I have always had nothing but respect for people who go out and build stuff! My grandfather was a oil rig worker and amateur architect and he would build amazing stuff that he designed himself. He taught me the value of people who take initiative and go out and DO! The patio he build did collapse after a bad storm and unfortunately my grandmother lost her life that day. RIP MeMa
I really hope this city actually gets built and is successful. I get why people are against it but it’s still overall a net positive. The biggest criticisms I’ve heard are land acquisition and water use. There is plenty of land available for remediation and the small number of people who are affected can be compensated financially. With regard to water use, the biggest user of water is actually agriculture rather than municipal use. Sustainable practices such as reuse and recycling will ensure there is an abundant supply for generations to come
As a Bay Area native I’m 100% against it. They are literally forcing farmers to give up their land in the courts. These farmers have been here for generations and supply our area with food. This city will only benefit the mega rich
This is the kind of thing that I always wish billionaires would do with their money. I know Strong Towns, et al think top-down planning like this is guaranteed to fail, but I have hope. With enough experts working together, a master planned community that actually takes sustainability, walkability, jobs, water-access, etc. can work. Culdesac seems like a smaller version of this. It requires taking big risks. As long as people and the environment aren't being taking advantage of, I don't see the downside of this attempt.
On the highway widening, as you can see during the drive much of it is a just a single lane right now. One to two lanes in this context is fine. It's not Houston.
why are we spending millions, if not billions, on a new city when we have cities already existing that could use this same money for affordable housing/walkable neighborhoods? Oh wait, I know. This dude refuses to believe he can do anything to support communities without his name entirely connected to its development. Bros not an ally, he's a rich narcissist.
Yeah, it should be obvious that this billionaire is just using Alexander Rotmensz to promote his stupid experiment, but it makes me sad to see so many comments supporting this unrealistic new city.
We need more cool, self sustaining walkable towns. Just make sure it's not an AI "Smart" city that tracks everyone everywhere. There's also reports that this California Forever group is trying to sue nearby ranch owners that don't want to sell their land. Not a good way to try to get the locals to like you.
Honestly I'm still not for this project. This guy seems a little more for urbanism than most developers, but he's still compromising on the key aspects. This project he is proposing is still going to push California towards more sprawl when we have so much underutilized land that is already developed. We need to protect our agricultural land and open spaces. If the billionaires want a pet project, they should revitalize existing neighborhoods.
So they should buy the houses of the poor, and then jack the rent up to unaffordable levels? That's the whole problem with urbanism. People like you or me will never own an apartment building, rich landlords do. That's exactly how Trump got his money - his father and him collected rent checks on tens of thousands of New Yorkers by encouraging urban development which they could own. Urban cities have the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. It annihilates the middle class. You get a wealthy college educated upper class person pretending that they're green because they walk down the street or cycle to work, but instead they have Ubers, Lyfts, DoorDash, GrubHub, Amazon, and everyone else driving for them to provide them with food, groceries, and supplies.
@@aminy23 It sounds like you just don't like cities. If that's the case, you should join me against supporting this guy's project to build a new *city*. But as it happens, all of the points you bring up against cities are pretty weak. Normal people can and do own small buildings or flats in buildings, and that'll become easier if we increase the housing supply. Cities have a greater mix of incomes than suburbs. Urban living is better for the environment by every metric than suburban/rural living. Urban areas are more economically efficient than suburbs. If you want to investigate this more, there is a wealth of sources out there that shows these things to be true. I like cities, but I like open spaces as well. We shouldn't try to pretend like one can be the other (sprawling suburbs). It's very possible to meet our housing demand in the space we've already built up with ugly, useless parking lots, malls, and stroads.
@@underratedbub I like progress, I like freedom, and I don't like controlling or managing the lives of others. If someone wants to build a house on their own land, that's their right. If someone wants to build an apartment, that's their right. If a city wants to build a public transport rail system, it benefits their people and is a good thing. If a few rural communities want to build a highway, it also benefits their people. There isn't a one size fits all solution. Some people are happy with an apartment and no yard to maintain. Some people want a yard for their kids to play in. The problem is when we start to attack our own people. When urbanites attack suburbanites to stop sprawl, and suburbanites attack urbanites to stop density - then in the end we have nothing. And that's exactly what's happened. We need to stop whining and complaining over everyone doing their own thing, and instead push to actually be productive. Cities like Lathrop and Roseville are suburban sprawl, and among the fastest growing in California because they actually build houses which people can afford. Instead of hating on them, prove them wrong - build cheap urban housing which people can afford. Until it's actually done, it's just a keyboard argument.
