My friend grew up in Chico and he said after the fires the rebuilding efforts were adamantly focused on removing trees entirely. I think this is the essence of sprawl
4:30 this guy gets it. So many “starchitects” these days try to design entire cities from scratch buildings and all. They focus on the fancy renderings from 1,000 feet in the air with futuristic looking buildings or complicated street networks…. none of that crap is needed. Just put down a good old street grid with relaxed zoning and the market will do the rest. Thats why in the past when cities were designed they didnt show finalized plans of the end product in renderings, all they did was design a street grid and then lay it down. Nyc, washington dc, savannah GA, barcelona, philadelphia…etc. none of those cities had all of the buildings planned ahead of time, they planned out the street grid and then let the city grow organically. Cities should grow organically according to the needs of the people there, this is how cities have grown all through history and it makes the best cities. Dont have strict zoning that prevents different uses from being built and the market will build out the city just fine. Its crazy that we have to relearn all of this which we already knew for thousands of years, but better late than never. Its not “new urbanism” or any catchy term its just getting back to what has ALWAYS worked.
Mr Metcalf talks about the plans for California Forever, however there is no county approval for this plan and their plans are contrary to the Solano County general plan.
These new walkable developments should use Permaculture and Passive Solar techniques to be more harmonious with Nature - with Rooftop Gardens. Without the AI "smart" tech that tracks everyone.
Good luck to these folks. Every time I am in an older, walkable city or neighborhood I think “Why aren’t we building more places like this anymore?” I’ll be amazed if the beautiful vision survives the public planning, permitting and review processes though.
The grid city is a bit disappointing if we stick to the old ‘traffic light every 200 yards’ system. It works if through traffic is discouraged through mode filters. But local shopping, local jobs, dedicated bus routes, side walks and separated bike lanes and connected city is good.
Regardless of the vague designs shown to date, California Forever's proposed "city" should not be built at all. It makes zero sense. I want quality in our current urban areas through investment and rehabilitation not the creation of another bland car-based suburban development in one of the last large open-spaces remaining in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area. California Forever is on the wrong track but it's never too late to change.
You should watch my video with California Forever's CEO Jan Sramek. I think you're misinterpreting the project, respectfully. It's simply a far denser, more self-sustainable city/suburb as compared to what is being built en-masse in Northern California right now. Suburbs will be built whether we like it or not, but will they be sprawling wastelands or high quality cities in their own right? California Forever wants to produce the latter.
@@alexanderrotmensz The reality of the situation is that people that move there will still want to travel to the rest of the Bay Area even if it is in fact self sustaining, and they have shown nothing so far in providing a viable alternative to driving in or out of the area. It is miles off of an existing transit corridor which makes encouraging transit usage extremely difficult in the area. With the intense demand for housing in the Bay Area, it is all but guaranteed that any residents that would move to this area will commute into the rest of the bay. I find it extremely unlikely that the developers of California Forever are taking into account the extensive upfront and recurring costs needed to implement the regional transit connectivity necessary to ensure that this development doesn't become the next Mountain House or Tracy. Just my two cents; Until I see some detailed information and plans for exactly what is going to be built where, I do not have much confidence that this becomes any more than a glorified suburb.
There is no feasible ability to build transit in this area. It is more remote than the cities currently in Solano county and those cities will hopefully be getting commuter train connections by 2050.
I think you've misunderstood. What we're talking about is that there can still be greenfield development in general, throughout the country or the state, in order to solve problems with housing, since cities like Los Angeles or San Jose are very slow in fulfilling their infill development demands. I also recommend you watch my recent video on 10 places where I think LA should be developing.
California's proposed High Speed Rail alone costing the state and federal government billions and is taking decades to build due to the environmental regulations and NIMBY opponent's to turn the planner's hair grey. Even this proposed Solano town has the same hurdles and it will end being the government and local tax payers dealing with the high cost. The tech billionaires funding the proposal will not pay for the costs if it gets insanely high.
