Long time, no see.

I’ll soon be in a room with people who have some influence on the future of US foreign assistance.

I’m asking for your ideas about what that future should be. Assume that USAID will close down and that American foreign assistance will be rethought.

What should we replace? What should we preserve?

I welcome your ideas, articles, links to books, whatever. If you prefer not to post them in a comment, email me at hello@zach.dev

Thank you!

This week, a look at NYT criticism of a new town project in Guatemala City.

(Note: To read this full article, you may need to open it in your browser.)

Subscribe now

—

The Argument from Vibes

This week the NYT published a piece on Ciudad Cayalá, a large, master-planned new town built in Guatemala City. Everything you need to know about the article is in its title: New Utopian Enclave? Or a Testament to Inequality?1

The article is the latest entry in a malicious genre I call: “the argument from vibes.”

The argument from vibes is a shameless, dishonest trick.2 Critics paint a word-picture that suggests a certain aesthetic, in this case: “inequality.” The bad vibes spread over the subject, in this case: Cayalá. An imaginary vibe replaces real thought or analysis.

I’ve spent hundreds of hours in Ciudad Cayalá. There’s plenty to question about the project. I don’t understand the endless white brick. I don’t believe in Cayala’s style of master-planning. But calling it a “testament to inequality” is absurd.

Cayalá is one of Guatemala City’s best public spaces. It attracts a crowd across social classes. It’s safe. It’s walkable. It’s fun. It’s not perfect, but it’s a bright spot of urbanism in a dysfunctional city. Cayalá also happens to be privately owned and operated — which is what really seems to upset the critics.

Smiling Customers Can’t Hide the Dystopia

The NYT begrudgingly admits that Cayalá is a public space. Their own photos show happiness. Go and look. Each image is full of people enjoying their day in Cayalá. It’s obvious to anyone who knows anything about Guatemalan society that not everyone mentioned or pictured is an uber-wealthy elite.3

The NYT is eager to suggest that beneath this veneer of “young couples intertwined on park benches whisper[ing] sweet-nothings to one another” — yes, a real sentence from this article — lurks a rotten, dystopian core.

Does the NYT lean on data to prove their point? Falling profits? A survey of aggrieved customers? A sordid history of mismanagement? Of course not. They make their case through the relentless abuse of vibey clichés.

First we get the exclusion vibe:

Evoking the feel of a serene Mediterranean town, Cayalá features milky white buildings with red-tile roofs, a colossal civic hall with Tuscan columns, cafes and high-priced restaurants, colonnade-lined plazas and walkable, stone-paved boulevards. All of this is open to the public — except for the gated sections where about 2,000 families live. (emphasis mine)4

Then we get the “playground for the rich”:

… [Cayalá] is largely a playground for the well-off, hard to reach by public transit, environmentally devastating and has attracted significant investment even as other parts of crime-ridden Guatemala City fall into decay.

Nor do we escape the obligatory “sterile shopping mall” trope:

Cayalá is still a shopping center5 pretending to be a neighborhood.

The NYT even channels 80’s cyberpunk novels by making a big deal about private security guards that “closely monitor the grounds.” I have seen these guards — they are inconspicuous men in business suits who stand near the entrances and exits.6

What’s the alternative here? People walk in Cayalá because the town prevents street crime! Is this dystopian inequality or a practical solution to LatAm’s problems?

Not even restaurant owners are spared a cynical vibe-takedown:

“In 20 years, Cayalá will be just like La Rambla,” said Andrés García Manzo, a restaurateur who lives in one of Cayalá’s secluded villas, drawing a comparison to Barcelona’s legendary pedestrian-friendly promenade. “You can walk everywhere here in peace.”

One can’t help but think that we’re supposed to see poor Andrés as hopelessly naive, perched in his “secluded villa.” How dare the resident of a secluded villa aspire to a beautiful, safe, walkable experience in his city. Doesn’t he know that places that aren’t Cayalá are unsafe, un-walkable, ugly, and broken?

Cayalá is Bad Because Everywhere Else is Worse

The NYT’s main point is that Cayalá “aggravates problems of inequality and access to urban spaces.” How? By being a better public space than the areas around it. If this sounds absurd to you, well…

Criticism of Cayalá has been building for years, with some questioning the project when urban areas that are potential gems, like Guatemala City’s old center, are in disrepair.

By the NYT’s own admission, Cayalá offers a pretty and pleasant town. This town is open to anyone who wants to walk in. But, somehow, Cayalá is a “testament to inequality” because it doesn’t have the problems of the public realm outside of Cayalá.

In other words, Cayalá is bad because the rest of Guatemala City is worse.7

Are the founders of Cayalá in charge of public transit outside of Cayalá? Are Cayalá employees responsible for the street crime in Guatemala City’s “potential gems” that drive people away?

I’m all for restoring old town squares, but is this a zero-sum game where Cayalá’s plaza’s success means the old square must fail? While Cayalá is safe, clean, well-run, and attractive to customers, existing public spaces in Guatemala City aren’t. How is this Cayalá’s fault?

Cayalá isn’t a utopia. It’s an attempt to build an alternative to Guatemala City’s broken public realm. An honest analysis of the project doesn’t show perfection. But it does show that Cayalá is a project founded on optimism, not dystopia.

Subscribe now

Building New Towns is Fundamentally Optimistic

Let’s reframe the NYT’s article with a bit of data and a more charitable worldview.

In a story that’s now common around the world, Guatemala is getting better.

Contrary to its “third world” reputation among NGOs and missionaries, Guatemala is already an upper middle-income country. Barring a political catastrophe, Guatemala will continue to grow in the decades ahead.

Don’t believe me?

The number of Guatemalans in extreme poverty is squeezing down to zero. This means that all the American volun-tourists handing out food in impoverished villages should start making plans to invest in Guatemalan companies and to hire Guatemalan remote workers in the decades ahead:

The fertility rate of Guatemala is also falling and, most likely, will eventually reach the lower level of developed countries.

And the GDP per capita of Guatemala has grown steadily — not perfectly, but steadily — for the last 60 years.

The same holds for Guatemala’s GNI (which is the basis for Guatemala’s ranking as a middle-income country):

What do these trends have to do with Cayalá?

Cayalá is a bet on Guatemala’s positive future. You don’t invest a hundred million dollars on a sprawling complex of fancy white bricks and open it to everyone if you plan to serve only a tiny elite.

This is why the NYT’s article is so offensive to me.

How easy it is to trash, from the comfort of the armchair, the honest work of building something as hard and ambitious as Cayalá. The facts support a cautious but real optimism for Guatemala. And that optimism animates a project like Cayalá.

We are so quick to excuse the trash, traffic, crime, inefficiency, and other problems in our public spaces. Instead of recognizing these spaces as ruined by bad incentives and poor management, the NYT calls them “potential gems.” Where is this sunny spirit of charity for a great privately-run public realm like Cayalá?

This double standard plagues the Startup Cities space. It’s as though the broken aspects of the status quo have no causes. Then, when someone builds an alternative to the default awfulness — funded by their own capital, time, and effort — critics drag them down with childish narratives of sci-fi dystopia.

I’ve written before that critics often blame customers for cities’ problems. The NYT’s absurd argument-from-vibes is similar. Apparently, having the audacity to build something better than the status quo makes you responsible for the status quo’s many problems.

New town projects like Cayalá will always be vulnerable to cynical arguments like these. We can fight this nonsense with data, with product, and with an uncompromising seriousness about a future where startups build cities.

Share

This week, a look at one of history’s greatest CEOs. This is a deep dive and you may need to click the title to see the full article, which is too long to read in many email clients.

—

I bet you’ve never heard of John Cowperthwaite (KOO-perth-wait)

He’s the CEO behind one of the most incredible growth stories of all time. He led his firm through incredible hardship, served millions of customers, and created billions in value.

But Cowperthwaite was no charismatic visionary. He was a quiet spreadsheet jockey with plastic glasses and a lawn bowling hobby. History barely remembers this humble Scotsman. Business history remembers him not at all.

Perhaps because Cowperthwaite never ran a company — he ran the city of Hong Kong.

The Outsider CEOs

In The Outsiders, William Thorndike profiles leaders like Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, Henry Singleton of Teledyne, and John Malone of TCI. Thorndike noticed a pattern among this exceptional set. Each built enormously successful companies and beat the market for decades. But they were the opposite of the stereotypical television-interview CEO.

Outsider CEOs don’t have grand plans, but are flexible and opportunistic. They resist trends and fads. They aren’t flashy, but frugal. They’re often outsiders in the social sense, too: Buffett hails from Omaha, Nebraska, Malone from Milford, Connecticut, and Singleton from Hazlet, Texas. None studied “business” directly. But their businesses speak for themselves.

To understand why John Cowperthwaite belongs in the ranks of history’s great Outsider CEOs, we must first understand his legacy.

Hong Kong Before Cowperthwaite

Hong Kong began the 20th century as a backwater of the British empire, a rocky cove dotted with fishing villages. Times were not kind to little Hong Kong. Strikes paralyzed its nascent industries. Japan invaded in 1941 and marauding soldiers seized factories, debased the currency, and executed at least 10,000 Hong Kongers.

Once the Japanese left, the Chinese Civil War raged just beyond the city’s border. Then the Korean war sparked and export controls by the U.S. and U.N. crushed Hong Kong’s ports. By 1951, a journalist described Hong Kong as a “dying city.”1

Once the wars ended, the chaos of China’s Cultural Revolution began. Militants crossed the border and killed Hong Kong’s policemen. Communist agitators planted bombs on street corners.

Hong Kong became a magnet for China’s desperate, persecuted, and poor. From 1945-1951, waves of refugees tripled the city’s population. In the six years before John Cowperthwaite took the helm, Hong Kong grew by nearly 1 million people.

Into the Maelstrom

Into this giant dumpster fire stepped John Cowperthwaite, a freshly-minted bureaucrat who studied the field of classics (which, let’s be honest, doesn’t sound like the ideal preparation to run a city).

Cowperthwaite began his rise as Director of Supplies, Trade & Industry, an unsexy job importing commodities like rice. His talents were clear. His first four years netted 67 million HKD in profits for the government department.

Tellingly, a young Cowperthwaite exploited the same trick that Warren Buffett later made famous: float. Traders deposited money when they ordered commodities. But the Treasury only paid post-invoice. So Cowperthwaite could hold this “float” in temporary accounts and use it to finance Hong Kong’s recovery from war. Clever.

Cowperthwaite then moved to the office of Financial Secretary, becoming chief of all economic matters in 1961. Here we see the young technocrat become Outsider CEO.

“The Greatest Dowry Since Cleopatra”

Great CEOs are measured by the long-term success of their firm. In financial terms, Cowperthwaite’s legacy is astounding.

When he assumed control in 1961, Cowperthwaite inherited a modest 500 million HKD cash reserve. His management of this reserve delivered incredible growth to Hong Kong and to the city’s bottom line. Ten years later, Hong Kong had 2.4 billion HKD in reserve, while also becoming a much more populous and prosperous city.

But Cowperthwaite’s practices really shine in their legacy. By the time China took control of Hong Kong in 1997, the city’s reserves had compounded to 330 billion HKD. One governor called it “the greatest dowry since Cleopatra.”

Yet by 2017, Hong Kong's “dowry” had grown even more: to 860 billion HKD. (If averaged from 1961, this is growth of over 14% per year.) Hong Kong is a city of about 7 million, so Cowperthwaite’s Hong Kong endowed each resident with 123,000 HKD, 45 years later. How’s that for saving for the grandkids?

