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.
What population size and density were you thinking of?
Not totally sure what the range is on both for actual places that fall under "hilltop Italian villages". I assume it is anywhere from 1k to 5 or 10k population but what is typical or desired density? 3k? 5k?
If it went in southwest, I'd want to compare to Acoma Pueblo NM at its peak for curiosity sake.
I dunno how much actual buzz Telosa has with people. I see some articles but I don't hear much talk.
It may be that the next buzz city in US is different or very different in scale / style than the Telosa concept.
What is the closest actual village / town to an Italian hilltop village in greater San Francisco Bay Area? Closest in southern California? I am thinking about that for some other Western metros as well (Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City...) So far I am thinking of Park City (and some smaller upstart versions). Mountain Village beside Telluride, a few other dense CO ski resorts... Anything close in mountains of NY, PA?
I don't recall ever getting to La Jolla CA but how is that for American utopian city? Beaumont CA? Some would say Boulder CO. Of course these are far bigger than most Italian hilltop villages but not Florence or the concept of Telosa.
I see Florence described as 400k in core at 10k per square mile. 800k in "urban area", 1.5 in overall metro. Prefer that over a 5 mil city at 20k density? I would. But I'd prefer La Jolla to Florence and probably somewhere less dense than La Jolla but how much less is still somewhat debatable for me, all things considered. I probably prefer a place to be 2 things, 2 styles over purely, uniformly one. La Jolla village, 9k density but only for 6,000 of the near 50k, with the rest far less dense.
Lore apparently lived fairly modestly in New Jersey in past (one way to live in greater New York metro)... but now has a $50 million penthouse in Manhattan.
Probably scratch Park City, at least if high density matters. I thought it was denser but a guess my memory was from the main streets. But it does go somewhat with the idea of a place with different densities.
If this is going to be a true utopian city then I don't think "ownership" can be factored in because ownership immediately implies opportunity for profit upon selling which will completely destroy the concept by the introduction of a pollutant into the model called "profit motive".
These lands will have to exist on 99-year renewable leases similar to Hong Kong. People can live in houses they build for 2-3 generations knowing that they cannot sell their land improvements to make a quick buck. In this way, there's no speculation for quick gain and the concept can go on growing.
The suggested enhanced social services under Equitism could be generally approved by existing local governments if local officials voted for them and the citizen / voters wanted those local officials and those votes and were not overturned later. The differences would be codifying & maintaining social goals beyond current efforts at the "community foundation" level and the decisionmaking structure of that
foundation.
Anything less than one person, one vote for adults 18 and older would be a lessening of democratic principles and power. Anything less than the ability to change those commitments would be new binds. In effect it could a second type of constitution. What the founders declare and initial residents knowingly or semi-knowingly accept may not what all or a majority of residents want in 5-10-20-50 years.
The funding approach of Equitism as practiced under Telosa model could be duplicated by other projects initiated by philanthropists, corporations or some governments at different levels depending on current or future grants of authority. 320 million Americans live outside such a structure currently. How many would want to go under such a structure? That is hard to predict. Some might move to go under it, others might support changing their governments to accommodate it. Authorized governments could potentially buy large tracts of land, undeveloped and outside current bounds or developed / underdeveloped inside. The later can be done thru urban renewal districts. The former would be an alternative to private development and annexation (or not) and would surely draw legal and political opposition.
Why propose enhanced social services this way rather than thru the existing political process? Presumably it is about control and permanence. (And credit claiming, marketability and ease of duplication and transfer.)
It is not really free money or money that could not be otherwise leveraged. It may not be that much of other people's grant. Telosa residents thru rents will probably self-finance most things.
Land with value can not walk away from state government and probably not county government in these modern times (though it did in past). It can and still does walk away from municipalities when landowners there think it is in there interests. The land or the structures and people under Telosa presumably couldn't walk away from Telosa... but that would depend on the legal writing and attempted legal interpretations and challenges to it.
What if any special authorities or exemptions will Telosa seek? A separate new city proposal in Nevada sought powers & exemptions that were imagined or authorized on paper but not specifically and immediately granted as requested.