Not addressing any of the criticism for this development. You want to bring things back to pre WW2, forcing your ideologies onto other communities with sheer force resonates with sustainability practices of German Leadership during the time, so you’re doing a great job.
I like the idea of more traditional, walkable cities like they have in Europe, but this is America. Will these areas be able to generate the revenue necessary to hire enough private security to keep the crime and drugs out of these area?
@Urbanhandyman yes, but it sounds like the majority of what is being spoken of here is rentals, and in my personal experience, the more a community moves away from ownership and becomes more rental based, the more you see a decline in safety, quality of life, and the infrastructure eventually stops being maintained. I, and several family members and friends, have had to flee our home towns where they became overrun with rentals, drugs, and crime. Now they want to force affordable housing (aka, section 8s in single family neighborhoods) in my new town, and I don't want to go through this again. People who move into suburbs are often fleeing crime and drugs.
@@IrishTwinMaker I agree that ownership is extremely important in creating a healthy neighborhood. When someone owns a piece of the neighborhood they are incentivised to do things that benefit the community. Even someone who is acting entirely out of their own self-interest would choose to help their neighbor paint their house because doing so will increase the value of their own property. A renter is not financially encouraged to do that. Ownership is important and I think there is a "critical mass" of ownership that is needed to have a successful place. Having more fine-grained ownership of rental units would be beneficial. In present day it is common to have large corporate landlords that own hundreds of units. Those landlords are unable to properly vet who is living under their roof, and landlords who do not live on the property are less inclined to care about the maintenance and quality of life for the renters. But this is not how it always was. A century ago it was much more common for regular people to own a few units and they would have lived on site or close by. Someone like a lawyer might have owned a duplex, lived in one unit, and rented out the second unit. They would have had direct contact with the renters regularly. They would have had to collect rent in person. They would have had to personally vet the renters. The large corporate landlords that we have today are enabling the problem. The existence of the suburbs has also worsened the problem. As I said before, there is a "critical mass" of ownership that is necessary to make a healthy place. But when we concentrate all of the homeowners into one place and all of the renters into another place, that creates a more despotic situation. This becomes a positive feedback loop as anyone who has the means to leave the poor neighborhood will move to the suburbs. I don't blame anyone for choosing to move to the suburbs. Everyone is just trying to do the best thing that they can for themselves. I think to fix this we need more people who are interested in becoming small-scale landlords. Hopefully California Forever can find that sweet spot of ownership and if they are smart they will set up policies to ensure fine-grained ownership, such as owner-occupancy requirements for homes and small apartment buildings. Encouraging small local businesses is also smart. Local business owners don't like criminals hanging around their business and are more likely to make personal efforts to clean up the streets. In contrast, corporate businesses are much more likely to turn a blind eye or rely on police to deal with the problem. Edit: some more thoughts that I wanted to add: I also want to add that suburban-style single-family homes are not the only way to achieve ownership. Condos can have the same form factor as apartments, so you can have a really high density neighborhood and still have a high rate of ownership. I would also like to see more small starter homes. A starter home would be a small house the size of a studio or one bedroom apartment. It could take the form factor of a suburban style house or it could be in the more compact form of a row house. There are a lot of possibilities. Small starter homes provide a lower barrier to entry for ownership. This would increase the rate of ownership and improve economic mobility.
My friend grew up in Chico and he said after the fires the rebuilding efforts were adamantly focused on removing trees entirely. I think this is the essence of sprawl
These urban planners are evil.
@@Jokr_Meta howso? I am interested.
