really honed in on the funding. I am genuinely excited at this kind of development and if there were other players at the helm I think I would feel differently.
I think it's reasonable to take the developers at their word because it's well backed by evidence in this case. California has some of the most restrictive zoning with some of the worst NIMBYism...
but there is a reason they are setting up an entirely new town: control and avoidance of regulation.
I'm loath to trust that billionaire developers have my best interests in mind, but there are plenty of reasons to support their stated goals in this case. Building dense, walkable urbanism is exactly what California needs to fix its most serious problems. Even if the city is only affordable to ultra-wealthy techies, we can agree that more people living in dense mixed-use developments is a net positive for the environment and region.
As with all development in the Bay Area, ultimately the limiting factor is water. I assume these developers will hope to draw from nearby Lake Berryessa or the Sacramento river delta, but all that...
As with all development in the Bay Area, ultimately the limiting factor is water. I assume these developers will hope to draw from nearby Lake Berryessa or the Sacramento river delta, but all that water is already spoken for.
The development of a brand new city for tens of thousands of residents with high-end amenities and parks, etc. requires tremendous amounts of water.
Yes, it will be interesting to see what they're planning for water. Farms use a tremendous amount of water too, though. I wonder where the farms there before them got their water?
Yes, it will be interesting to see what they're planning for water. Farms use a tremendous amount of water too, though. I wonder where the farms there before them got their water?
I do hope it doesn't go up in smoke. It's an interesting experiment - whenever discussions about development policy come up, there's always layers upon layers of complexity and regulation and...
I do hope it doesn't go up in smoke. It's an interesting experiment - whenever discussions about development policy come up, there's always layers upon layers of complexity and regulation and zoning and complaints from NIMBYs and all that, and it often makes you go, "well, I wish we could just have a clean slate then!"
It'd be an interesting experiment - high density, designed with public transit first, everything a urban policy wonk on Twitter X would dream of. Will the residents come? If they do, it may well be a blueprint for both new developments and old cities. If not, then, well, at least someone tried.
Since [2017], a company called Flannery Associates has been buying large plots of land in a largely agricultural region 60 miles northeast of San Francisco. The company, which has little information public about its operations, has committed more than $800 million to secure thousands of acres of farmland, court documents show. One parcel after another, Flannery made offers to every landowner for miles, paying several times the market rate, whether the land had been listed for sale or not.
The purchases by a company that no one in the area had heard of and whose business was a mystery have become the subject of heavy speculation and developing news stories, rattling landowners, local supervisors, the nearby Air Force base and members of Congress. Was Disney buying it for a new theme park? Could the purchases be linked to China? A deepwater port?
Flannery is the brainchild of Jan Sramek, 36, a former Goldman Sachs trader who has quietly courted some of the tech industry’s biggest names as investors, according to the pitch and people familiar with the matter. The company’s ambitions expand on the 2017 pitch: Take an arid patch of brown hills cut by a two-lane highway between suburbs and rural land, and convert into it into a community with tens of thousands of residents, clean energy, public transportation and dense urban life.
…
As Flannery began seeking property, it bought so much land, so fast, that it spooked locals who had no idea who the buyer was or the plans it had in mind. Catherine Moy, the mayor of Fairfield, Calif., started posting about the project on Facebook several years ago after she got a call from a farmer about some mystery buyer making offers throughout the county. In an interview, Ms. Moy said she had gone to the county assessor’s office and found that Flannery had purchased tens of thousands of acres.
John Garamendi, a Democrat who along with Mike Thompson, another Democrat, represents the surrounding region in Congress, said he had been trying to figure out the company’s identity for four years.
On Friday, he said that had suddenly changed. This week representatives for Flannery reached out to him and other elected officials requesting meetings about their plans. That meeting is now being scheduled, he said.
…
To pull off the project, the company will almost certainly have to use the state’s initiative system to get Solano County residents to vote on it. The hope is that voters will be enticed by promises of thousands of local jobs, increased tax revenue and investments in infrastructure like parks, a performing arts center, shopping, dining and a trade school.
…
Flannery’s offers were creating multimillionaires across the county, but no one seemed to know what the mysterious company intended to do with land that now amounted to a large chunk of the entire county.
That changed last week, when residents started receiving texts and emails with a poll gauging their opinions on a number of questions. One asked them to rate the favorability of several names including “Joe Biden,” “Donald Trump” and “Flannery Associates.” Another question began with a description of a possible ballot initiative for a project that “would include a new city with tens of thousands of new homes, a large solar energy farm, orchards with over a million new trees, and over 10,000 acres of new parks and open space.”