The powers of existing levels and components of government to alter or limit Telosa should be remembered even if not immediately exercised. The prospects of other forms of organization to arise within Telosa to dialogue with or challenge the community foundation or any other components of Telosa should not be overlooked- "property owners association, or economic or other interests / factions.
This is still at the very beginning. It may or may move forward fast or at all. It probably will change from initial concept. It will be interesting to watch or participate in.
If want to tax land, will need to get local government to do so. Large new resident block could vote for that (assuming state law allows).
If residents do not own land, the land tax will fall on community Foundation? Or is it going to be a non-profit exempt from such taxes?
If community foundation pays any land tax it will be to local government... and paid by...? Rents on buildings / land "use"? Or land sales or loans against land "value" (that mostly or entirely won't be sold?)? Or charging a sufficient excise on services to pay for these taxes (on land that will supposedly skyrocket in value and cause taxes to skyrocket)?
If the taxes are paid by rents on buildings and occupants, how is that effectively different from current system?
If rents pay for enhanced social services it will either be enhanced services provided by local government based on land taxes probably paid by rents on occupants of buildings and / or enhanced social services paid directly from the rent on buildings / occupants, right?
The proposed first phase is for 1% of land. So starts out 99% idle? Compared to 100% idle. Do taxes on that land compel the community foundation to develop the land or will it do what it wants at its own pace? Sure seems different than the standard Georgist development model. The standard Georgist development model believes / seeks for tax to remain on land owners, not passed on to renters. But if people are sorta both, what is achieved?
Who is more or less favored, first residents or final residents?
The answer may be nobody knows. Something to think about though with infrastructure phasing.
On what terms will Telosa land be rented to first parties? 99 years? By upfront lump payment? That can supplemented any time the community foundation wants / needs more money? Any restrictions on sub-leasing practices?
So much that needs to be spelled out in advance.
Could the community Foundation refuse to renew long-term leases, selectively or more comprehensively? What prevents it?
Can the community foundation sell any land, developed by renter or not, and on what terms?
"And if the community sold the land and created an endowment — similar to a university or hospital endowment — they could earn $50 billion a year."
Who buys except to charge max rents on a captive market and perhaps receive forfeited built assets?
If any / all land is to be sold, would residents be able? If so, why separate the land asset in first place? If not, why?
This sets up a separation like with mineral rights.
Build property and rent... to not fully own... and have land possibly or NECESSARILY sold to someone else??
Is the land essentially being pre-bundled to be sold to a REIT or hedge fund?
If the earnings on the land sale exceed the rents charged by the landowners, then and only then would the residents yield any margin. IF
But why would the buyers of the land exchange market rate returns on their payments to receive less in rents? Tax reasons? Are they buying forever or flip in 10, 20 plus years? Who buys the flip? Somebody who thinks they can squeeze more money out of it.
Somebody who might not renew long-term leases or make forfeiture rate higher than natural (for late payment or any other successful reason).
What systematic assurances are going to be offered / codified to lessen or remove these risks?
Can you imagine scenarios where the future large-scale landowner would become involved in community foundation and / or local government issues / decisions? I certainly can.
No news of site selection or further narrowing of target area after another year. Two years since initial announcement. No visible signs of government negotiations that were previously said to be expected to begin earlier this year.
No sustained public buzz. Press section on site hasn't added a clipping in over a year. Marc Lore hasn't said a word about Telosa on his personal Twitter since late July 2022. A handful of webinars have taken place and Lore has participated but that is pretty low profile. The Bryant Park example got a brief mention (about a 4 paragraph article).
Don't really know what to expect going forward. History to date suggests to me a way slower timetable and probably less to way less than original design, if anything.
Related to the market for massive new development:
A number of Silicon Valley leaders working together have bought 50,000 acres between San Francisco and Sacramento and are said to want to build a new utopian city. But in space near existing major cities. Don't have zoning yet and no timetable but this could be competition for Telosa- investors, employers and worker / residents.
An effort to get self-rule authority for a 150,000 acre piece of land outside Reno NV failed on first attempt but that parcel could also be future competition on 2nd effort.
