Why, in a series called "Let Cities Build Utopias," should I have to point to a non-Utopian (emergent) city? Why, in a post called "Land should be a public good—not just private property," are you arguing that Georgism is private property and also a public good? (So you agree that it becomes quasi-private?) In any case, there are only continuua of cities that currently exist -- planned to emergent. Now, I admit Hong Kong and Singapore are fairly good examples of long-term land-lease models. Brazilia is an unimpressive planned city, too, as is Milton Keynes. But Tokyo is enormously dense, and is an emergent city. And it's more accessible for buyers relative to income, with lower price-to-rent ratios and better mortgage affordability.
You said emergent cities with private property beat land rent models any day. I was just asking how they beat them? By what metric? What makes them better?
That's why I asked for your ideal emergent city so we could compare and see what makes it better. I guess I didn't think of Tokyo as an emergent city but a well established metropolis.
Did you not read this? "But Tokyo is enormously dense, and is an emergent city. And it's more *accessible* for buyers relative to income, with lower price-to-rent ratios and better mortgage affordability." Affordability is an important consideration, particularly for the least advantaged. Many a well-established metropolis is an emergent city because they weren't designed by town planners--which is rather the point. It's anti-Utopian. And my objection is more to the planned utopia piece than the long-term leases, but I have reservations about those, too.
I would also argue that Georgism is not exactly the same as long-term leasing. Georgism, historically, was simply a land-value tax, which in the digital age is an increasingly regressive tax. Google might use less land than a farmer, for example, but the farmer might be taxed relatively more, despite less revenue. Long-term leases are George-ish, to be sure. But...
Quasi-private property also politicizes property, creating a greater imbalance between the people and the powerful who award those leases. Once you politicize property, you create frictions and unintended consequences that invite further interventions and unintended consequences (ad nauseam). And increasingly, government authorities make centralized decisions, effectively picking winners and losers. It's an unnecessary corruption vector.
Ah! Ok I see where there is a disconnect. I'm not using "utopian community" synonymously with "masterplanned community" here. Masterplanned communities can be both utopian and dystopian, as you've pointed out. I'm using "utopian community" synonymously with "ideal place to live."
And yes, affordability is a very important part of that! Tokyo has absolutely created that.
I agree that Georgism is not the same as long-term leasing, and I actually prefer land ownership and long-term leasing. (That solves many of the challenges you just mentioned, including that it's less politicized!) Georgism is simply a way for cities as a whole to profit where they don't own the land and thus can't lease it.
Another way is to give cities the same tax autonomy a state has, as in Switzerland. But more on that in the series...
Excellent. I think we're not so far apart, then. I look forward to the series as I find this issue endlessly fascinating, not least because local is where the action is and more ought to be (not national). And on this, I think we largely agree. If we can each try our 'utopian' experiments locally, we can attract more community members in peaceful competition. (Hurray decentralization!)
Elle is not saying you ‘have to’ or ‘should’ point to an example of an ‘emergent city’ Her caring question made sense to me who has very limited experience in ‘city planning’ much less the fascinating depth of research and ideas of how to make the world a better place that Elle Griffin has been so generously sharing.
Here's the thing about "depth of research and ideas on how to make the world a better place." If one bills it as utopian and presents it all with a certain degree of ambiguity, it is perfectly reasonable for a reader to interrogate. And in turn, it's completely reasonable for Elle to ask me to be more precise in how one defines an "emergent" as opposed to a planned city (in turn). Elle is smart enough to know that building a new city-state or special jurisdiction requires coming down to earth and working on the particulars. Painting impressionistic pictures is far less costly, even though that's a necessary (though insufficient) part of vision setting. Still, when part of the "research" is about comparing cities that don't exist, with ones that barely exist, with ones that are 50, 100, or 1000 years old... Or comparing some with long-term leases with private property with a big mix of public and private, with community trusts, rent control, and so on, we have to ask what features she's picking out to idealize. // All that said, I have benefited from this interaction and believe we are closer to a consensus on these matters than I'd first thought. But the interaction let me know that, and Elle was gracious enough to let me be a gadfly.