@@aminy23 I like all those things too, but you seem to misunderstand how new housing is built these days and what we're actually advocating for. No one sane is attacking people for living in a city or a suburb. Most of us here are pretty much just advocating for more housing, but housing that is beneficial in the long term. Suburbs have their benefits, but I'm sure even you would agree that they gobble up farmland and discourage personal interaction, physical fitness, economic efficiency, and more. Most people also aren't homesteading and building their own houses on virgin land they acquired themselves. By and large these days, new developments are made as suburban sprawl on huge tracts of farmland bought up by mega-corporations. Letting this be the type of housing we build is extreme short-term thinking. Everyone wants more housing, but farmland and nature are finite, valuable assets to the community and the country, and the type of housing that is being built is extremely inefficient for all the reasons I listed above-but above all because they don't increase the housing supply as much as denser housing would. You say we're just "hating" on cities that are built as suburban sprawl and telling me personally to build cheap urban housing. I'm not a billionaire developer, so the only way for me to help build urban housing is to express the latent demand that exists for it-this channel is a great example of that demand too. Cities in many parts of the world and even in the US manage to fit way more people onto smaller tracts of land, all while making the city more attractive and more affordable. Japan is a great example of this. There is of course more to the story of affordability than just density, but this isn't some unproven science like you're suggesting. It's very simple: housing supply goes up, prices come down. You can build way more houses by fitting more of them in the same land area.
Why abandoning the current cities for the poor and build a new city for the rich? Better start to repair the current cities and make them a great place to live for everybody!
@ That is why society must provide for great living places, not commercial companies. Everybody has the right to live in a good city, not just the rich.
He is the person we need to build the future. We are so unfamiliar with building new cities. Once upon a time, in the 20th century, everyone was on board! Suburbs sprang up everywhere. Our parents and grandparents built their homes. Now it’s time for the new generation to build theirs, only this time, we’ll build walkable cities.
My reply keeps getting deleted so I am going to reply on a new post. Alexander, of course young people are looking for homes and not boomers but you can’t build things without building permits and you can’t get building permits because old people show up to the public meetings and fight against any new developments. They have a financial interest in keeping housing scarce so the value of their homes keeps going up. Are you new to the Bay Area?
I appreciate you bringing up some of the concerns myself and others brought up in the comments of the previous video (especially with the stuff on trying to bring some of the silicon valley jobs into the city), but it's kind of disappointing there wasn't any sort of substantive follow-up on the fact that this project is still going to create a bunch of sprawl. The main point he uses to defend the project here is that it's better than the alternative, which is absolutely true. But even if it's more efficient in terms of water usage than the other developments in the area, at the end of the day you're still trying to add 400k people to a region that already has a major water problem in the best of times, and which will only get worse by the time this city is completed. Saying that it's better than the other sprawling suburbs being built does nothing to change that At the end of the day, the core problem is that the Bay's failure to build housing is causing people to move into areas which, frankly, aren't really capable of sustaining these massive populations. A project like California forever, however interesting it might be, is just a band aid solution which is really likely to just cause other problems down the road, so it's pretty disappointing to see them put their efforts on something like this instead of using their immense resources to fix the core problem in the core of the region
@@HatchPartners It's pretty clear you missed the point lol I have no issue with them doing option number 5. The issue is that they're doing it in a region that's already stressed for water resources even before you add several hundred thousand more people The only reason a project like this is even necessary is the lack of supply housing supply in the core of the Bay Area, around Silicon Valley. But instead of using their vast resources to address the root issue, they're using it to build what is effectively another exurban development. It's much better than building suburban sprawl, but it's still sprawl nonetheless
@@Chario_ Thanks for the clarification. One point I would like you to clarify, what is the vast resources that the bay area has? In terms of water, the East Solano Plan will use significantly less water per resident than the bay area. Why can't the water in the Bay Area that would serve 400,000 new or existing residents be used in the new community. The 400,000 people already use water, whether or not they live in the community or in the Bay are, then why not help them use less water while helping them afford a home, reduce their commute, and polution?