Today’s Hong Kong operates unlike almost any other city. In 2011, the city paid a dividend. The Scheme $6,000 paid 6,000 HKD to every permanent resident in a bid to “leave wealth with the people.” Crucially, the city funded this dividend with budget surpluses, not debt or money printing. They did it again in 2018 and 2020.

Subscribe now

Beyond Ideology

But, I can hear critics say, finances aren’t everything! What about Cowperthwaite’s record beyond money?

The political left pillories Cowperthwaite as a “market fundamentalist” villain, while the right imagines Cowperthwaite as a “small government” ideologue. Like most partisan takes, both are wrong.

Cowperthwaite’s surpluses weren’t the bitter fruit of austerity. Hong Kong has great infrastructure (better than any American city), modern buildings, beautiful parks, sparkling trains, and a world-class airport. By building densely, Hong Kong remains green, with nature just a subway or gondola ride away.

Cowperthwaite was also no hard-hearted nationalist. He found practical ways to accept the enormous flow of refugees to Hong Kong. Despite huge population growth, Cowperthwaite’s tenure saw real wages in Hong Kong grow by 50% and people in acute poverty fall from 50% to 15%. He removed taxes that were paid by the poor — such as on “nightsoil” collection.2 By 2015, Hong Kong had the world’s longest life expectancy, at 84 years. This is hardly the rob-the-worker “neoliberalism” of his critics.

Hardcore conservatives also miss the mark. As Hong Kong grew, Cowperthwaite spent more on education, health, and welfare. Seeing the city as a sort of mega-landlord, Cowperthwaite built low-cost housing to absorb refugees. (Although, ever the economist, Cowperthwaite’s subsidized housing included a modest return on the government’s investment and an interest charge.3) To this day, the city government owns nearly 100% of Hong Kong’s land — hardly a right-wing fantasy. Cowperthwaite also managed public utilities like buses, ferries, telephones, and gas as franchise monopolies with limitations on their profit.4

Cowperthwaite’s legacy transcends partisan politics. He amassed no great fortune for himself,5 but left an enormous endowment to the people of Hong Kong: not just a giant pile of cash, but a legacy of competent management that still pays (literal) dividends.

Let’s see how Cowperthwaite’s management style fits the Outsider mould.

Resist Trends. No Grand Visions.

Cowperthwaite led Hong Kong through an era with some of history’s most toxic development ideas. But, like all good Outsiders, he resisted them all.

To the popular idea that Hong Kong needed to protect its infant industries he said, “an infant industry, if coddled, tends to remain an infant industry and never grows up or expands.”6

When pressed to form a “Fair Rents Tribunal” to control rent prices Cowperthwaite retorted:

Let me say straight away that any attempt to bring rents generally under control would almost certainly make the housing situation worse, not better. The private builder will not build if his investment in housing, unlike other investments, is subjected to statutory restrictions.

When encouraged by the rising tide of Keynesianism to spend into deficit, Cowperthwaite argued against the burden on future generations: “previous generations have handed down to us a substantial public heritage by way of roads, ports, etc. almost completely free of debt,” he said. This should limit how much we burden “the next generation.”

Economists also pressured Cowperthwaite to form a central bank for Hong Kong. He didn’t. Against the advice of those around him, he let failing banks fail: “an economy with virtually no liquidations or bankruptcies is not really in a healthy state.”7 He also made it easy to start banks — only a single $5,000 license was required — so incumbents always felt the threat of competition.8

Cowperthwaite went to extreme lengths to maintain an independent strategy for Hong Kong. When British delegations wished to visit and hold regular meetings — no doubt to pressure Cowperthwaite into the latest flavor-of-the-month economic scheme — he invented “communications problems” that prevented him from having regular meetings (with deepest apologies, of course).

Cowperthwaite also refused to collect economic statistics. A city is not a simple machine, he reasoned. It’s dangerous to optimize for any single variable. If he collected statistics on Hong Kong, he knew others in the city’s management would use them to justify micromanagement of the city and “visionary” new proposals. So he starved the “visionaries” of data.

Share

Radical Empiricism

But that doesn’t mean Cowperthwaite was an armchair theoretician. As with other Outsider CEOs, he was ruthlessly empirical.

Trend-following advisors told Cowperthwaite to form a special industrial bank to finance factories. But activists weren’t ready for the most obvious of challenges: Cowperthwaite asked them to find a single factory that wanted to open but failed to get financing.

They couldn’t. That ended the debate. Instead, Cowperthwaite advertised land on favorable terms to any factory that could find their own financing.

The Soviet strategy of 5-year plans, another 1960s trend, also came to Hong Kong. Cowperthwaite was not impressed. His assistant reported on Cowperthwaite’s belief that:

[A] plan is worth no more than the result it achieves. To achieve any result at all it must be based on assumptions that are least relatively stable and relatively sure.”9

But the evolution of Hong Kong had never been “stable and relatively sure.”

Cowperthwaite preferred the opportunistic experiment to the grand vision or the 5-year plan. In 1963, he slashed import duties on tobacco on the theory that a lower duty might yield higher revenue.10 It did. He hunted for creative, pragmatic revenue sources such as funding social welfare provisions from a government-managed lottery.

“Our Hearts Bleed for the Car Owner”

Let’s look at how Cowperthwaite applied radical empiricism to the eternal problem of cars.

Car ownership rose as Hong Kong grew rich. Car owners began to demand parking garages and surface lots on vacant government land. (We certainly know who won this battle in the United States.) But Cowperthwaite went against the car-centric 60s.

Cowperthwaite did not trust the airy projections of activists and their consultants. “As he engaged with an issue, he took considerable time to understand it in detail,” writes his biographer, “How did costs behave? What determined revenue? What levels of capital and labor were needed? ... The resultant deep understanding made him a formidable advocate, and adversary.”11

After careful study, Cowperthwaite pointed out that the cost of a single car parking space was enough to build a low-cost apartment to house 5 adults. Was one parking spot a better use of Hong Kong’s scarce land than a house for 5? No. (Here we see another cornerstone of the Outsider CEO approach: careful capital allocation strategiy and attention to opportunity cost. In this case, the “capital” is land.)

Publicly-run parking lots were “tacit subsidies for car owners,” Cowperthwaite argued, and owners should bear the full cost of their choices. His mega-nerd level of understanding gave him confidence to pull no punches with opponents:

My honorable friend [a prominent advocate for subsidies to parking] has given us another brilliant exhibition of special, indeed specious, pleading on behalf of his favourite cause, the provision of subsidized car-parks at the expense of the whole community.

He has once again made our hearts bleed for the wretched lot of that small, indigent and oppressed minority, the car owner, who, unlike the more fortunate 95% majority of our fellow citizens, is apparently denied the facilities of the public transport services.”12

Pragmatism & Megaprojects

Cowperthwaite was just as empirical and hard-nosed about big infrastructure projects. Past experience taught him that advocates and their consultants tended to understate costs and overstate benefits for their grand schemes.

He especially disliked the assumption that loss-generating infrastructure was “obviously” valuable because of supposed positive externalities or other social benefits. (We now have large data sets on megaprojects to show that Cowperthwaite’s intuition was mostly right.)

Pressure groups formed to demand the city build a tunnel between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon: the Cross-Harbour Tunnel. Cowperthwaite resisted. He understood that roads, bridges, and tunnels changed the economics of mobility, just as subsidized parking changes the economics of car ownership. The tunnel mostly benefited its users (car commuters), so why should Hong Kong spend so lavishly on a single interest group?

But Cowperthwaite was no thoughtless NIMBY.

Cowperthwaite didn’t block the tunnel. He had a private company build it, operate it, and charge tolls (an early use of the Build-Operate-Transfer model). Here we see another critical attribute of the Outsider CEO: frugality and negotiating skill. Cowperthwaite took a minority stake in the project and locked in 12.5% of tunnel revenues for the city.

It worked. Modern Americans are used to endless, dysfunctional infrastructure projects. So it’s hard to believe that construction of the Cross Harbour Tunnel finished a year early and the builder recouped all their construction costs after only three and a half years of operation. Cowperthwaite understood incentives and the power of skin in the game.

Thirty years later, the tunnel became property of the city (the “transfer” step of build-operate-transfer). It now generates significant revenue for Hong Kong.13 A pretty good deal, by an Outsider CEO.

Subscribe now

Master of Capital Allocation

Above all, Outsider CEOs allocate capital well.

It may seem strange to view a city manager as “allocating capital” in the way that a private firm like (fellow Outsider CEO Warren Buffett’s) Berkshire Hathaway might buy stocks or bonds or acquire a business. Some will even find it distasteful to think of cities as economic enterprises constrained by the bourgeois logic of capital allocation.

American cities in particular seem resistant to the mere thought of cost and benefit. But there is no escape. Cities have finite resources. They must pick the goods and services they provide. Every product line, service, or land use has a cost structure and doing one thing precludes another.

As I’ve written elsewhere, cities are essentially owner/operators of a shared environment and provide the products and platform that define the value of that environment. Whether or not the city generates net revenue (or any revenue) from their choices — and whether or not leadership believe that costs and benefits matter — it is inescapable that cities allocate capital on behalf of their residents.

The core of Cowperthwaite’s capital allocation strategy is delightfully counterintuitive. While we think of a good capitalist as picking winners and losers in the market, Cowperthwaite mostly allocated capital via the entrepreneurs of Hong Kong.

Cowperthwaite made it easy to build a business and a life in the city. As the primary landowner and tax authority, the city of Hong Kong was like a modest equity investor in every business.

If Hong Kong thrived, land rents and tax revenues would rise. If Hong Kong stagnated, they would would fall. Since Hong Kong had a hard budget constraint — there was no national or state government to bail them out — there was a real feedback loop between good management and financial health. Cowperthwaite’s job was to make sure Hong Kongers thrived while providing the core mobility, security, and other services of a city in an economical way.

Cowperthwaite was explicit about his strategy to grow the coffers of Hong Kong:

I am confident, however old-fashioned this may sound, that funds left in the hands of the public will come into the Exchequer with interest at the time in the future when we need them.14

The genius of Cowperthwaite’s strategy is that he positioned Hong Kong to enjoy upside in the city without having to know which industries would work. For example, in the 1960s plastic flowers made up 5% of all of Hong Kong’s exports. But by 1970, wig manufacturing had eclipsed this export darling by growing from zero to 8% of all exports.15

(Other Outsider CEOs are famous for their wildly disparate investments. For example, though Henry Singleton’s Teledyne was known for high-end military technology, he also owned Water Pik — the teeth cleaning machine!)

What city investment committee or industrial strategist would have chosen “plastic flowers” and “human hair wigs” as the favored export industries of Hong Kong? Luckily for the city of Hong Kong, Cowperthwaite didn’t have to.

Focus on Cash and Extreme Frugality

The last pillar of Cowperthwaite as Outsider CEOs is his meticulous attention to cash flow.

Cowperthwaite’s budget meetings were fraught with worries about recurrent revenues and expenditures. A city might dial capital spending up or down as revenues grew or fell, he believed. But recurring costs, once assumed, are hard to change. “The growth of spending is a much more certain thing than the growth of revenue.”16

Cowperthwaite’s focus on cash led his approach to city services. While keeping prices low enough to avoid hardship for Hong Kongers, Cowperthwaite tried to cover the costs of basic services like water with fees or related revenue streams.17 As with the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, this kept tight feedback loops and avoided dysfunctional subsidies across services.

Cowperthwaite also planned for disaster. Warren Buffett famously keeps a massive pile of cash on hand to weather storms and to pounce when opportunity appears. So, too, did Cowperthwaite. He demanded Hong Kong maintain a full year’s revenue in cash reserves. Cowperthwaite understood tail risk — that it takes only one terrible external event to ruin a city that runs on the edge of financial stability. (“He saw a surplus or deficit as an output, rather than as a potential policy tool,” writes his biographer)

Outsiders are not optimists, but realists. While a stereotypical CEO might buoy his team with false optimism, Cowperthwaite forced his lieutenants to operate with extreme financial pessimism.