That’s not how real estate development normally works anywhere else in the US and there’s no particular reason to think it will happen that way here. Real estate developers make money by selling...
That’s not how real estate development normally works anywhere else in the US and there’s no particular reason to think it will happen that way here. Real estate developers make money by selling homes to residents and leasing commercial real estate to other businesses. They need to sell property to pay off their loans.
Maybe look at Celebration, Florida for a non-dystopian example?
Do you even even know what "dystopian" means? It's not just "I don't like it." The government is a bit unusual, but none of this makes Celebration a bad place to live. It's a pretty ordinary,...
Do you even even know what "dystopian" means? It's not just "I don't like it." The government is a bit unusual, but none of this makes Celebration a bad place to live. It's a pretty ordinary, well-off suburban community.
But what does that have to do with Celebration? I went there. It was fine. There doesn't seem to be anything tyrannical or frightening going on there, and nothing you quoted seems to be tyrannical...
But what does that have to do with Celebration? I went there. It was fine. There doesn't seem to be anything tyrannical or frightening going on there, and nothing you quoted seems to be tyrannical or frightening either.
Is there something that makes it worse than a place with a strict HOA? Can a community be a dystopia if you can't see it, or is it just some kind of metaphysical quality of a place?
You betcha. Stepford wives comes to mind as an example in fiction. Despite the fact that scifi dystopias have left firm imprints on our brains what a dystopia looks like, they can take all forms....
Can a community be a dystopia if you can't see it, or is it just some kind of metaphysical quality of a place?
You betcha. Stepford wives comes to mind as an example in fiction.
Despite the fact that scifi dystopias have left firm imprints on our brains what a dystopia looks like, they can take all forms.
My local theater advertises that for any showtimes after 6 PM anyone under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian over 24 to not break curfew. Two 17 year olds on a date could get in trouble for attending a 8:00 PM show, while the 16 year old running the booth can work till 10 just fine.
The beaches are closed at 8 PM in this one town. Not even adults are allowed a quiet moonwalk on the beach. The boardwalk next to it is open till 9:30 though...
That's pretty damn dystopian to me.
A wife that is all smiles in public but hides her bruises with long sleeves and makeup makes for a quiet hell that few can see.
I get that this is a common trope in horror films. However, to turn into a horror film, at some point what's hidden needs to become visible. Otherwise it's just an unfounded accusation. There are...
I get that this is a common trope in horror films. However, to turn into a horror film, at some point what's hidden needs to become visible. Otherwise it's just an unfounded accusation. There are stories about that, too.
I'm not sure if having curfews counts as dystopian; it would depend on context. I hadn't heard about any curfews in Celebration, though I assume they must have had some during the pandemic and maybe after hurricanes?
I guess if anyone wants to read up on their local deed restrictions, they could start here.
Yes, I’ve visited a friend who lives there several times, though not recently. We walked around a bit. I thought it was a quite nice, upscale residential community. Celebration had some problems...
Yes, I’ve visited a friend who lives there several times, though not recently. We walked around a bit. I thought it was a quite nice, upscale residential community. Celebration had some problems (the movie theater closed) and it’s a little odd, but it didn’t seem in any way a dystopia to me.
If by "try that" you mean do real estate deals, there are plenty of those. This seems like a larger scale, though. I think moving to the city was in for quite a long while? Young people moving to...
If by "try that" you mean do real estate deals, there are plenty of those. This seems like a larger scale, though.
I think moving to the city was in for quite a long while? Young people moving to the bay area wanted to live in San Francisco. Google usually would open offices in city centers near good public transit.
Also, there were attempts to partner with cities rather than going it alone, like Google's Sidewalk Labs, which tried to do a big project in Toronto but was rejected. This probably seemed like the way to go back in the Obama administration, when people were more optimistic and the big tech backlash hadn't started yet.
Going further back, older tech companies like IBM would build corporate campuses in suburbs, back before inner cities became popular again. This is why we have Silicon Valley to begin with; at one time that was smaller towns and fruit orchards. Apple started in Cupertino and Microsoft in Redmond rather than larger cities.
I've often wondered why the bigger tech companies don't open offices in smaller cities more.
Other billionaires might be wealthy enough, but had different ideas? Gates started a major charity. Larry Ellison bought an island.
Dropping a quick comment as I just woke up and, as someone with a background on architecture, because I find this fascinating.