@@scientificapproach6578 The main core of the Bay is generally much better connected to various water supplies, be it from natural lakes and rivers or man-made reservoirs. Solano County doesn't really have that, which, coupled with its more agricultural nature, means it's much more starved for water than the rest of the Bay. You once again bring up the point about how California Forever will be more water efficient compared to suburban developments, like the ones in the Bay. But this once again misses the core point I'm trying to make. Their justification for this project is that it's much better than the alternative of suburban sprawl, which I must once again reiterate is absolutely true. But that doesn't change the fact that adding 400k people to a region already starved for resources is going to be problematic, no matter how efficiently your city is built At the end of the day, the core problem is the failure to build housing in the main parts of the Bay Area. The only reason there's any demand for this project at all is because of the rest of the Bay's failure to properly urbanize. For all the resources they're going to need to build a brand new city from scratch, they could've done so much more to actually address the root of the issue instead of building an exurb in an area that's far less prepared to absorb the new population
@@Chario_ The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir provides the Bay Area with 85% of its water. This reservoir has a current storage level of around 89%, this sounds good until you realize that last April 2023 it was at 59%. Unless the Bay area can tap into the Sacramento River like the Antioch Brackish Water Desalination Project does as could the East Solano Plan with their own Desination project, the bay area sits in a precarious position. Currently East Solano Plan, based on their reports, plan to rely on surface and ground water they currently own and neither Solano Irrigation District or Lake Berryessa.
Right now it’s just a bunch of dried grass as you can see. Hopefully soon I can provide a more visually stimulating update. Thank you for enjoying the video!
He’s a big fan of traditional architecture and wants to implement it in the city if possible. The problem that he’s concerned about is cost and whether it will make the city unaffordable.
@@alexanderrotmensz thats surprising to hear. From my research, traditional architecture isn't more expensive, but I could be mistaken. Would love hear more about that.
I agree, but in the US particularly there's a major shortage unfortunately in architects and firms that do this. Of course, I want that to change very badly and I want developers to make the leap, but in a project this large in scale, to focus that energy on public and municipal buildings, rather than every single building, but then just have loose regulations to make sure no one just does an ugly box, might be the best way to go for now.
@@alexanderrotmensz Yes, I agree. I think it would be feasible to draft some building codes that would require townhomes. apartments, etc, to follow a basic architectural style. These codes already exist in many cities around the world and help ensure that modern development still retains the character of the city.
This was a really interesting video and perspective. I feel like there's some valid criticism to be had about the city and how it will be built and run, but overall it seems really good. These comments seem overly negative for no real reason. There's not much downside to attempting this project, especially since it genuinely seems like there's a lot of planning and thought that has gone into it. You may as well try *something*. American development is quite screwed and people sitting on youtube and complaining that it'll never work are part of the problem.
@@Nutter-l3s California is expensive because of all the red tape - we cannot build anything. It's difficult to make suburban homes or urban apartments. It's difficult to make a new rail line or a highway. The politicians pit the people against each other, so they don't have to pay for anything and the money goes to corruption instead. If SF wants to make more apartments, there's nothing wrong with that. If Roseville wants to make more houses, there's nothing wrong with that. When the people start fighting and it's no apartments, no houses, no highways, no rail - then we have nothing.
![9 Reasons Why People Are Leaving Sacramento California [And They Progressively Get WORSE!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ev5yQii33qg/mqdefault.jpg)
I have always had nothing but respect for people who go out and build stuff! My grandfather was a oil rig worker and amateur architect and he would build amazing stuff that he designed himself. He taught me the value of people who take initiative and go out and DO! The patio he build did collapse after a bad storm and unfortunately my grandmother lost her life that day. RIP MeMa
Rest in peace to your grandmother and grandfather. He sounds like a great man!
Let them try.
We used to build stuff in the US. Now NIMBYs won't let anything happen.