Never be optimistic about revenue, he counseled. Avoid deficits. Never plan to dip into reserves, even though sometimes we’ll need to. Revenue should limit expenditure except in the most dire circumstances. The great irony of Cowperthwaite’s paranoia is that his team’s financial pessimism led to year after year of surpluses and growth.

Cowperthwaite also lived this public commitment to frugality. Other Outsider CEOs are known for driving Toyota Camrys, running spartan offices out of strip malls, and refusing indulgences like a corporate jet.

Cowperthwaite refused to have his city-owned home redecorated at taxpayer’s expense and even refused air conditioning — no small sacrifice in the city’s steamy climate — since it wasn’t available to the average Hong Konger.

Janitor in Chief

“I tend to mistrust the judgment of anyone not involved in the actual process of risk taking.” - John Cowperthwaite

Why care about an obscure figure like Cowperthwaite?

In America, it seems our cities are always in the throes of some dreamy scheme. And, as an industry, American cities have atrocious financial performance. As regular readers of this newsletter have surely grown tired of hearing, I believe that our cities suffer not only from bad policies and decayed institutions, but from a lack of entrepreneurial management.

I do not mean “business-oriented” leadership or other euphemisms for crony capitalism or “tax breaks” or whatever policy-du-jour masquerades as real entrepreneurship. I mean literal entrepreneurs, with a long-term financial interest in a city, at the helm of management. This is a heterodox view, and a view that many people think is not just wrong but morally bad.

But Cowperthwaite’s Hong Kong shows the positive possibilities of entrepreneurial management. He acted like a CEO and had the latitude to take decisive action over a long period. The hard budget constraint of a free-standing city combined with intense adversity to give young Hong Kong startup discipline.

The result is not just financial success, but an overwhelmingly positive outcome for humanity by nearly every measure. And all this despite wars and chaos, absurd population growth, scarce land, and a total lack of natural resources. Surely our cities, which enjoy peace, beautiful locations with room to grow, and a level of prosperity unheard of in early Hong Kong can achieve much more.

Cowperthwaite acted with a rare humility when faced with complex reality (though this demanded a not-so-humble sense of conviction and focus). He rejected extravagant plans, was deaf to trends, and mercilessly prudent. By removing the common pitfalls of dreamy schemes, trend-following, and short-sighted finances from city leadership, Cowperthwaite delivered extraordinarily well on the basics of urban life.

In Alain Bertaud’s phrasing we might call Cowperthwaite history’s greatest “Janitor in Chief.” Not a visionary. But a competent and focused manager of finances, city services, and public spaces. In short, one of history’s greatest Outsider CEOs.

—

This article draws heavily on the excellent book The Architect of Prosperity by Neil Monnery and The Outsiders by William Thorndike. I recommend both.

Subscribe now

Share Startup Cities

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: startups should build cities!

You’ll have to click the article’s title to read it in your browser.

I just returned from a few weeks in Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto, Japan and Taipei, Taiwan. I’m a shameless fanboy of the urbanism of East Asia. But Tokyo is the top.

Hope you enjoy the photos and words.

Share

—

Tokyo Doesn’t Care

Hong Kong may have taller skyscrapers. Paris may look more postcard picturesque. But Tokyo’s joyful walkability and just-build-it spirit makes it one of the greatest cities on Earth.

I think of Tokyo as the honey badger of cities. Like the honey badger of nostalgic internet fame (audio NSFW), Tokyo is ferociously practical. On so many issues, Tokyo just doesn’t care. And this benign neglect makes the city beautiful and fun.

Part of Tokyo’s greatness is its incredible scale. With 14 million people in city limits, Tokyo could be the world’s 74th largest country. If you consider the entire metro, there’s actually 37 million people (!) in Tokyo. Yet Tokyo is the opposite of the dystopian megacity of cyberpunk imagination.

Tokyo is safe and clean. It’s walkable and bikeable. Things in Tokyo just… well... work.

As a frustrated American city-dweller, to visit Tokyo is to teleport to an alternate universe where cities are well-managed, building is legal, cars haven’t ruined everything, and even non-descript little sidestreets are pleasant and interesting:

What makes Tokyo so great? Much of it is what Tokyo doesn’t care about.

For example, you think streets need to be made from something fancy to be good? Tokyo disagrees. Tokyo serves up pavers, bricks, rough stones, and asphalt, often right next to each other.

Tokyo is neither an asphalt sea nor a cutesy throwback to a medieval village. Tokyo is meat and potatoes walkability. Most buildings sit at the sidewalk’s edge. Most streets are narrow, shared, and hostile to high speeds.

As ten minutes in Tokyo will show you, the core walkable pattern is more important than bricks or fancy bikepaths.

Are there bikes on Tokyo’s neighborhood streets? Plenty. Old people with canes? Safely trundling along. Strollers and wagons? I saw a lady hauling 5 munchkins in a giant Radio Flyer. Cars? Yep… driving 10 miles per hour.

And on its thousands of walkable streets, Tokyo offers a staggering variety of life. We’ve all heard of commerce on the first floor (still a radical idea for modern American cities).

But Tokyo says, “How about commerce in the basement or on the 10th floor?”

You want to open a coffee shop so small that no one can even sit inside? That’s cool with Tokyo.

Hang 6 neon signs? Tokyo says go.

Park an airstream in your front yard and sell garlic bread? Nice!

Pitch a tent in your alley to serve sake? As long as you don’t block the street or make people obviously unsafe, it’s all good with Tokyo.

Tokyo is also a master of monetization.

Tiny ledge on the edge of your property? “Why not put six vending machines along the sidewalk?”suggests Tokyo.

Tokyo’s creativity knows no limits.

Is a lot too small or a weird shape?

“Build an absurdly narrow apartment or office building!” suggests Tokyo.

You want to park your car on a robot elevator parking space? Paint your house pink and barf green with pseudo-Victorian gold embellishments?

“Just keep it inside your lot,” says Tokyo.

You think buildings are all about columns and cornices, Greek statues, and 5-story limits?

“Those are fine,” Tokyo says, “but so is almost anything else that won’t burn or fall down in an earthquake.”

Brutalist concrete? Go ahead.

Steel and glass? Also fine.

Pretty bricks like a London rowhouse? Cool with Tokyo.

Tokyo puts a 600-year-old temple next to 20-story luxury apartments next to some shack from the heyday of Hirohito. Is it the most aesthetic thing you’ve ever seen? No.

But it doesn’t bother Tokyo.

Tokyo’s tolerance for ugly-but-functional buildings makes plenty of room for the small.

All the cute romance of “mom and pop” record stores, cafés, and clothing boutiques actually exists in Tokyo. Why? Because an abundance of small spaces mean small entrepreneurs can afford space.

Is the building above ugly? Yes.

But it also holds 3 small businesses in the trendy Harajuku neighborhood. Are we sure that these entrepreneurs could operate if they were forced to consume more space or pay for nicer aesthetics? Thankfully, Tokyo doesn’t care.

And what about the big — all those skyscrapers that, in the words of Leon Krier, disrupt the “urban network”?

“Skyscrapers are fine!” says Tokyo, which then builds 3 levels of skywalks, 16 escalators, a 3-story underground movie theater, 8 floors of hotel rooms, and stretches an urban park over a highway just to prove how connected a skyscraper can be.

Tokyo connects skyscrapers from the air, the ground floor, and from underground:

Tokyo tends to shared spaces. That food truck in your front yard better not be an inch over the property line. But within reasonable rules and meticulous management of services, Tokyo says: let your freak flag fly.

Parking is a good example. You won’t find free street-side parking in Tokyo — leaving your car on a sidewalk is no way to treat a walkable street. But you also won’t find the massive mandated-by-law parking moats which define American cities.

As with so much else, Tokyo’s answer to parking is practical: don’t let people dump cars on the street, don’t subsidize cars with free parking, and otherwise let the market make space where its demanded.

Tokyo lets landowners run tiny parking lots and charge high prices (as they should for space in a valuable location).

Other entrepreneurs build small livery parking garages, an old-fashioned approach made modern through robotic lifts:

Hotels that must host the rental cars of tourists build incredible valet towers, often interesting buildings themselves, where rotating elevators hoist cars 15-20 stories.

But ah, I can hear some saying, just because people can build a lot of stuff doesn’t mean the city works. Think about all those chaotic cities in LatAm or Africa!

And you’d be wrong. Tokyo works.

Tokyo’s streets feel absurdly safe at all hours. They’re so safe that Japanese salarymen will drink themselves unconscious and sleep it off right on the sidewalk with their phone and wallet laying next to them:

Japanese children go about daily routines in Tokyo unattended — or, really, watched over by all the eyes on the street provided by mixed-use walkability. Children pay bus fares, cross the street, and walk to and from school in charming little herds.

Footage of these giggling free-range kids in sailor outfits (?) went viral on Netflix as Americans had their collective mind blown when they saw a city that actually works.

Subscribe now

Tokyo brings its honey badger spirit to transit, too.

You think buses and trains should be about “beauty” or “democracy” or operate like a giant jobs program? Tokyo doesn’t get distracted by such indulgences. Tokyo knows that transit is about moving lots of people around quickly, reliably, and at a fair price.

Tokyo brings you a sparkling clean train every 4 minutes, for decades on end. The stations are clean. The pricing is rational. The public toilets have a sound machine and built-in bidet and seat warmer (I’m serious). And their transit data API actually works.

Or maybe you think capitalism has no place on public transit. Tokyo thinks that’s oh-so-impractical.

Tokyo plasters ads on every station surface, puts a vending machine on every platform, and builds self-storage facilities, driving ranges, hotels, and literal underground shopping malls around its stations so people can buy a Coach bag 100 feet from the train’s door.

In Japan, transit operators are held in high regard for their good service.

The photo below is from a fancy hotel in Osaka (not Tokyo… but the point still holds). Their rooftop restaurant — on the 34th floor — is co-branded as “by Osaka Metro.” Can you imagine “Burgers: Brought to you by the New York MTA”?

Like many Americans, I used to believe that public transit had to be a subsidized financial basket case, forever.

“Wrong,” says Tokyo as it IPOs its metro system. Tokyo is also the McKinsey of subways and sends an army of engineers around the world to fix trains in other, less-Tokyo cities.

But don’t all these trains destroy the city? What of monstrosities like the elevated train overpass? Surely this creates creepy dead zones that blight the urban fabric!

“Not on my watch” says Tokyo, “I’ll just turn that sketchy under-the-overpass shadow into a mixed-use neighborhood that brims with life all night.”

Behold Akihabara, a neighborhood that booms beneath a train overpass (on the right of these photos):

Tokyo hates wasted space. Businesses build right into the archways of the bridge, turning drab and sketchy concrete into beautiful, fun spaces.

Ah, I can hear some saying, just because people can build a lot of stuff and the city works well doesn’t mean it’s beautiful!

OK, sure. Tokyo doesn’t have the stone-and-ivy grace of a San Gimignano or a Venice. But is it fair to compare a booming megacity of 14 (or 37) million to these tiny live-in museums for tourists?

Besides, most of Tokyo feels like a modern spin on the gentle density of old Brooklyn, not Bladerunner. Walk the serpentine alleys of Shinjuku, stroll the manic neon of Kibukicho, take a coffee in Kamiyama, buy flowers in Jiyugaoka — each just one of hundreds of charming neighborhoods that most Americans would kill to live in were they part of Brooklyn or Boston.

Then remember that urbanism this good is normal, the default for millions of residents in Tokyo. Even for people who aren’t rich.