I sense that there’s going to be knee jerk reactions that this is going to be a capitalist dystopia.
But a broader perspective is needed. Some of the most livable urban areas started as company towns and master plans. There are nuances and different trade offs.
I can’t comment more at the moment, but hopefully someone with an extensive knowledge of urban history can jump in.
I think there are three main pools of discussion to be had on this post:
IMO, Qs 1 and 3 are just boring and I want to see more Q2 discussion that skips right past the "capitalist dystopia" issue.
I mean, you've assessed the possibilities correctly, but IMO you've jumped to "I want more discussion about how unicorns are real."
Feel free to discuss those, but I warrant the reason there's a lot less discussion around 2 is because it's basically a fantasy. A town's economics are the foundation of longevity and qol of that town.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and concept of planned cities. I'd love to see some proposed designs. But unless that land's ownership is going to be divested to the public that moves in, it's going to be a dystopian company town. Because all company towns are. Even in towns that are not explicitly company-owned, large employers have a disproportionate voice among local governments with the everpresent threat of 'appease us or we close shop.'
But 'shadowy trust fund quietly buying large quantities of farmland on and off market' is hardly a wholesome start. Finding out the core players are quite hostile to laborers is a black mark.
They easily could have done this in a more affordable area for pennies on the dollar for land almost literally anywhere else in the USA. But there's obviously other motives at play.
I think an interesting counter example is Disney World in Florida. Walt went around buying up massive amounts of land in secret for "The Happiest Place on Earth!" The resulting town and local government (Reedy Creek Improvement District) is fully owned and operated by Disney but it's beloved by millions.
Sure you can argue capitalism bad and maybe there was a better use for that land, but they literally drained a swamp and created one of the most desirable vacation destinations on Earth. Even if you, like me, don't personally like Disney, you have to respect that private entities can create some truly desirable locales.
And many people here (myself included) consider that place a bit of a dystopian cesspool.
You ever go to a fancy resort in an impoverished area, like say Egypt? Its a wonderful, beautiful experience as an ignorant tourist. Because you don't see the awful living conditions and pay for the staff.
Calling out Disney with an article about how a private equity firm ran a barely-related masterplanned community into the ground is misleading. That doesn't have anything to do with Disney World's incredible public transit or amenities: https://youtu.be/0czF1HB08vQ?si=BmI0cgH6Yqyp8c8T
The argument about living conditions and pay might be convincing...except that Disney World is unionized with an $18/hour minimum wage. Tourism in Florida is completely different from Egypt or a more impoverished nation.
Private corporations can make things that benefit the public; the average person can benefit from profit-driven decisions.
Did you miss that Disney built said masterplanned community? Poorly, but they kept up with the maintainence. Then when costs got too high over a decade they offloaded it to a private equity firm, which they could do because they retained ownership.
Disney World itself is an amusement park, not a town. Its an apples to oranges comparison, like stating the amenities at the ski resort are top notch compared to the trailer park 2 miles down the road where all the employees live.
Lots of beautiful homes for sale in Celebration. Prices seem to be up quite a bit.
Seems like living in a cesspool would hurt real estate values more? Word would get out.
As they say, there's a sucker born every minute. Disney is like Mecca for some people, and I'd be surprised if these homes aren't being bought sight unseen.
They obviously paid extra because it's reasonably close to (i.e. within 100 miles of) one of the biggest commercial hubs on the planet. Land in e.g. Montana is cheap, but less viable than an area with arguably the most latent demand for housing in the entire country.
The "company quietly buying up land" is basically the only way acquiring this sort of land is possible - if others catch on, then they'll try to charge the most you can afford, not what the land is actually worth to literally anyone else.
This is rather similar to the problem that eminent domain was created to solve - lots of projects need multiple lots of land, and your ability to walk away drops the closer you get to buying all the land you need (because you've just bought a ton of land at above market rate), giving the last holdouts incredible bargaining power and incentive to hold out.
That's really interesting. I know about Hersey, Penn; but what are some of the other towns you're referring to?
Chicago’s Pullman neighborhood was famous for this! It was built as a company town by a railroad car magnate in the 1880s, complete with public transit and sewer structures. The architecture is really remarkable, since it served the needs of the most entry level workers to the big managers.
Local historian/public TV superstar Geoffrey Baer has a bit about it in this video, starting at 18:15: https://youtu.be/jOsv7i4IRck?feature=shared
I’m definitely not going to complain that housing is being built in California. Even if this is exclusively for very wealthy people it adds to the supply and helps develop expertise and infrastructure for building more new towns.