I really hope this city actually gets built and is successful. I get why people are against it but it’s still overall a net positive. The biggest criticisms I’ve heard are land acquisition and water use. There is plenty of land available for remediation and the small number of people who are affected can be compensated financially. With regard to water use, the biggest user of water is actually agriculture rather than municipal use. Sustainable practices such as reuse and recycling will ensure there is an abundant supply for generations to come
As a Bay Area native I’m 100% against it. They are literally forcing farmers to give up their land in the courts. These farmers have been here for generations and supply our area with food. This city will only benefit the mega rich
This is the kind of thing that I always wish billionaires would do with their money. I know Strong Towns, et al think top-down planning like this is guaranteed to fail, but I have hope. With enough experts working together, a master planned community that actually takes sustainability, walkability, jobs, water-access, etc. can work. Culdesac seems like a smaller version of this. It requires taking big risks. As long as people and the environment aren't being taking advantage of, I don't see the downside of this attempt.
On the highway widening, as you can see during the drive much of it is a just a single lane right now. One to two lanes in this context is fine. It's not Houston.
Highway widening is still highway widening. Just because it doesn't look like Houston yet doesn't mean it's a good thing.
I can't wait to see the completion of the city!
why are we spending millions, if not billions, on a new city when we have cities already existing that could use this same money for affordable housing/walkable neighborhoods? Oh wait, I know. This dude refuses to believe he can do anything to support communities without his name entirely connected to its development. Bros not an ally, he's a rich narcissist.
He provided you the “generous opportunity” so you’d shill for him.
Yeah, it should be obvious that this billionaire is just using Alexander Rotmensz to promote his stupid experiment, but it makes me sad to see so many comments supporting this unrealistic new city.
So much to have hope for with this. With the genuine passion behind it, I have high high hopes this unfolds positively!
I think they should hire Sebastian Treese as their main architect. He could make it work, I'm sure.
We need more cool, self sustaining walkable towns. Just make sure it's not an AI "Smart" city that tracks everyone everywhere. There's also reports that this California Forever group is trying to sue nearby ranch owners that don't want to sell their land. Not a good way to try to get the locals to like you.
Drove through Solano yesterday.
I would much rather see a dense city in that area than another abhorrent almond tree.
I hate almonds
Honestly I'm still not for this project. This guy seems a little more for urbanism than most developers, but he's still compromising on the key aspects. This project he is proposing is still going to push California towards more sprawl when we have so much underutilized land that is already developed. We need to protect our agricultural land and open spaces. If the billionaires want a pet project, they should revitalize existing neighborhoods.
So they should buy the houses of the poor, and then jack the rent up to unaffordable levels? That's the whole problem with urbanism. People like you or me will never own an apartment building, rich landlords do. That's exactly how Trump got his money - his father and him collected rent checks on tens of thousands of New Yorkers by encouraging urban development which they could own.
Urban cities have the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. It annihilates the middle class. You get a wealthy college educated upper class person pretending that they're green because they walk down the street or cycle to work, but instead they have Ubers, Lyfts, DoorDash, GrubHub, Amazon, and everyone else driving for them to provide them with food, groceries, and supplies.
@@aminy23 It sounds like you just don't like cities. If that's the case, you should join me against supporting this guy's project to build a new *city*.
But as it happens, all of the points you bring up against cities are pretty weak. Normal people can and do own small buildings or flats in buildings, and that'll become easier if we increase the housing supply. Cities have a greater mix of incomes than suburbs. Urban living is better for the environment by every metric than suburban/rural living. Urban areas are more economically efficient than suburbs. If you want to investigate this more, there is a wealth of sources out there that shows these things to be true.
I like cities, but I like open spaces as well. We shouldn't try to pretend like one can be the other (sprawling suburbs). It's very possible to meet our housing demand in the space we've already built up with ugly, useless parking lots, malls, and stroads.
@@underratedbub I like progress, I like freedom, and I don't like controlling or managing the lives of others. If someone wants to build a house on their own land, that's their right. If someone wants to build an apartment, that's their right. If a city wants to build a public transport rail system, it benefits their people and is a good thing. If a few rural communities want to build a highway, it also benefits their people.
There isn't a one size fits all solution. Some people are happy with an apartment and no yard to maintain. Some people want a yard for their kids to play in.
The problem is when we start to attack our own people. When urbanites attack suburbanites to stop sprawl, and suburbanites attack urbanites to stop density - then in the end we have nothing. And that's exactly what's happened.
We need to stop whining and complaining over everyone doing their own thing, and instead push to actually be productive.