Subscribe now

The Lesson of Tokyo

So what can Tokyo teach us?

The Startup Cities space is full of big visions and grand objectives about ecological regeneration, political reform, and architectural innovation. There’s nothing wrong with these ideas. A healthy market supports many visions.

But Tokyo is a counterweight to dreamier ideas of city management.

Honey Badger Tokyo has no time for grandiose schemes, fussy NIMBYs, architectural purists, or dreamy ideologies. It’s focused on the fundamentals: be walkable, be safe, and move people around quickly. Then it leaves a huge sphere of creativity to its residents. Tokyo sets the table and lets everybody eat.

Tokyo achieves a world-class city by ignoring trends and executing well on boring tablestakes urbanism like parking enforcement, light-touch zoning, and trains that come on time. It executes at incredible scale, breaks with convention through innovations like profitable transit, and provides a great life to millions of people.

And, to me, that makes Tokyo beautiful: the whirl of a city that actually works, where people are free to build.

—

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: startups should build cities!

Share

—

This week: an interview with Cam Wiese, founder of World’s Fair Co.

Themes:

• Why physical events matter more than ever

• The role of the World’s Fair in the history and design of cities

• Why optimism is so unpopular

• The many “eras” of World’s Fairs and how its business model changed over time

• How EPCOT might have destroyed the World’s Fair

• Cam’s vision and design process to build a 21st century World’s Fair

As with all these interviews, my goal is to give innovators a fair hearing.

Enjoy!

Subscribe now

ZC: Who are you and what are you building?

CW: My name is Cameron Wiese. I'm leading the project to revive and reimagine the World’s Fair.

What’s the World's Fair?

The World’s Fair is a physical mega event like the Olympics or the World Cup that runs for six months and hosts tens of millions of people and immerses them in stories and experiences about the future.

Do we really need a physical event? We have the internet and video and Mark Zuckerberg says it's all about the Metaverse now.

Yeah, we do.

When COVID hit, everyone was prevented from going out and gathering with their friends and their families. The minute they could go out again and do things in person, they did... en masse. This is testament to human nature and the human desire to get together in person.

There’s something that you can’t get virtually.

But, Cam, Wikipedia says that there's still a World's Fair and it's called Expo. It's in Dubai right now!

Yes. I was fortunate to make the trip out to Dubai for the Expo. It was a grand, beautiful event. You had hundreds of thousands of people who were there on the days that I was on-site and they were all happy and excited to be there.

They wanted to be a part of this big thing that was happening. The thing that I was most surprised by was the grandeur and that this mega-event had popped up out of the desert from nothing, over the course of five years.

But the thing that it didn’t do for me was tell stories about the future. All the references to technology innovation were very corporate. It was like McKinsey-esque slides. The future looks like big data, AI, smart cities, urban mobility!

But those are future-oriented ideas, right?

Yes, but even with those concepts, there’s no underlying idea of how we actually get there. I remember walking into the Spain Pavilion. It was cool. They had this great film. There’s some cool art. And in their lobby they had a Hyperloop pod. And that was it. It was like: “Hyperloops! Spain!”

There’s no sense of plan.

There’s no: here’s who’s building this. They just thought “this would be cool!” “Hyperloops seem futuristic. Let's put one here.”

That's one of the key differentiators we need to focus on with the [new World’s] Fair.

How do we talk about the future and technologies and give people the pathways to see how these things come to fruition?

A lot of modern museums seem to have this problem, too. It’s a very superficial “look at this! And look at this!”. Something about this feels unpersuasive or kind of lame, even when it’s positive and about the future.

Are you suggesting a World’s Fair should focus on how concretely we get from now to the cool thing?

Yeah. The countries were clearly focused on their own self-promotion. If you look at the Wikipedia article, you’ll see that, World’s Fairs have kind of gone through a couple of eras and the Expo Dubai era is part of “nation branding.”

All the countries are showing up, trying to promote their own goods and services, promote economic development, promote tourism. And when you step into their pavilions, you really feel like, “Oh, this is an ad to come invest in this country.”

And experiences are designed not for you and I as attendees, but for the political or corporate class who are going as a way to do deals in the the VIP rooms. The architecture and the art and the experiences are just a facade.

So you're saying it’s a cool kids club?

Yeah. It's like that Steve Buscemi meme where he’s got the skateboard saying, “Oh, look at me kids! I’m a cool kid too!”

It sounds like you’re focused on process: the how we arrive to the future.

Yeah. I think all these technologies and all these possibilities need to be supported by story.

How do we go from where we are today to this future? But also, how do we give people a behind the scenes look at what it takes to develop supersonic jets? How does CRISPR actually work?

What are the implications of this? There’s the details about how it works, but there’s also the story of what this is going to do for the lives of everyday people around the globe.

Story is an overlooked piece. Most people don't think it’s important, but you have to contextualize all of these things for people.

You and I, and probably the people who are reading this are familiar with a lot of the technological advances that are going on. We’re plugged into the information streams where we see what’s happening. If I say “OpenAI,” “Stable Diffusion,” or “DALL-E,” you and I and probably most of the readers of this newsletter know what that is.

But the vast majority of people don’t. The point of the Fair is: how do we translate these ideas that are niche to our world and communicate them to the broader public in a way that's compelling and understandable?

Why does it seem like optimism about the future is so unpopular?

I don't have a brilliant answer for this. It drives me crazy, because you’re right. It’s everywhere you look. Movies are dystopian. Books are dystopian.

It’s easy to hate on the future. I think a lot of it though comes from a lack of imagination or lack of creativity. It’s hard for people to think about how this technology, this innovation, positively transforms humanity.

It’s easy to look at the negatives. As someone on Twitter once said, “Pessimists sound smart but optimists, you know, build the future…”

“Optimists make money.”

Yes, optimists make money. If you don’t have any imagination it’s easy to find the flaws and things. You have to think a little bit harder about how [a technology] might actually be of benefit.

There’s that beautiful article written in the New York Times in the 1910s, 1920s, where they’re talking about flight. And they’re like: “this is never going to work. It’s impossible. This is a joke. They’re wasting all this money on trying to get this flying contraption up. They just need to go home and work on something else. We have bigger problems to solve.”

How’d that turn out?

Why did the World's Fair die?

If you ask different people, you get different answers.

There’s two or three pieces at play. One is that in 1984, you had a shift. Los Angeles hosted the ‘84 Olympics. For the first time there’s innovation in the business model.

Peter Ueberroth, the organizer, sold the broadcasting rights to ABC for ~200 million dollars. This gave a business model to the Olympic games. It made it exceptionally profitable for the host city. Before it was kind of a drag.

The International Olympic Committee was like, “Oh, hey, Los Angeles, you proved the model. Now we’re going to take the broadcast rights and we’re going to profit from it!” So they took the value out of it, out of the city.

The city saw the Olympics as a positive model for economic development. Cities used to see the Fairs this way. But in 1984, you had the Louisiana World’s Fair, which ended in bankruptcy due to a variety of factors including some corruption and poor modeling and forecasting.

You had this flip. In the past, cities loved hosting World’s Fairs. If you look through Wikipedia, every couple years there’s a different city. Just in the US you had New York, San Antonio, Knoxville, New Orleans. But then people are suddenly like: this actually isn’t as profitable. The Olympics are the next shiny object. Let’s go do that.

The second aspect is the incentives.

You know what opened in 1982? EPCOT. And EPCOT was designed to be kind of a semi-permanent World’s Fair. At the time, it was the place where you could go see the future.

You had the countries. You had the different pavilions on energy and food and transportation. It captured the sentiment that some of the great World’s Fairs had captured for people. Disney’s marketing engine drove a bunch of people to go visit, which diminished demand for hosting World’s Fairs elsewhere.

The third aspect is the stagnation thesis, which many readers have likely already heard of. It’s that we have stopped building the physical world. Today it’s so much harder to create things. And a subtle cultural shift played a role in our innovation pipeline.

As things moved to the world of software and hardware or microchips and semiconductors and software, there were a lot fewer things to show off. This made it hard for people with limited imaginations to think the future and to tell the stories of these things in a way that’s going to be compelling to people.

Is there, is there a reason that the World's Fair is so often associated with the Cold War and the 1960 space race?

I have a theory about how important the Fairs were — and even the role of Walt Disney — in kind the cultural movement around the space race.

In 1962 you had the Seattle World’s Fair. It was a “Century 21” exposition, which highlighted the space age of humanity. It’s a backstop to Kennedy’s “we’re going to go to the moon.”

Everyone was talking about space. Seattle themed their World’s Fair around that and seeded the cultural zeitgeist with ideas and concepts about humanity’s exploration of the galaxy.

Then, in 1964, you had arguably the largest World’s Fair up to that point in New York. It also told stories and promoted ideas of humans exploring space.

You had NASA sections. You could go see the Mercury rocket. They had some of the concepts of Apollo. It got American people thinking “oh, we should go to space!”

I think it serves as a cultural backstop to the administration’s objectives to get to the moon and to win the Cold War and to one-up the Soviets. It’s not explicit or a core strategy. But it just served that purpose at the time.

Are there particular ideas or technologies debuted at the World’s Fair that had a big impact on cities? And how did the World’s Fair affect the host cities?

The most like concrete example is from the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. It was designed by the great Daniel Burnham, who most people may remember as one of the more famous architects of that era.

The design of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair ultimately inspired the City Beautiful Movement because you had 27 million people who got on trains, boats, horse and buggy, to make their way out to Chicago where they saw this beautiful ornate architecture illuminated by electricity for the very first time.

That architectural style inspired the millions of guests who went there and the architects who were involved in the planning process and to develop out this architectural movement known as the city beautiful movement.

These fairs have also been used to accelerate technologies that are already working, but aren’t widely adopted. So in the 1933 Chicago Second World’s Fair they used experimental building technologies and materials that everyone thought were too risky or too expensive or hadn’t been publicly accepted.

By demoing at the Fair and having some of those building materials used in construction, they showed it was possible to build with these things.

You’ve probably heard of this strange phenomenon around, for instance, the four minute mile. Everyone believed the four minute mile was impossible, right? Then one person breaks the four minute mile. Suddenly, many people break the four minute mile.

Do you see anything between the kind of dynamic that you’re describing about the World’s Fair and the “four minute mile” effect?

Absolutely. People just don’t know what’s possible.

If you can show people and allow them to experience some of these things, it expands their awareness of what could be. If you can make these things concrete for people and they can see them and, even better, if they can experience them, it closes the gap in their minds. They start by thinking “it’s a pipe dream, it’s impossible.” And they end by thinking, “This could be very real. I see it and I want to be a part of it.”

That’s the arc of the Fairs. How do we take these things that are ideas or pipe dreams for folks and make them concrete so people think “this is what I want”?

What has the World's Fair gotten the most wrong about the future in its history?

There’s an exhibit in the 1939 New York World’s Fair called Futurama. This was a pavilion designed by GM to showcase what a car driven future would look like.

You’d sit in this vehicle and it would give you a narrative tour of the future as a result of cars. It made you aware of highways and some of the groundwork for the Interstate Highway Project of the 50’s and 60’s.

At the time everyone thought car driven cities are going to be the best possible thing. Yes, we want cars and highways. Look at all the opportunity that's gonna open up for people. And, in a way, it did.

Now we’ve come full circle to where having car-centric cities and having to drive everywhere actually is inconvenient. It’s frustrating. It’s expensive. We’ve unlocked all this opportunity and prosperity as a result. But what do we want moving forward?

So the Fair didn’t necessarily get it wrong. But it painted a vision for the future that didn’t think out the second and third order effects that we are now starting to consider because the first order consequences have played out.