If all they are doing is creating housing and walkable infrastructure in a region where housing is scarce and expensive, they will make money and also benefit the region. It is entirely rational to invest in housing in the SF Bay area. We don't know enough to assess how good or bad this is.
I guess we’ll find out more in a week or two? In the meantime, people are going to imagine the worst, based almost entirely on vibes.
I'm not sure I would consider a history of anti-consumer behavior that builds exclusively towards a bottom line vibes. These are the same folks that strong armed regulation changes to allow them to pay full time workers part time wages/benefits. I think everyone is entitled to skepticism in this case. I'm very pro-development, doubly so high density human centric development, but there is a reason they are setting up an entirely new town: control and avoidance of regulation. Corporate control of those things give me bad vibes.
What do you mean? Is there an Uber or Lyft connection I missed?
Saying “these are the same folks” when we don’t know if they’re the same folks or not or what their opinions are would be an example of vibes-based reasoning.
The funders of the project have a history of investing in anti-work/anti-consumer startups. Andreessen Horowitz is heavily invested in Lyft. Michael Moritz invested in InstCart and Klarna. They all heavily invested in Adam Neumann for We Work, and again even after the ponzischeme was revealed. I'm not looking at vibes, I'm looking at their past investments and the history of their treatment of workers. It's fine if you're excited about the development but I think it's equally fair for a number of us to view it with skepticism. The folks investing in it have proven that ROI is king, regardless of the downstream effects.
Okay, that's good info.
I think venture capitalists invest in a lot of companies, though, without necessarily having much control over how the companies treat their workers day to day? If I were considering working at a startup, I would be interested in whether they have funding and who their investors are, but not because I'd want to look up their other investments and see what working conditions were like at other companies the VC's invested in. Each company has its own business model and culture, so it doesn't seem all that predictive? Most companies aren't ride share companies or anything like WeWork.
And that's even more true of real estate. If I were buying a property in a planned community, I might want to know more about the company behind it because financial stability is a concern, particularly if there's still a lot of construction to be done. But I wouldn't expect that to affect my working conditions. Most people buying property don't end up working for the real estate developer. Instead, I would be interested in knowing whether they have an HOA and what it's like, what the various taxes and fees are, what the neighbors are like, and all that other real estate stuff.
There will likely be a point at which voters in Solano County have to make a decision, hopefully with a lot more information than we have now, but probably a lot less than they'd ideally have because the project isn't built yet.
I totally agree on most of your points, but I don't think I'm doing a good job of conveying why I have a gripe about this. I'm not actually concerned about the employees of the startup itself, I'm sure they'll do fine and make a little mint if the projects ends up being a success. I'm more concerned about what this means for housing development in general, particularly in the Bay Area, and for non-career residents. I see this as a test bed for new development models, one that has top down control of development, no municipal regulations, and a focus on profitability. This is a personal opinion, but while municipal government may be slow real estate development, it also ensures that new development is in line was community interests. Or it's supposed to anyway. In towns like Mountain View it's meant that Google needs city approval before planning large expansions of commercial or residential projects. The outcome has been that Google will then work with the city to provide benefits to the wider community (new bike trails, additional low income housing, etc) - not just to themselves. If you remove this process then you can optimize for the companies that are investing in and establishing within your new city.
And that leads to the common thread between companies like WeWork, Lyft, or InstaCart. They rely on a class of worker - that these companies legally created - that has minimal legal protections, no benefits, and are paid in some cases below minimum wage. Not the folks in engineering, design, or sales; but the one's doing the manual labor of their operations: driving passengers, delivering groceries, doing laundry, etc. The jobs these folks would do are still necessary within any functioning municipality - barista, cleaners, launderers, garbage men, postal workers, etc - and the development Flannery is focusing on is no exception. The residential apartments will likely not be accessible to the average gig economy worker and my worry is that you create a city with two classes: the folks who live there and the ones that serve it. We've chatted in the past about your familiarity with the Monterey area and I think Pebble Beach is probably an apt comparison. Replace the wealthy tourist/retirement heavy emphasis with young urbanite and you have the proposed project. Likely, you'll see an exaggerated version of what we already have: poor folks diving an hour in from Vacaville to a job that runs through an app to serve the needs of the people within the town. For the profitability of the city those folks will need to be paid as little as possible, only after being suckered into taking those positions with bonuses, perks, and inflated rates similar to those Uber used during their market capture years. Once there is an established a base of workers that rely on those positions Flannery can reduce wages, remove perks, and maintain their city on an "optimized" budget.