4:30 this guy gets it. So many “starchitects” these days try to design entire cities from scratch buildings and all. They focus on the fancy renderings from 1,000 feet in the air with futuristic looking buildings or complicated street networks…. none of that crap is needed. Just put down a good old street grid with relaxed zoning and the market will do the rest. Thats why in the past when cities were designed they didnt show finalized plans of the end product in renderings, all they did was design a street grid and then lay it down. Nyc, washington dc, savannah GA, barcelona, philadelphia…etc. none of those cities had all of the buildings planned ahead of time, they planned out the street grid and then let the city grow organically. Cities should grow organically according to the needs of the people there, this is how cities have grown all through history and it makes the best cities. Dont have strict zoning that prevents different uses from being built and the market will build out the city just fine. Its crazy that we have to relearn all of this which we already knew for thousands of years, but better late than never. Its not “new urbanism” or any catchy term its just getting back to what has ALWAYS worked.
Mr Metcalf talks about the plans for California Forever, however there is no county approval for this plan and their plans are contrary to the Solano County general plan.
I agree, it is a bit premature. But the proposal is cool
These new walkable developments should use Permaculture and Passive Solar techniques to be more harmonious with Nature - with Rooftop Gardens. Without the AI "smart" tech that tracks everyone.
Permaculture is plausible if we bring back serfdom.
Otherwise, forget it.
Wrong. Leave the cities. “Urban planning” by white liberals is the devil. Not today Satan!
Will they have single staircase zoning?
Good luck to these folks. Every time I am in an older, walkable city or neighborhood I think “Why aren’t we building more places like this anymore?” I’ll be amazed if the beautiful vision survives the public planning, permitting and review processes though.
The grid city is a bit disappointing if we stick to the old ‘traffic light every 200 yards’ system. It works if through traffic is discouraged through mode filters. But local shopping, local jobs, dedicated bus routes, side walks and separated bike lanes and connected city is good.
They said "Barcelona", take a shot!
I might come back to the bay area from NYC if this ever actually happens
What have you learned about different sidewalk materials??
Regardless of the vague designs shown to date, California Forever's proposed "city" should not be built at all. It makes zero sense. I want quality in our current urban areas through investment and rehabilitation not the creation of another bland car-based suburban development in one of the last large open-spaces remaining in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area. California Forever is on the wrong track but it's never too late to change.
You should watch my video with California Forever's CEO Jan Sramek. I think you're misinterpreting the project, respectfully. It's simply a far denser, more self-sustainable city/suburb as compared to what is being built en-masse in Northern California right now. Suburbs will be built whether we like it or not, but will they be sprawling wastelands or high quality cities in their own right? California Forever wants to produce the latter.
@@alexanderrotmensz The reality of the situation is that people that move there will still want to travel to the rest of the Bay Area even if it is in fact self sustaining, and they have shown nothing so far in providing a viable alternative to driving in or out of the area. It is miles off of an existing transit corridor which makes encouraging transit usage extremely difficult in the area. With the intense demand for housing in the Bay Area, it is all but guaranteed that any residents that would move to this area will commute into the rest of the bay. I find it extremely unlikely that the developers of California Forever are taking into account the extensive upfront and recurring costs needed to implement the regional transit connectivity necessary to ensure that this development doesn't become the next Mountain House or Tracy.
Just my two cents; Until I see some detailed information and plans for exactly what is going to be built where, I do not have much confidence that this becomes any more than a glorified suburb.
will there be a train station in this new town, or plans in the future for transit to buisness centers?
I think their documentation includes a plan for transit development, beginning with a rapid bus system while the city is still relatively small.
There is no feasible ability to build transit in this area. It is more remote than the cities currently in Solano county and those cities will hopefully be getting commuter train connections by 2050.
Hey, you should continue your American fallen cities like Atlantic City
Did you say a city like Los Angeles could be fixed by allowing more greenfield development? Where?
I think you've misunderstood. What we're talking about is that there can still be greenfield development in general, throughout the country or the state, in order to solve problems with housing, since cities like Los Angeles or San Jose are very slow in fulfilling their infill development demands.
I also recommend you watch my recent video on 10 places where I think LA should be developing.