Has something debuted at the World’s Fair that you think undersold itself — that was a way bigger deal than people believed that it would be at the time?

In 1915, you had the Model T make a debut in San Francisco at the 1915 Pan Pacific Exposition.

To get the Model T there Henry Ford’s son and one of his friends drove from Dearborn, Michigan, all the way out to San Francisco. They did this road show with the Model T and they would stop in cities along the way.

When they got there, they set up an assembly line and actually manufactured the Model T at the Fair. You had people who had never seen cars in person now seeing them being manufactured in front of their eyes. I think at the time that seems that's one of those technologies that seems kind of cool. But people had no idea this is going to become the primary mode of transportation for people just like 30 years later.

Imagine seeing the assembly line for the first time!

Subscribe now

Let’s say you get to build what you want. What’s the experience for the person who shows up at Cam’s ideal World’s Fair?

My ideal World's Fair will be an experience unlike anything anyone alive today has ever seen. The moment you step into the transportation station that takes you to the Fairgrounds, things will be nothing short of magical.

When you arrive, you’ll step out onto an expansive welcome plaza and be flooded with sounds, smells, architecture, and visuals that work together to evoke the deepest sense of wonder you've felt in your life.

You’ll spend your day exploring over a dozen unique realms that are distinctively themed to tell a story about different aspects of the future. For example, when you walk into the space realm, you’ll feel like you’ve stepped into a bustling spaceport.

When you step into the food realm, you’ll feel like you’ve wandered into a tranquil garden. When you walk through the cities realm, you may find yourself in a small Italian hill village filled with technology that reminds you that you’re not in Kansas anymore…

In each of these realms, you’ll find large-scale immersive experiences called Pavilions that will pull you deeper into a story about certain facets of the future like vertical farming, rocket construction, or fusion energy.

You’ll also have dozens of unique (and themed) dining options alongside nonstop entertainment: shows, talks, and experiences. Together these combine to highlight the exciting future being built today, celebrate the people building it, and paint a positive vision for the future ahead.

Then if you’re feeling adventurous, you’ll have the opportunity to step into an imagined world and explore it — as if the world’s leading science fiction authors imagined the coolest possible future and then turned it into a place. You’ll be able to directly interact with the technologies of tomorrow, meet the people who helped create that world, and most importantly, see how all of the individual possibilities you explored in the realms combine to form a future more incredible than you’ve imagined.

So whether it’s the food and shows, the immersive experiences, or simply the space to step away from the strain of your day-to-day and be surrounded by possibility, there’s something you’ll love at the Fair.

You’ll also leave with a renewed sense of hope for the future — this powerful feeling that the future will be incredible and that you can play a role in helping build it.

Can you talk about your design and charrette process for designing Fair scenarios?

Last October with the help of some of our advisors who are former Disney Imagineers we started to reimagine this thing. It can’t be like it’s been in the past. This is not about nations. This is not about architecture alone. It’s about the future and the stories of our future that we could be living in.

You have to start with story. They introduced me to this concept that is famous from the Walt Disney Imagineering world, where you have a charrette. A charrette is a gathering where you try to quickly arrive at solutions and brainstorm ideas. Charrette is a formal term for a brainstorm or creative session.

We gather eight to 12 people in a room. We talk about what is the thing is that we want to explore. For the first one, it was “what is Main Street USA of the future?” We ask “what’s the opening, the entry experience to the next great World’s Fair?” We started hosting these online.

After a little bit of trial and error we had a good kind of thing going with Zoom and Miro, where we’d gather and we’d talk about what does each section of the Fair look like? What’s exciting about energy, about food, about transportation? It’s a way to generate ideas and stories for both kind of the aesthetic design of each of these pieces of the fair, as well as the stories and experience that we want to create.

The role of these is one, product design and development, and two, it’s how we create a space that captures the feeling of the Fair today, which is this optimism and hope and excitement for the future.

By creating these informal spaces where we can talk freely about being taken on a tour through history by, you know, an AI Einstein, or walking through a model city of the future, or having coffee in the year 2100, we come up with these ideas and concepts that capture the feeling today.

They give people hope and then kind of inspire the development of the Fair.

What’s the deal with Disney’s EPCOT and its relationship to the World's Fair?

There's a really important short film that's put together by DefunctLand on EPCOT.

After building Disneyland, Walt Disney always wanted to dream bigger and do more. He had this vision for the “experimental prototype community of tomorrow.” The idea is how could you build a place that is always on the frontier, with the latest in technologies being researched and developed and deployed?

His vision was to have a city that people would fly into. They would stop by this city of the future on their way to the theme parks. The vision was to create a place where the future was built all the time. Then those ideas would be shared with the rest of the world.

The project was called EPCOT. But after Walt Disney died, the leadership and the vision for that faded. It’s a big project and requires a lot of money and a lot of risk. The only person capable of actually leading that project would have been Walt Disney.

The Imagineers decided, well, what can we do instead? What can we do to respect Walt’s vision, but in a way that’s not crazy and absurd?

Walt Disney had a ton of involvement with the 1964 New York World’s Fair. It’s a Small World, for example, was built for the fair. The Carousel of Progress. You had the Ford Motor Speedway and a couple other experiences.

They thought: what if we take this idea of the city and this showcase of the future, and we turn it into an experience that’s permanent or semi-permanent World’s Fair? And that’s what EPCOT ultimately became.

This is some obscure history... but one of Walt Disney’s prime inspirations for how was thinking about structuring EPCOT — the city — was from this architect, Victor Gruen. Victor Gruen is most famous for the shopping mall developments and popularizing shopping centers. But he wrote this book called The Heart of Our Cities.

In it, he outlined a plan to host a World’s Fair in D.C. and convert it into a permanent city. In 1964, New York ended up being the city that was selected to host. So his plans never came to fruition.

It’s very clear that Walt Disney read this book. It was one of the things that he carried around. Victor was deeply kind of inspiring to him and his work and even the way EPCOT’s architecture was laid out was very similar to Victor Gruen's kind of “heart of our city” model.

There’s some interesting overlap between Disney, EPCOT, World’s Fairs, and startup cities. Bluntly, I think if we’re moving to a world where we want to see new cities be created and we want to experiment with different forms of governance we really want to see more and more of things like this produced.

The World’s Fairs can serve like an economic jumpstart to some of these places in some of these communities that may start start much smaller, but can eventually grow into the cities of tomorrow.

Subscribe now

—

Speed Round

The coolest World’s Fair in history:

It’s a tie between the two in Chicago. I’m gonna have to say that the 1933 one takes the cake just because it was hosted middle of the Great Depression. Everyone needed some some optimism. They needed something to look forward to. And the Fair provided that for them in an incredibly scaled way.

The most important technology or idea unveiled at any World’s Fair was?

The X-ray made its debut in 1904, along with the infant incubator, which has since saved countless lives.

Thomas Edison was just a patent troll.

I don’t have a strong take on that one.

The most techno-optimist culture on earth right now is?

Startup Cities movement.

If Walt Disney hadn’t died so young, he would have built EPCOT into a real city.

100%.

Nikola Tesla is overrated.

I think he’s underrated. He’s a misunderstood genius. He didn’t have the PR that some of the other big geniuses have.

Due to its effects on climate and urban design, Henry Ford’s work with the automobile was a net negative for humanity.

I strongly disagree. The nature of progress is you do things, they cause problems, but they also cause immense growth and opportunity. And then you’re tasked with going to solve the new problems.

The best futurism in literature is?

This is a tricky one. I think Arthur C. Clark’s, Jules Verne’s kind of the story of the future from the last century.

The best futurism in film is?

This is also a tricky one. There’s not a lot of optimistic film, which we need to change.

The best exhibit museum or other experience on futurism is?

Museum of the Future in Dubai.

The person alive today that’s holding back the future the most is?

Whoever is the head of the NRC — the Nuclear Review Committee — preventing the development and deployment of new nuclear technologies.

Good answer. The person alive today that’s doing the most for the future is?

Elon’s the obvious take here but I’m going to give Sam Altman this one.

The growth of YCombinator and helping popularize startups and building Startup School and all that. I think that’s made going and doing the things we’re talking about way more accessible to way more people and is under-appreciated.

How can people support your great mission to bring back the World’s Fair?

First, we’re working on launching a series of in person events and experiences in San Francisco. If you’re in the city, I’d love to either have you come out to them or help create them. In either case, my DMs are open on Twitter (camwiese) or I can be reached at cam@worldsfair.co

Second, I’m looking for our Founding Patrons. If any of readers are interested in supporting the mission, they can make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fulfill the mission of inspiring the future. We have a few different tiers of contributions and patrons will join the ranks of our existing supporters like Tyler Cowen and Packy McCormick.

Third, we’re always working on product! If you want to help brainstorm pavilions, experiences, or visuals for the Fair please get in touch and I’ll add you one of our working groups.

Other than that, I encourage everyone to follow along at worldsfair.co — we have a podcast that goes out and send a newsletter with the latest projects on a bi-weekly basis.

—

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startup should build cities!

Share Startup Cities

Subscribe now

I’m still working on the How to be Rural in Tech series, which has proven quite popular (and somewhat controversial) with you all. Thanks for your emails and comments!

But today, an interlude:

—

Subscribe now

Roads: Into the Tech Stack!

A common analogy used in this newsletter is that of cities as a technology stack. A “tech stack” is engineering slang to describe all the technologies brought together to deliver a product.

I love this metaphor. It’s grounded. And it opens the mind to where innovation may lurk and how a given innovation might support startups that build cities.

My latest article, published in Stripe’s Works in Progress magazine, deep dives into one critical component of a city’s tech stack: roads.

As I explain, roads in the United States are a troubled technology. Costs explode while quality often declines.

For many reasons it’s hard to innovate in roads (it doesn’t help that roads are mostly built and bought by organizations with poor incentives to innovate).

And yet the design of roads — their layout, their dimensions, their material, their cost, how they’re maintained — is one of the most important tasks of any city-builder (go read Alain Bertaud!)

Subscribe now

Except for the people angrily tweeting at me about microplastics (jeez, I talk about it in the article), the piece was well received. It even got a nice boost from Tyler Cowen over at Marginal Revolution:

Check out Plastic Roads in Works in Progress.

—

Thanks for reading and don’t forget Startups Should Build Cities!

Share Startup Cities

Subscribe now

The following series is based on a talk I gave in January 2023 at Innovation Collective, an entrepreneur’s group in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho.

This is part 1.

All the ideas in this series can get you uninvited from dinner parties. So tell me where I’m wrong in the comments.

—

Where are all the rural people in tech?

To be rural in tech is to be an outsider. The further you ascend, the fewer rural people you meet. “Where are you from? I hear the hint of an accent,” some guy in a Patagonia vest will ask you.

A rural past pursues you. And so does, I think, a certain sadness about the life you left behind.

For all the howdy-neighbor and home-cooked meals, growing up in a small town can feel like living with no future. The jobs aren’t there. You may have watched your parents struggle. You don’t know what skills to learn or how to learn them (and no one around you knows either).

So you leave.

And you grow up and get used to hearing of your friends back home: listless, chronically under-employed, playing video games in Grandma’s basement, or lost to suicide-by-opioid before their 30th.

I think this lack of rural people in tech is more than an anecdote. It’s a window into the future of America’s small towns.

Subscribe now

—

Rural People Don’t Do Prestige

Here’s a revealing graph from my friend John Chisholm, an MIT alum and brilliant tech entrepreneur who also grew up in a small town:

Mostly, rural kids don’t get into colleges like MIT. I’d bet if we looked at YCombinator founders or other prestigious groups in tech, we’d also mostly see people from cities and suburbs.