The investors we're talking about have a track record of not only enabling this type of relationship but advocating for it. This is one more step of removing government oversight, something I'm not particularly excited about. I don't think it's going to be a catastrophic hell scape, in fact I think it's going to be quite pleasant for the folks that live there. They'll get to live in a bubble without needing to think about anyone who doesn't look, think, or dress like they do. But for the people who service the town - I'll keep my fingers crossed for them. The boat didn't work, but this might.
Since we only vaguely know what they're proposing and don't have any idea what kinds of concessions they might want, it seems a little soon to be making assumptions about who will move there, how they'll live, what kind of work they'll do, or how much diversity there will be? I expect there will be problems of some sort since there always are, but there's no good way of guessing what they might be.
I'm also having trouble imagining how this could turn into an end-run around the people who live there. These investors bought a lot of farmland, but it has to be zoned differently and they can't do that without permission.
It doesn't seem much like some crazy seasteading scheme, or Uber or AirBnB coming to town for that matter, where they just started doing it? Real estate doesn't work that way in California. My guess is that it won't be all that different in spirit from Google's negotiations with Mountain View. They'll have to get buy-in from local officials and make the deal attractive somehow to the voters.
I agree I don't think it's going to be the end of the world, however it is valid to flag concerns. You're right, we don't know that much about it, but we do know is who is funding it and their expectations on scale of return. I can't imagine these folks would have sunk this much into farmland without a good bit of due diligence, or confidence that with enough capital even rigid regulations can be changed. This project is a departure from traditional real estate development because Flannery seeks to make its own self contained town. While I am making leaps about what the outcomes of this project might look like, I'm looking at the outcomes from companies these groups have funded and the history of company towns to inform them.
If I can flip our conversation a bit, can I ask what about this project is so exciting for you? I'm also a big proponent of high density, human centric development so I can see the appeal there. Do you have concerns about who is spearheading the efforts?
I think people deciding to build some kind of new town, apparently at a fairly large scale, is interesting in itself. I’m curious what they’re up to.
Among the many things we don’t know yet is how self-contained it will be. Fairfield exists and maybe there will be close connections? What will they do for transit? It’s on an interstate highway and fairly close to Davis, but what else? Mixed-use development is trendy and seems more likely than a bedroom community, but how much commercial development will they attract? Do they have some kind of “anchor tenant” in mind?
But I’m not curious enough to do any research. I figure that it will be hard to find much now, compared to waiting a couple weeks. I will read more news as it comes in.
I didn’t have any particular conversation in mind, I just wanted to post some interesting news. Maybe it would have been better to wait until more is known. Or at least, suggesting some discussion topics rather than leaving it to chance.
I hear you and as much as I'm suspect of the funders I'm really glad you posted the article. A big take away from this is regardless of political stance or socio-economic level I think we're all jonesing for the housing kind of housing they are describing. Well, maybe the younger demographics. I would be so excited to see mixed-use development integrated into the planning.
Also, they might totally surprise me. Centralized planning makes it so much easier to build with a number of considerations in mind (climate resilience, transit/accessibility, pedestrian centric mobility, community engagement, greenspace...) so there is the potential for some really cool urban design. Initially, I was really excited about the Toronto "smart city" waterfront before realizing that Google sunsets a huge number of their products and that would leave a city up shit creek. This might mitigate some of those effects - as they own the city so it's in their interest not to let that happen - while still allowing for integrated systems. There are merits to the project.
I also realize I've taken us away from the point of the article and really honed in on the funding. I am genuinely excited at this kind of development and if there were other players at the helm I think I would feel differently.
I think it's reasonable to take the developers at their word because it's well backed by evidence in this case. California has some of the most restrictive zoning with some of the worst NIMBYism in the US. We're talking about the same state where a college couldn't build a dorm due to a lawsuit. Nearly every multifamily project deals with at least one CEQA lawsuit. It's a Herculean effort for even nonprofits to build multifamily homes due to DSA opposition on city councils.
I'm loath to trust that billionaire developers have my best interests in mind, but there are plenty of reasons to support their stated goals in this case. Building dense, walkable urbanism is exactly what California needs to fix its most serious problems. Even if the city is only affordable to ultra-wealthy techies, we can agree that more people living in dense mixed-use developments is a net positive for the environment and region.
As with all development in the Bay Area, ultimately the limiting factor is water. I assume these developers will hope to draw from nearby Lake Berryessa or the Sacramento river delta, but all that water is already spoken for.