Cities like Lathrop and Roseville are suburban sprawl, and among the fastest growing in California because they actually build houses which people can afford. Instead of hating on them, prove them wrong - build cheap urban housing which people can afford.
Until it's actually done, it's just a keyboard argument.
@@aminy23 I like all those things too, but you seem to misunderstand how new housing is built these days and what we're actually advocating for.
No one sane is attacking people for living in a city or a suburb. Most of us here are pretty much just advocating for more housing, but housing that is beneficial in the long term. Suburbs have their benefits, but I'm sure even you would agree that they gobble up farmland and discourage personal interaction, physical fitness, economic efficiency, and more.
Most people also aren't homesteading and building their own houses on virgin land they acquired themselves. By and large these days, new developments are made as suburban sprawl on huge tracts of farmland bought up by mega-corporations. Letting this be the type of housing we build is extreme short-term thinking. Everyone wants more housing, but farmland and nature are finite, valuable assets to the community and the country, and the type of housing that is being built is extremely inefficient for all the reasons I listed above-but above all because they don't increase the housing supply as much as denser housing would.
You say we're just "hating" on cities that are built as suburban sprawl and telling me personally to build cheap urban housing. I'm not a billionaire developer, so the only way for me to help build urban housing is to express the latent demand that exists for it-this channel is a great example of that demand too.
Cities in many parts of the world and even in the US manage to fit way more people onto smaller tracts of land, all while making the city more attractive and more affordable. Japan is a great example of this. There is of course more to the story of affordability than just density, but this isn't some unproven science like you're suggesting. It's very simple: housing supply goes up, prices come down. You can build way more houses by fitting more of them in the same land area.
The problem with revitalizing existing neighborhoods is that you will almost instantly become completely drowned out by cries of "gentrification!"
Why abandoning the current cities for the poor and build a new city for the rich? Better start to repair the current cities and make them a great place to live for everybody!
Considering the existing cities' past performances, would you invest in them? Just asking
@ That is why society must provide for great living places, not commercial companies. Everybody has the right to live in a good city, not just the rich.
He is the person we need to build the future. We are so unfamiliar with building new cities. Once upon a time, in the 20th century, everyone was on board! Suburbs sprang up everywhere. Our parents and grandparents built their homes. Now it’s time for the new generation to build theirs, only this time, we’ll build walkable cities.
My reply keeps getting deleted so I am going to reply on a new post. Alexander, of course young people are looking for homes and not boomers but you can’t build things without building permits and you can’t get building permits because old people show up to the public meetings and fight against any new developments. They have a financial interest in keeping housing scarce so the value of their homes keeps going up. Are you new to the Bay Area?
Yep, I believe approving the large new community provides economies of scale that a smaller development wouldn't have.
I appreciate you bringing up some of the concerns myself and others brought up in the comments of the previous video (especially with the stuff on trying to bring some of the silicon valley jobs into the city), but it's kind of disappointing there wasn't any sort of substantive follow-up on the fact that this project is still going to create a bunch of sprawl.
The main point he uses to defend the project here is that it's better than the alternative, which is absolutely true. But even if it's more efficient in terms of water usage than the other developments in the area, at the end of the day you're still trying to add 400k people to a region that already has a major water problem in the best of times, and which will only get worse by the time this city is completed. Saying that it's better than the other sprawling suburbs being built does nothing to change that
At the end of the day, the core problem is that the Bay's failure to build housing is causing people to move into areas which, frankly, aren't really capable of sustaining these massive populations. A project like California forever, however interesting it might be, is just a band aid solution which is really likely to just cause other problems down the road, so it's pretty disappointing to see them put their efforts on something like this instead of using their immense resources to fix the core problem in the core of the region
@@HatchPartners It's pretty clear you missed the point lol
I have no issue with them doing option number 5. The issue is that they're doing it in a region that's already stressed for water resources even before you add several hundred thousand more people
The only reason a project like this is even necessary is the lack of supply housing supply in the core of the Bay Area, around Silicon Valley. But instead of using their vast resources to address the root issue, they're using it to build what is effectively another exurban development.
It's much better than building suburban sprawl, but it's still sprawl nonetheless
@@Chario_ Thanks for the clarification. One point I would like you to clarify, what is the vast resources that the bay area has?