Could we get more rural kids into fancy colleges? Sure. But does anyone believe that we’ll move Tennessee or West Virginia to the top right of this curve with more mentoring or something?

Are rural kids like me just dumber? I doubt it — at least not to a degree that should lead to such stark outcomes. Besides, past eras of American technology are rife with entrepreneurs and innovators from small towns!

Nearly all of the Apollo 11 astronauts were from small towns. Robert Noyce, the big brain behind Intel, grew up in Grinnell, Iowa. Henry Singleton of Teledyne was from Haslet, Texas. Even Marc Andreessen grew up in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin.

Clearly, rural genius exists.

But the Ivy-League-to-Silicon-Valley pipeline is more competitive now than in Noyce’s day. There’s a huge focus on prestige in the Ivy League and in today’s world of tech, especially in Big Tech Corps and venture-backed startups.

But rural kids don’t do prestige. They don’t take 15 AP classes and 37 extracurricular activities. Their parents can’t afford a flock of tutors. Rural kids work on a farm or at the cash register in Wendy’s or clean toilets and other odd jobs, as I did. They don’t open non-profits to impress the admissions office.

Rural kids don’t even bother to take the SAT:

Rural kids just aren’t on the childhood prestige treadmill of their urban rivals. They never will be. It’s a different culture. And it takes too much parenting and too much money for normal rural parents, who often barely made ends meet.

So rural talent gets lost. With the industrial jobs of the 20th century gone from small towns, there’s no onramp to the future. The capabilities of rural people aren’t matched to training and opportunities in their environment. The lifeblood of any town — people doing stuff — drains away.

What’s a small town to do?

Subscribe now

—

Stagnation Is Not a Strategy

In this series I’ll argue that small towns should radically change their policies and their self-image if they hope to participate in the future.

Small town strategy must be different than that of suburbs and cities.

Why? Small towns don’t have the human capital of the typical suburb or city. This fact, more than pretty trees or Main Streets or “small town values,” must lead small town strategy. Urbanism and human capital formation are linked. And so they must be for small towns to thrive.

I’ll present three ideas in subsequent newsletters:

1. Small Town Urbanism: Scale Main Street So Smart People Move There

2. Small Town Education: Forget Well-Rounded Students and Train for Skills

3. Small Town Culture: Find and Cultivate Rural Genius

Taken together, these ideas form an optimistic strategy for a small town.

—

What of small towns today?

Many of America’s small towns pursue a strategy I call Romantic Stagnation.

Romantic Stagnation loves the past.

It believes that growth is bad, change is bad, cosmopolitan views are bad, outsiders should not be trusted or welcomed, and that small town life — the sort of life provided by a classic American Main Street — cannot be scaled and so must be preserved through restrictions.

This “strategy” expresses itself in a lame NIMBYism that’s particularly self-defeating for small towns. Big legacy cities have inertia and history that attract people despite everyone’s attempts to block everything.

Small towns don’t.

Romantic Stagnation would rather wax poetic about the Glory Days of a decrepit 1950’s tire factory than tear it down and build something new. Romantic Stagnation hates “transplants” and “West Coasters.” Romantic Stagnation attacks and ostracizes anyone who stands out from the crowd.

Romantic Stagnation tells small town kids to have “sensible” ambitions, while rich suburban kids are told that it’s their birthright to run everything on Earth. Romantic Stagnation believes that if we just hold on to what is as tight as we can, then decaying towns will somehow become great places to live and grow.

Ironically, the Romantic Stagnationists of America’s small towns — most of whom likely lean politically conservative — behave like Southern European socialists in their attitudes toward where they live. Visit Portugal, Italy, or Spain, and you’ll see the European version of Romantic Stagnation.

In Southern Europe, everyone’s obsessed over some artisanal cheese from 600 years ago. What makes this cheese so unique, you ask? A special government seal that monopolizes a word like “Champagne” or “Port” to a particular valley. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these treats. But the youth unemployment rates in these areas show the foolishness of trying to build the future on an obsession with the past.

Romantic Stagnation isn’t a strategy. It’s a failure of imagination.

There’s no reason for rural people to fall out of the labor force and die of ennui. Small town life could be awesome. But small towns must be willing to take extreme measures.

The first step is to scale Main Street, so smart people from outside have a place to live.

—

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups should build cities!

Share

Startup cities rise
Innovation blooms anew
Future unfurled bright

A Haiku on Startup Cities written by ChatGPT

The following is a conversation about Startup Cities with OpenAI’s new ChatGPT AI model.

Many people find today’s AI hard to believe so let’s be clear:

I only wrote the headings and stuff in bold. Everything else was written by the AI with no human in the loop.

AI is not perfect. A lot of material is derivative and could use nuance. But if we consider that I’m literally talking to a machine, it’s astounding. All images are also generated by AI.

This post is long and has 3 parts:

Part 1: I ask the AI general questions to understand its “mental model” of Startup Cities

Part 2: I have the AI generate wacky creative artifacts like poems and movie scripts about Startup Cities

Part 3: I have the AI generate internal artifacts like memos, emails, speeches, and conversations about a fictional startup city named “Denver 2.0.”

Skip around to find prompts that interest you.

Subscribe now

But before we get to the AI… check out this new learning opportunity led by my friend Chance! He’ll be leading a community of learners on topics like Startup Cities with the support of Plumia:

OK, back to it!

Part 1: What Does AI Know about Startup Cities?

ZC: Can we talk about this new idea of "startup cities"?

AI: Startup cities are a new concept that is gaining popularity in some circles. The idea is to create cities or urban centers that are designed and managed like startups, with an emphasis on innovation, experimentation, and rapid growth.

These cities are often built from scratch, on greenfield sites, and they are designed to be flexible, adaptable, and scalable. They often incorporate advanced technologies, such as smart infrastructure and autonomous vehicles, and they are designed to be attractive to entrepreneurs, investors, and skilled workers.

Startup cities are typically governed by a board of directors or a team of executives, who are responsible for setting the vision, strategy, and goals of the city. They often have a lean, agile organizational structure and a culture of innovation, collaboration, and continuous improvement.

The goal of startup cities is to create urban environments that are conducive to economic growth, innovation, and progress. They are often seen as an alternative to traditional cities, which may be burdened by bureaucracy, regulation, and other constraints that can hinder innovation and growth.

Overall, startup cities are a new and exciting concept that has the potential to change the way we think about urban development and the role of cities in driving economic growth and innovation.

What are some example projects?

There are currently a few startup cities that are being planned or developed around the world. One example is Neom, a $500 billion megacity project that is being developed in Saudi Arabia. Another example is Seasteading, a project that aims to build floating cities on the ocean, with the goal of creating independent, self-sustaining communities that can function outside of the existing political and legal frameworks.

There are also a number of smaller-scale projects, such as the AlphaCity project in China, which is developing a new city in the Shanghai region specifically designed to support innovation and entrepreneurship.

Overall, it's still a relatively new concept, and there are likely to be many more examples of startup cities in the coming years. [ZC: Let’s hope so, ChatGPT!]

How do you think a startup city can overcome the cold start problem?

The cold start problem refers to the challenge of starting a new city or community from scratch, without the existing infrastructure, population, and economic activity that are typically found in established cities. This can make it difficult for a startup city to attract residents, businesses, and investors, and to generate the economic activity and revenue necessary to support its growth and development.

One potential way to overcome the cold start problem is to focus on building a strong foundation for the startup city, including the necessary infrastructure, services, and amenities. This could include building transportation networks, utilities, schools, hospitals, and other essential facilities that can support the daily needs of residents and businesses.

Another potential approach is to focus on attracting specific types of businesses and industries that can provide a base of economic activity and revenue for the startup city. This could include targeting high-tech or innovative industries, or companies that are looking for a supportive and dynamic environment for their operations.

Additionally, a startup city could also seek partnerships with governments, investors, and other stakeholders to provide the necessary funding, support, and expertise to help the city get off the ground and grow. This could include public-private partnerships, grants, and other forms of support that can help the startup city overcome the challenges of the cold start problem.

What kind of urban design should a startup city pursue?

One potential approach to urban design for a startup city is to focus on creating a compact, walkable, and mixed-use urban environment. This could involve building a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces in close proximity, with an emphasis on creating pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces.

This type of urban design can support a vibrant and dynamic community, and it can also help to reduce the environmental impact of the city by minimizing the need for cars and other forms of transportation.

Another potential approach is to focus on building a sustainable and resilient city, with a design that is able to adapt to changing needs and challenges. This could involve incorporating green spaces, sustainable building materials, and other features that can support the health and wellbeing of residents, while also reducing the environmental impact of the city.

Explain op-co prop-co like I'm 5.

Op-co and prop-co are two special companies that work together to help people find nice places to live. Op-co is short for "operating company," and it's the part of the business that helps people find homes and apartments.

Prop-co is short for "property company," and it's the part of the business that buys and sells the buildings that people live in. Op-co and prop-co work together to make sure that people have nice, comfortable places to live, and that the buildings are always in good condition. They also make sure that the buildings are safe, clean, and well-maintained, so that people can enjoy living there.

Subscribe now

If Christopher Alexander were consulting for a startup city project, what recommendations would he make?

Christopher Alexander is an architect and design theorist who is known for his ideas about the nature of order in human-made environments. He has developed a theory of design based on the concept of "pattern languages," which are sets of interconnected design elements that can be used to create complex and adaptable structures and spaces. [ZC: Nice!]

If Christopher Alexander were consulting for a startup city project, he might recommend using a pattern language-based approach to design the city. This could involve creating a set of interconnected patterns that describe the various elements of the city, such as its buildings, streets, and public spaces. These patterns could be used as a guide for designing and building the city, with the goal of creating a complex and adaptable urban environment.

Additionally, Christopher Alexander might also recommend involving the local community in the design process, and encouraging them to contribute their own ideas and perspectives to the development of the city. This could help to create a city that is responsive to the needs and aspirations of its residents, and that is able to evolve and adapt over time.

If urban economist Alain Bertaud were consulting for a startup city project, what recommendations would he make?

Alain Bertaud is an urban economist who has studied the factors that drive the growth and development of cities. He has developed a number of theories and models that seek to explain the complex relationships between urban form, economic activity, and social and environmental outcomes. [ZC: Right again, ChatGPT!]

If Alain Bertaud were consulting for a startup city project, he might recommend focusing on creating a well-functioning urban economy as a key driver of the city's success.

This could involve building the necessary infrastructure and amenities to support economic activity, such as transportation networks, utilities, and public services. It could also involve encouraging the development of a mix of different land uses and industries, and fostering a supportive business environment that can attract and retain businesses and workers.

Additionally, Alain Bertaud might also recommend studying and understanding the existing urban economy, and its potential impact on the startup city. This could involve conducting economic analyses and market research to identify opportunities and challenges, and to inform the planning and development of the city.

Overall, Alain Bertaud's approach to urban economics emphasizes the importance of creating a supportive and dynamic environment for economic activity, and of understanding and responding to the complex forces that drive urban growth and change.

If Karl Marx were consulting for a startup city project, what recommendations would he make?

If Karl Marx were consulting for a startup city project, it's difficult to say what recommendations he would make, as his ideas about capitalism and socialism are quite different from the goals and objectives of a startup city project.

A startup city is typically designed to foster entrepreneurship and economic growth, which are central to capitalist systems. Karl Marx's ideas, on the other hand, are based on a critique of capitalism, and on the belief that it must be overthrown in order to create a more just and equal society.

What ideology animates startup cities?

The ideology that animates startup cities is a belief in the potential of entrepreneurship, innovation, and technological progress to drive economic growth and social development.