The development of a brand new city for tens of thousands of residents with high-end amenities and parks, etc. requires tremendous amounts of water.
Yes, it will be interesting to see what they're planning for water. Farms use a tremendous amount of water too, though. I wonder where the farms there before them got their water?
I do hope it doesn't go up in smoke. It's an interesting experiment - whenever discussions about development policy come up, there's always layers upon layers of complexity and regulation and zoning and complaints from NIMBYs and all that, and it often makes you go, "well, I wish we could just have a clean slate then!"
It'd be an interesting experiment - high density, designed with public transit first, everything a urban policy wonk on
TwitterX would dream of. Will the residents come? If they do, it may well be a blueprint for both new developments and old cities. If not, then, well, at least someone tried.From the article:
…
…
…
That’s not how real estate development normally works anywhere else in the US and there’s no particular reason to think it will happen that way here. Real estate developers make money by selling homes to residents and leasing commercial real estate to other businesses. They need to sell property to pay off their loans.
Maybe look at Celebration, Florida for a non-dystopian example?
Company towns have a long sordid history in the USA. IMO anyone optimistic about this does not know their history.
Here's a pretty good primer.
Do you even even know what "dystopian" means? It's not just "I don't like it." The government is a bit unusual, but none of this makes Celebration a bad place to live. It's a pretty ordinary, well-off suburban community.
But what does that have to do with Celebration? I went there. It was fine. There doesn't seem to be anything tyrannical or frightening going on there, and nothing you quoted seems to be tyrannical or frightening either.
Is there something that makes it worse than a place with a strict HOA? Can a community be a dystopia if you can't see it, or is it just some kind of metaphysical quality of a place?
You betcha. Stepford wives comes to mind as an example in fiction.
Despite the fact that scifi dystopias have left firm imprints on our brains what a dystopia looks like, they can take all forms.
My local theater advertises that for any showtimes after 6 PM anyone under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian over 24 to not break curfew. Two 17 year olds on a date could get in trouble for attending a 8:00 PM show, while the 16 year old running the booth can work till 10 just fine.
The beaches are closed at 8 PM in this one town. Not even adults are allowed a quiet moonwalk on the beach. The boardwalk next to it is open till 9:30 though...
That's pretty damn dystopian to me.
A wife that is all smiles in public but hides her bruises with long sleeves and makeup makes for a quiet hell that few can see.
I get that this is a common trope in horror films. However, to turn into a horror film, at some point what's hidden needs to become visible. Otherwise it's just an unfounded accusation. There are stories about that, too.
I'm not sure if having curfews counts as dystopian; it would depend on context. I hadn't heard about any curfews in Celebration, though I assume they must have had some during the pandemic and maybe after hurricanes?
I guess if anyone wants to read up on their local deed restrictions, they could start here.
Ehhhh, have you been to Celebration? It's a little bit dystopian.
Yes, I’ve visited a friend who lives there several times, though not recently. We walked around a bit. I thought it was a quite nice, upscale residential community. Celebration had some problems (the movie theater closed) and it’s a little odd, but it didn’t seem in any way a dystopia to me.
What gave you that impression?
21st-century mill-town feudalism, damn—all they need is a general store that only takes scrip.
Mirror for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/GhL6W
Anyone else surprised they had not tried that already? All the big wigs sure would be wealthy enough from all the tech stuff already to have a go.
If by "try that" you mean do real estate deals, there are plenty of those. This seems like a larger scale, though.
I think moving to the city was in for quite a long while? Young people moving to the bay area wanted to live in San Francisco. Google usually would open offices in city centers near good public transit.
Also, there were attempts to partner with cities rather than going it alone, like Google's Sidewalk Labs, which tried to do a big project in Toronto but was rejected. This probably seemed like the way to go back in the Obama administration, when people were more optimistic and the big tech backlash hadn't started yet.
Going further back, older tech companies like IBM would build corporate campuses in suburbs, back before inner cities became popular again. This is why we have Silicon Valley to begin with; at one time that was smaller towns and fruit orchards. Apple started in Cupertino and Microsoft in Redmond rather than larger cities.
I've often wondered why the bigger tech companies don't open offices in smaller cities more.
Other billionaires might be wealthy enough, but had different ideas? Gates started a major charity. Larry Ellison bought an island.
I'd rather they bought a whole nation, or land from a nation, and made their own socialist city-state paradise free from US influence.
They are the US influence.
I think US influence is pretty good personally.