In terms of water, the East Solano Plan will use significantly less water per resident than the bay area. Why can't the water in the Bay Area that would serve 400,000 new or existing residents be used in the new community. The 400,000 people already use water, whether or not they live in the community or in the Bay are, then why not help them use less water while helping them afford a home, reduce their commute, and polution?
@@scientificapproach6578 The main core of the Bay is generally much better connected to various water supplies, be it from natural lakes and rivers or man-made reservoirs. Solano County doesn't really have that, which, coupled with its more agricultural nature, means it's much more starved for water than the rest of the Bay.
You once again bring up the point about how California Forever will be more water efficient compared to suburban developments, like the ones in the Bay. But this once again misses the core point I'm trying to make. Their justification for this project is that it's much better than the alternative of suburban sprawl, which I must once again reiterate is absolutely true. But that doesn't change the fact that adding 400k people to a region already starved for resources is going to be problematic, no matter how efficiently your city is built
At the end of the day, the core problem is the failure to build housing in the main parts of the Bay Area. The only reason there's any demand for this project at all is because of the rest of the Bay's failure to properly urbanize. For all the resources they're going to need to build a brand new city from scratch, they could've done so much more to actually address the root of the issue instead of building an exurb in an area that's far less prepared to absorb the new population
@@Chario_ The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir provides the Bay Area with 85% of its water. This reservoir has a current storage level of around 89%, this sounds good until you realize that last April 2023 it was at 59%. Unless the Bay area can tap into the Sacramento River like the Antioch Brackish Water Desalination Project does as could the East Solano Plan with their own Desination project, the bay area sits in a precarious position.
Currently East Solano Plan, based on their reports, plan to rely on surface and ground water they currently own and neither Solano Irrigation District or Lake Berryessa.
I was sort of hoping that you both get out of that car and show us how it would look like for a pedestrian there. Anyhow a nice video nevertheless.
Right now it’s just a bunch of dried grass as you can see. Hopefully soon I can provide a more visually stimulating update. Thank you for enjoying the video!
An over priced disaster.
This seems awesome. I’d love to live there. Hope it gets built
Where you able to discuss traditional architecture? If so, how did he respond to your critiques?
He’s a big fan of traditional architecture and wants to implement it in the city if possible. The problem that he’s concerned about is cost and whether it will make the city unaffordable.
@@alexanderrotmensz thats surprising to hear. From my research, traditional architecture isn't more expensive, but I could be mistaken. Would love hear more about that.
I agree, but in the US particularly there's a major shortage unfortunately in architects and firms that do this. Of course, I want that to change very badly and I want developers to make the leap, but in a project this large in scale, to focus that energy on public and municipal buildings, rather than every single building, but then just have loose regulations to make sure no one just does an ugly box, might be the best way to go for now.
@@alexanderrotmensz Yes, I agree. I think it would be feasible to draft some building codes that would require townhomes. apartments, etc, to follow a basic architectural style. These codes already exist in many cities around the world and help ensure that modern development still retains the character of the city.
This was a really interesting video and perspective. I feel like there's some valid criticism to be had about the city and how it will be built and run, but overall it seems really good. These comments seem overly negative for no real reason. There's not much downside to attempting this project, especially since it genuinely seems like there's a lot of planning and thought that has gone into it. You may as well try *something*. American development is quite screwed and people sitting on youtube and complaining that it'll never work are part of the problem.
1:39 recent history has shown it take decades & decades to build/add BART extensions.
Exactly. They can’t let that be the barrier to getting this built
What about the Western Railway Museum in the heart of it?
I believe the Museum is on Hwy 12 West of the community but not far.
California is done. Why would anyone want to build city there?
California is a beautiful state. It a shame that it is so unaffordable. Thats why this project is so amazing.
Any guesses which garbage welfare state this things from?
@@Nutter-l3s California is expensive because of all the red tape - we cannot build anything. It's difficult to make suburban homes or urban apartments. It's difficult to make a new rail line or a highway.
The politicians pit the people against each other, so they don't have to pay for anything and the money goes to corruption instead. If SF wants to make more apartments, there's nothing wrong with that. If Roseville wants to make more houses, there's nothing wrong with that.
When the people start fighting and it's no apartments, no houses, no highways, no rail - then we have nothing.