Startup cities are typically built on the idea that creating new urban environments from scratch, without the constraints of existing infrastructure and regulations, can allow for the development of dynamic and forward-thinking communities that are able to support the growth and success of new businesses and industries.

This ideology is often associated with a belief in the power of market-based solutions and private sector innovation, and with a focus on creating an attractive and supportive business environment.

Could a successful startup city project IPO?

It is theoretically possible for a successful startup city project to go public and become a publicly traded company through an initial public offering (IPO). An IPO is a process by which a privately held company sells shares of its stock to the public, in order to raise capital and become a publicly traded company.

A startup city project that is structured as a for-profit company could potentially go through the IPO process in order to raise capital and expand its operations. However, there are many challenges and obstacles to this process, and it may not be feasible or desirable for all startup city projects.

Why wouldn't an IPO be desirable?

An initial public offering (IPO) may not be desirable for a startup city project for a number of reasons. Some of the potential disadvantages of a startup city project going public through an IPO include:

• Loss of control: Going public through an IPO involves selling shares of the company's stock to the public, and this can dilute the ownership and control of the company's founders and early investors. This can be a significant concern for some startup city projects, and it may make it difficult for these projects to maintain their original vision and mission.

• Increased scrutiny and regulation: Going public through an IPO also involves subjecting the company to increased scrutiny and regulation from the public, the media, and regulators. This can create additional challenges and burdens for startup city projects, and it may make it difficult for these projects to operate and grow in a flexible and agile manner.

• Short-termism: Going public through an IPO can also create pressure on the company to focus on short-term performance and profitability, at the expense of long-term goals and vision. This can be a significant concern for startup city projects, which may require significant time and investment to achieve their full potential.

• Market volatility: Going public through an IPO also involves exposing the company to the volatility of the public market, and to the risks and uncertainties of the broader economy. This can create additional risks and challenges for startup city projects, and it may make it difficult for these projects to raise the capital they need to succeed.

Subscribe now

What are some companies that might want to partner on a startup city project?

There are many companies that might be interested in partnering on a startup city project, as these projects offer the opportunity to be involved in the creation of a new urban environment from the ground up.

Some potential partners might include technology companies, real estate developers, engineering firms, transportation companies, and other businesses that have expertise and experience in the fields of urban development, planning, and design.

Can you give some examples?

Sure, here are some examples of companies that might be interested in partnering on a startup city project:

• Technology companies, such as Google or Amazon, which might be interested in using the city as a testbed for new technologies and services

• real estate developers, such as Brookfield or Hines, which might be interested in building the city's infrastructure and housing

• engineering firms, such as AECOM or CH2M, which might be involved in designing and building the city's roads, utilities, and other infrastructure

• transportation companies, such as Uber or Lyft, which might be interested in providing services and solutions for the city's transportation needs

• academic institutions, such as universities or research institutes, which might be interested in conducting research and providing expertise on urban development and planning

• non-profit organizations, such as environmental advocacy groups or community development organizations, which might be interested in supporting the city's sustainability and social justice goals.

Where do you think startup cities could be built?

Startup cities could potentially be built in a wide range of locations, depending on the specific goals and objectives of the project, and on the availability of land and other resources.

These projects are often built in undeveloped or underdeveloped areas, where there is potential for growth and expansion, and where there may be fewer constraints and regulations than in established urban environments.

Some potential locations for startup cities might include:

• Underdeveloped or underutilized areas within existing cities, where there is potential for growth and expansion

• Rural or semi-rural areas, where there is available land and resources, but where there may be challenges in terms of infrastructure and services

• Greenfield sites, or areas of undeveloped land that are not currently in use, where there is the opportunity to build a city from scratch

• Developing countries, where there may be opportunities for partnership with local governments and communities, and where there may be potential for economic growth and development

What would be a good reading list for startup cities?

If you're interested in learning more about the concept of startup cities, here is a list of some books and articles that you might find interesting and informative:

• "The Ghost Map" by Stephen Johnson, which explores the role of cities in fostering innovation and creativity

• "Order Without Design" by Alain Bertaud, which looks at the role of markets in shaping urban growth and development

• "The Sum of Small Things" by Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, which examines the role of culture and creativity in urban development and planning

• "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida, which looks at the importance of cities in fostering innovation and economic growth

• "Triumph of the City" by Ed Glaeser, which explores the role of cities in driving economic growth and social progress

• "Start-Up City: Inspiring Private and Public Entrepreneurship, Getting Projects Done, and Having Fun" by Gabe Klein, which offers practical advice and insights on how to create and support vibrant and dynamic urban environments.

These books and articles offer a range of perspectives on the concept of startup cities, and they provide valuable insights and information on the potential benefits and challenges of these projects.

[ZC: Not a bad reading list!]

Why aren't cities run as for-profit companies?

Cities are typically not run as for-profit companies, as this is not seen as the most effective or appropriate way to manage and govern urban communities. Cities are complex and dynamic systems, and they require a range of services and amenities to support the needs of their residents, businesses, and visitors.

Running a city as a for-profit company would likely be challenging, as it would require the city to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of providing these services and amenities, and to generate profits for its shareholders. This could create conflicts of interest, as the city would need to balance the needs of its residents and businesses with the need to generate profits for its shareholders.

In addition, cities are typically governed by democratically elected officials, who are accountable to the residents of the city. Running a city as a for-profit company would require a different governance structure, where the company's shareholders would have control over the city's decision-making processes. This could create additional challenges and conflicts, as the interests of the shareholders may not always align with the interests of the residents of the city.

[ZC: Pretty sloppy “consensus reality” thinking here, ChatGPT!]

Share

Part 2: Sonnets, Interviews, Musicals, Raps, Sitcoms, and Other Creative Explorations

Write a Shakespearean sonnet about Startup Cities.

In this new age of progress and change,
A bold new concept doth arise:
The startup city, free from ancient range,
A blank slate on which to innovate and thrive.

With nimble hands, urban planners create
A community designed for growth and speed,
Where cutting-edge technologies await
To help new businesses plant their seeds.

In this brave new world, partnerships abound
Between the public and the private sphere,
Creating a fertile ground
For entrepreneurs to sow their ideas with cheer.

Some may doubt the feasibility of this dream,
But we are hopeful that success it will gleam.

Write an interview between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses. Jane Jacobs is explaining why it's a good idea to move to a city built by a startup.

Interviewer: Today, we have two guests with us to discuss the topic of moving to a city built by a startup. Our first guest is Jane Jacobs, a renowned urbanist and writer known for her work on urban planning and communities. Our second guest is Robert Moses, a public official and urban planner who has been instrumental in the development of New York City.

Interviewer: Jane, can you tell us why you think it's a good idea to move to a city built by a startup?

Jane Jacobs: I believe that cities built by startups offer many benefits to residents. For one, they tend to be more innovative and experimental in their approach to urban planning. This means that they are more likely to try out new ideas and technologies that can improve the lives of residents.

Another benefit of living in a city built by a startup is that these cities are often designed with a focus on creating vibrant and livable communities. This means that they prioritize things like walkability, public spaces, and the overall quality of life for residents.

Robert Moses: I must say, I disagree with your assessment. While it's true that startups may be more innovative in their approach to urban planning, I worry that this can lead to a lack of long-term planning and a lack of consideration for the broader impacts of their decisions.

Jane Jacobs: I understand your concerns, Robert. But I think that the key is to strike a balance between innovation and long-term planning. By working closely with the local community and taking their needs and concerns into account, startup cities can ensure that they are creating sustainable and livable communities.

Robert Moses: I suppose that's true. But I still think that the experience and expertise of more established urban planners is necessary to ensure that these cities are developed in a way that is beneficial to all stakeholders.

Jane Jacobs: I agree with you, Robert. It's important for startup cities to collaborate with experienced urban planners and other experts to ensure that they are making informed decisions. But at the same time, I think that the fresh perspective and willingness to try new approaches offered by startups can be a valuable addition to the urban planning process.

Write the script for a scene in the Simpsons where Homer learns about startup cities.

The scene opens with Homer sitting on the couch in the living room, watching TV. The TV is showing a news report about the success of a new startup city in eastern Colorado.

Homer: (to the TV) Hey, what's this about a startup city?

Marge: (entering the room) Oh, it’s a new type of city that's designed and managed like a startup.

Homer: (confused) A city that’s like a startup?

Marge: (explaining) Yes, it’s built from scratch, on a greenfield site, and it’s designed to be flexible, adaptable, and scalable.

Homer: (impressed) Wow, that sounds amazing! I wish Springfield had a startup city!

Marge: (skeptical) I don't know, Homer. Startup cities can be risky, and they’re not for everyone.

Homer: (determined) Well, I think Springfield should give it a try! We could have our own Silicon Valley right here in town!

Marge: (smiling) I'm not sure that’s such a good idea, Homer. But I admire your enthusiasm.

The scene ends with Homer daydreaming about Springfield as a startup city, with futuristic buildings and flying cars.

Subscribe now

Write the script for a film noir detective movie with Al Pacino as the lead character. Al Pacino is in his office when a beautiful women enters to tell him about startup cities:

The scene opens with a close-up of Al Pacino’s face, as he sits behind his desk in his office. He is a world-weary private detective, with a tired but determined expression on his face.

The door to his office opens, and a beautiful woman enters. She is wearing a tight-fitting dress and high heels, and she exudes a sense of confidence and power.

Woman: (in a husky voice) Mr. Pacino, I need your help.

Al Pacino: (looking up at the woman) And who might you be?

Woman: (striding across the room) My name is Ms. Jones. I represent a group of investors who are interested in a new type of city called a startup city.

Al Pacino: (leaning back in his chair) A startup city, huh? What's that all about?

Woman: (sitting down in front of Pacino's desk) It’s a city that's designed and managed like a startup. It's built from scratch, on a greenfield site, and it's designed to be flexible, adaptable, and scalable.

Al Pacino: (nodding) I see. And what do you need me for?

Woman: (leaning forward) We need you to investigate a potential investor who we think may not be who he says he is. We’re worried that he may be trying to scam us out of our investment in the startup city.

Al Pacino: (stroking his chin) I see. And why do you think I’m the man for the job?

Woman: (smiling) Because you’re the best detective in town, Mr. Pacino. And we’re willing to pay you well for your services.

Al Pacino: (narrowing his eyes) I don’t come cheap, Ms. Jones. But if you’re willing to pay my fee, I’ll take the case.

The scene ends with Ms. Jones handing over a folder of information and a large envelope of cash to Al Pacino, as he begins his investigation into the mysterious investor and the startup city.

Explain Startup Cities in the style of a New York gangster.

Listen up, kid. You wanna know what a startup city is? It's the next big thing, see. It's like a city that's built from scratch, like a brand new building going up in the middle of nowhere. But instead of just being a regular old city, it's run like a startup. You know, all flexible and adaptable and scalable.

And the best part is, there’s opportunities for guys like us to get in on the ground floor, make some real dough. But be warned, it ain’t for the faint of heart. It’s a risky business, but the rewards can be huge. So you wanna get in on the action? You better be ready to roll the dice, kid. That’s the deal with startup cities.

Write a brief essay in the style of Hunter S. Thompson on startup cities.

The idea of "startup cities" is the latest craze to hit the urban development scene, and I have to admit, it’s got me pretty excited. For those of you who don't know, a startup city is a brand new city that’s built from the ground up with the goal of fostering innovation and entrepreneurship.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Hunter, this sounds like some kind of hippie utopia, how could it possibly work?" Well, I’ll tell you how it could work: by tearing down the old structures and regulations that are holding us back, and building a city that's optimized for growth and progress.

Imagine a city where the streets are filled with electric cars and flying taxis, where buildings are constructed using cutting-edge materials and designs, and where the government is run like a lean startup, constantly experimenting and iterating to find the best solutions. That’s the kind of future that a startup city could bring us.