Bill Gates 25,000 acres around Buckeye AZ hasn't advanced in 7 years since purchase but it too will be competition and may have a leg up on employers wanting to be near and / or engage Microsoft.
The Howard Hughes corporation is also actively preparing a new 35,000 acre development near Buckeye and describe it as the biggest planned development in the West. They are also on the hunt for or already developing major parcels elsewhere in country.
All these developments are piggybacking onto existing metros.
As is the recent general tech push in Austin. But there are reports that some California migrants to it don't like the heat, conservative politics, traffic congestion, schools and / or community amenities & culture. And being far from the mecca ofSilicon Valley. Some of these reactions could be expected for Telosa if they pick Nevada, Arizona or especially Utahand rural parts of them. Telosa wants to build a new environment that addresses these concerns but the first stage will have to be big enough to present a different image. The general political environment will be much different than California for a long time or forever.
All this would imo would argue for Telosa to get going if they are going to go. But a real start seems years away at minimum. Lore seems busy with new food delivery start-up, family issues, NYC mega-penthouse living, the Minnesota Timberwolves, etc. Even as a billionaire, he doesn't have the free capital to finance more than a tiny fraction of the announced design. He'll need a handful or several handfuls of big banks, real estate abd construction firms, founding employer / investors and other partners and there have been no such major announcements. Architect and urban planning partners are just the tip of what's needed.
The planned cities in NV and AZ are probably running into the issue of having enough water. I like the idea of the new cities but a long term supply of water is a tough issue to overcome. Even the one in California may have water issues.
I've often thought about what such a city should look like. High on my list of requirements is good public transit / mass transit and perhaps a limit on privately owned vehicles. So much of our lives now revolves around getting in a car to go anywhere; a lot of land is gobbled up for roads and parking, and a lot of tax money is spent policing those roads or caring for those injured in crashes.
In 17 years on this site I've seen a lot of people come here asking for a walkable city life which also would be high on my list of requirements. Right now that's hard to do; one case in point being grocery stores; most big chains want a huge footprint with a ton of parking and enough room for 53-foot semi-trucks to get in and out. In the somewhat walkable areas I've lived in there were no large supermarkets. In one of these new cities, if there is no large-footprint supermarket / retail strip, an Amazon-like on-line ordering and delivery system might suffice.
In the mid-1970s we live in Crystal City, VA, barely a mile due-west of National Airport in DC. It was a set of high rise buildings of about 14 stories each in a linear pattern north-south along US-1 (Richmond Hwy) -- essentially the old Potomac Yard railroad facility. An underground walkway connected these towers with some shopping, eats, movies, eye doctor, and a small boutique grocery store. The key feature to this underground village was a stop on the subway line. It was awesome to live there and that would be a good model for one of these new utopias. At 75 I won't live long enough to enjoy any new city, but with enough willpower there are areas where it can be done.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Telosa talks about building dozens of mostly self-sufficient pods or neighborhoods that would be walkable or assisted with public transit. But will they find ten of thousands initially and millions in their wild ambitions who would walk much in the July desert sun / temps? Or when the wind blows? I don't know many people, including walkable advocates who are willing to walk that far regularly for everything, especially in tough conditions. 2-4 blocks ok, but what about 8+ for some things? Day after day, month after month, year after year? Maybe porticos and / or tunnels and subway would be involved as you noted from your VA experience. Whatever the public transit style, it better be super clean, convenient, reasonably priced and safe for people to be happy with it and recommend it to others.
For water, it is likely to require tapping an aquifer.
Most of Telosa would presumably be people in 10-50 story buildings for home and probably work. Folks that want to live that way can live that way in existing big cities. Move to a start-up in the desert and hope to duplicate or exceed that over decades? You'd really have to buy the utopian ideals. I don't see / hear many of those type of dreamers for a desert solution.
But line up that first $10-20 billion and see if there is going to be hundreds of billions more available for build out.
I'll update further if there is justification but this will probably be it until sufficient development warrants.
Last edited by NW Crow; 09-05-2023 at 11:53 AM..
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.