California's proposed High Speed Rail alone costing the state and federal government billions and is taking decades to build due to the environmental regulations and NIMBY opponent's to turn the planner's hair grey. Even this proposed Solano town has the same hurdles and it will end being the government and local tax payers dealing with the high cost. The tech billionaires funding the proposal will not pay for the costs if it gets insanely high.
Not addressing any of the criticism for this development. You want to bring things back to pre WW2, forcing your ideologies onto other communities with sheer force resonates with sustainability practices of German Leadership during the time, so you’re doing a great job.
I like the idea of more traditional, walkable cities like they have in Europe, but this is America. Will these areas be able to generate the revenue necessary to hire enough private security to keep the crime and drugs out of these area?
Property taxes have existed for a long time.
@Urbanhandyman yes, but it sounds like the majority of what is being spoken of here is rentals, and in my personal experience, the more a community moves away from ownership and becomes more rental based, the more you see a decline in safety, quality of life, and the infrastructure eventually stops being maintained. I, and several family members and friends, have had to flee our home towns where they became overrun with rentals, drugs, and crime. Now they want to force affordable housing (aka, section 8s in single family neighborhoods) in my new town, and I don't want to go through this again. People who move into suburbs are often fleeing crime and drugs.
@@IrishTwinMaker If you equate "rentals" as being filled with undesirable humans then it's game over for you.
@Urbanhandyman that's one way to dismiss someone's lived experience without answering a single question.
@@IrishTwinMaker I agree that ownership is extremely important in creating a healthy neighborhood. When someone owns a piece of the neighborhood they are incentivised to do things that benefit the community. Even someone who is acting entirely out of their own self-interest would choose to help their neighbor paint their house because doing so will increase the value of their own property. A renter is not financially encouraged to do that. Ownership is important and I think there is a "critical mass" of ownership that is needed to have a successful place.
Having more fine-grained ownership of rental units would be beneficial. In present day it is common to have large corporate landlords that own hundreds of units. Those landlords are unable to properly vet who is living under their roof, and landlords who do not live on the property are less inclined to care about the maintenance and quality of life for the renters.
But this is not how it always was. A century ago it was much more common for regular people to own a few units and they would have lived on site or close by. Someone like a lawyer might have owned a duplex, lived in one unit, and rented out the second unit. They would have had direct contact with the renters regularly. They would have had to collect rent in person. They would have had to personally vet the renters. The large corporate landlords that we have today are enabling the problem.
The existence of the suburbs has also worsened the problem. As I said before, there is a "critical mass" of ownership that is necessary to make a healthy place. But when we concentrate all of the homeowners into one place and all of the renters into another place, that creates a more despotic situation. This becomes a positive feedback loop as anyone who has the means to leave the poor neighborhood will move to the suburbs. I don't blame anyone for choosing to move to the suburbs. Everyone is just trying to do the best thing that they can for themselves. I think to fix this we need more people who are interested in becoming small-scale landlords.
Hopefully California Forever can find that sweet spot of ownership and if they are smart they will set up policies to ensure fine-grained ownership, such as owner-occupancy requirements for homes and small apartment buildings.
Encouraging small local businesses is also smart. Local business owners don't like criminals hanging around their business and are more likely to make personal efforts to clean up the streets. In contrast, corporate businesses are much more likely to turn a blind eye or rely on police to deal with the problem.
Edit: some more thoughts that I wanted to add:
I also want to add that suburban-style single-family homes are not the only way to achieve ownership. Condos can have the same form factor as apartments, so you can have a really high density neighborhood and still have a high rate of ownership. I would also like to see more small starter homes. A starter home would be a small house the size of a studio or one bedroom apartment. It could take the form factor of a suburban style house or it could be in the more compact form of a row house. There are a lot of possibilities. Small starter homes provide a lower barrier to entry for ownership. This would increase the rate of ownership and improve economic mobility.