But it's not just about shiny new toys and gadgets. A startup city could also provide a platform for social and political experimentation, where new ideas and policies could be tested and refined in a real-world setting. It could be a place where we can finally escape the stale debates and entrenched interests that have held us back for so long.

Of course, there will be plenty of challenges and obstacles along the way. Building a city from scratch is no small feat, and there are bound to be plenty of naysayers and skeptics who will try to stand in our way. But that’s just the kind of challenge that entrepreneurs thrive on, and I have no doubt that we will rise to meet it.

So let’s embrace the future, and build a city that’s worthy of it. Let’s create a startup city, and show the world what we’re capable of.

In the style of the Bible, a brief essay on Startup Cities might read as follows:

And lo, in the land of the startup cities, a new breed of urban development was born. These cities were built by startups, by those who sought to create and build, to push the boundaries of what is possible.

And the startup cities were a place of innovation and entrepreneurship, a place where the impossible became possible. They were places of endless possibility and endless opportunity, where the future was made real.

And the people who lived in the startup cities were a people of vision and ambition, a people who sought to create and build, to make the world a better place. They were a people of innovation and creativity, who embraced change as a source of progress and growth.

And the startup cities were a place of great prosperity and abundance, a place where the old ways were cast aside and the new ways were embraced. They were a place where the future was being built, brick by brick, innovation by innovation.

And the startup cities were a beacon of hope and progress, a shining example of what can be achieved when people come together to create and build, to make the world a better place. They were a place of endless possibility, and of endless opportunity.

Write a script of the opening scene for Startup Cities: The Musical!

Scene: A bustling city skyline at sunrise. The sound of construction and traffic fills the air.

Narrator: (singing)
Welcome to the future, a world of new beginnings
Where cities rise from dust, and dreams take flight
Here, anything is possible, in these startup cities
Where innovation thrives and opportunities ignite

(The curtain opens to reveal a group of young entrepreneurs, dressed in business casual and carrying briefcases, walking excitedly down the street.)

Entrepreneurs: (singing)
We’re the pioneers, the visionaries
On a mission to create and innovate
With boundless energy and determination
We're building the future, one city at a time

(The entrepreneurs enter a gleaming high-rise building, labeled "Startup City Inc.")

Entrepreneurs: (singing)
In these walls, anything is possible
We're breaking down barriers and making our mark
We're forging a new path, and writing our own rules
In the land of startup cities, the sky's the limit!

(The entrepreneurs enter an elevator and press the button for the top floor, smiling and excited for the day ahead.)

Narrator: (singing)
So come along, and join the adventure
In the world of startup cities, the future is bright
Where anything is possible, and the possibilities are endless
Welcome to the world of startup cities, where dreams take flight!

Subscribe now

Write a rap by Jay Z about the startup city

Uh huh, yeah,
It's Jay Z in the house,
Coming at you live
From the startup city, yeah

Where the streets are paved
With innovation and progress,
Where startups rise
And make their mark, yeah

We got brains and drive,
Ambition and soul,
Building a city
Where anything is possible, yeah

From the ground up,
We create our own fate,
In the startup city,
Where the future’s great, yeah

We hustle and grind,
We never give up,
In the startup city,
Where the sky’s the limit, yeah

So come on and join us,
In this city of dreams,
Where anything is possible,
In the startup city, yeah.

[ZC: This is like if really lame corporate branding consultants wrote a rap on behalf of Jay Z…]

The conversation of an inquisition set in 1600's New England where a woman is accused of believing in the heretical idea that "startups should build cities".

The woman first denies believing in the idea. Then, in a climax, she reveals her passionate belief that it is true:

Inquisitor: “Tell us, woman, do you believe in the heretical idea that startups should build cities?”

Accused woman: “I do not believe in such an idea. I believe that city-building is the responsibility of governments and established institutions.”

Inquisitor: “But do you not believe that startups, with their innovation and drive, are capable of creating better cities than those built by traditional means?”

Accused woman: “I have never thought about it before, but now that you mention it, I do believe that startups should be given the opportunity to build cities. They have the potential to bring new technologies and innovations that could greatly improve the lives of those who live in them.”

Inquisitor: “But do you not see the potential dangers of allowing startups to build cities? They may not have the experience or resources to handle such a task, and could potentially cause harm to those who live in the cities they build.”

Accused woman: “I understand the potential risks, but I believe that the potential benefits far outweigh them. Startups are the future, and they should be given the chance to prove themselves. If we do not allow them to innovate and take risks, how will we ever advance as a society? I stand by my belief that startups should be given the opportunity to build cities, and I will not recant it.”

Write an interview with Walt Disney where he pitches a new product idea: a new startup city built by Disney.

Interviewer: Walt, we’re excited to hear about the new product idea that you’re pitching today. Can you tell us a bit about it?

Walt Disney: Absolutely. At Disney, we’re always looking for new and innovative ways to bring magic and joy to people’s lives, and our latest product idea is no exception. We’re excited to announce that we are working on a new startup city, built by Disney.

Interviewer: A startup city? That sounds like an ambitious project. Can you tell us a bit more about it?

Walt Disney: Absolutely. Our startup city will be a new kind of urban development, one that is built from the ground up by Disney. We'll be using our expertise in storytelling, design, and entertainment to create a new model for urban living.

Interviewer: What will make your startup city different from other urban developments?

Walt Disney: Our startup city will be a place of magic and wonder, a place where dreams come true. We’ll be building a community of people who share our passion for storytelling and creativity, and who will have access to the resources and support they need to turn their dreams into reality.

Interviewer: How will you ensure that your startup city is sustainable and livable?

Walt Disney: We’re committed to building a sustainable and livable city, one that minimizes its environmental impact and provides a high quality of life for its residents. We’ll be using cutting-edge technologies and designs to make our startup city a model of sustainability and innovation.

Interviewer: That sounds like a really exciting project. When can we expect to see your startup city in action?

Walt Disney: We’re currently in the early stages of development, but we’re working hard to bring our startup city to life. We’re excited to share more details with you in the coming months, and we can’t wait to see the magic and wonder that our startup city will bring to the world.

Part 3: The Internal Papers of “Denver 2.0” – A Hypothetical Startup City in Eastern Colorado

It is 2035 and a startup city named Denver 2.0 is thriving in eastern Colorado. A reporter arrives to interview a resident:

Reporter: Hi, I’m here to talk to you about Denver 2.0, the startup city that’s been making headlines in recent years. Can you tell me a bit about what it’s like to live here?

Resident: Sure, it’s great to be a part of Denver 2.0. This city was built by startups, and it's a place where innovation and entrepreneurship are the driving forces behind everything that we do.

Reporter: What makes Denver 2.0 different from other cities?

Resident: Well, for one thing, the pace of life here is much faster than in other cities. We’re always looking for new ways to innovate and create, and that means that things are always changing and evolving. It’s an exciting place to be.

Reporter: And what are some of the challenges of living in a city like Denver 2.0?

Resident: One of the biggest challenges is that everything is always changing. It can be hard to keep up with the pace of innovation and growth, and sometimes it can feel like you’re always trying to catch up. But at the same time, it’s also what makes this city so exciting and dynamic.

Reporter: So, overall, would you say that living in Denver 2.0 is a positive experience?

Resident: Definitely. I think that if you’re someone who is looking for opportunities to innovate and create, then this is the place for you. It’s a place where anything is possible, and where the future is being built every day.

The commencement address by the CEO of a startup city at the grand opening of an art museum dedicated to flying cars:

Good evening, everyone, and congratulations to the graduating class of 2035. It’s an honor to be here with you today to celebrate the grand opening of this incredible art museum, and to reflect on the future of transportation.

As the CEO of the startup city that has been built here in eastern Colorado, I am proud to be a part of this community of innovators and entrepreneurs. This city was built by startups, and it is a place where the impossible becomes possible, where the future is made real.

And that is what this art museum is all about. It is a celebration of the future of transportation, of the endless possibilities that lie ahead of us. It is a place where we can come together to dream and to create, to explore the unknown and to imagine what might be.

Flying cars are no longer just a dream, they are a reality. And they are just one example of the incredible innovations that are happening here in our startup city. We are building a future that is sustainable and livable, a future that is inclusive and accessible to all.

We are building a future that is driven by innovation and entrepreneurship, a future that is built on the dreams and aspirations of each and every one of us. And so, as we celebrate the grand opening of this art museum, let us also celebrate the future of transportation that we are building together.

Let us embrace the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, and let us create a world that is better than the one we inherited. Thank you, and congratulations once again to the graduating class of 2035. Let us all go forth and build the future that we know is possible.

Subscribe now

The meeting minutes of a board meeting where a startup city management team is deciding whether to demolish an apartment building to make room for a park.

Meeting minutes from the board meeting of the startup city management team on December 1, 2035:

• The board discussed the proposal to demolish the apartment building at 123 Main Street in order to create a new park in its place.

• Members of the community who live in the apartment building were present at the meeting and shared their concerns about being displaced.

• The board considered alternative options, such as renovating the apartment building or finding a different location for the park.

• After careful consideration, the board voted to move forward with the demolition of the apartment building and the creation of the park.

• The board also agreed to work with the affected residents to help them find alternative housing.

• The next board meeting will be on January 1, 2036.

An email sent to the CEO of a startup city complaining about porch pirates in residential areas:

Dear CEO,

I am writing to you today to express my concern about the increasing problem of porch pirates in our residential areas. As someone who has lived in this startup city for many years, I have seen first-hand the impact that this problem is having on our community.

In recent months, I have had several packages stolen from my front porch. This has not only been frustrating and inconvenient, but it has also caused me to lose money and valuable items. I know that I am not alone in this experience, and that many other residents of this city have had similar experiences.

I understand that this is a complex issue, and that there is no easy solution. But as the leader of this city, I believe that it is your responsibility to address this problem and to work towards a solution. I would appreciate it if you could take the necessary steps to address this issue and to ensure that our residential areas are safe and secure.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

The CEO responds:

Dear [Your Name],

Thank you for reaching out to me about the problem of porch pirates in our residential areas. I understand your concern, and I share your frustration about this issue.

At the startup city, we are committed to creating a safe and secure community for all of our residents. In response to the increasing problem of porch piracy, we are implementing a number of measures to address this issue.

First, we are working closely with local law enforcement to investigate reports of porch piracy and to identify and prosecute those responsible. We are also increasing patrols in residential areas and implementing new surveillance technologies to help prevent these crimes.

In addition, we are providing resources and support to residents to help them protect their packages and prevent them from being stolen. This includes providing information about secure delivery options, such as requiring a signature for delivery or using a lockbox.

We are also working with local businesses and community organizations to raise awareness about this issue and to find solutions that will benefit our entire community.

We understand that this is a complex and ongoing problem, and that there is no single solution. But we are committed to doing everything we can to address this issue and to ensure that our residential areas are safe and secure.

Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further concerns.

Sincerely,
[Your CEO]

A fancy ad agency pitches the management team of a startup city with a new ad campaign, slogan, and ideas for billboard imagery:

Dear Startup City Management Team,

We are excited to present to you our new ad campaign for the startup city. This campaign is designed to capture the spirit and energy of this unique community, and to showcase the many opportunities and innovations that are happening here.

At the heart of our campaign is a new slogan: "Startup City: Where the Future Comes to Life." This slogan captures the essence of what makes this city special, and it speaks to the potential and the possibilities that are found here.

To bring this slogan to life, we have developed a series of billboard images that showcase the many exciting things that are happening in the startup city. These images include futuristic buildings, cutting-edge technologies, and dynamic scenes of people working and collaborating.

Our ad campaign is designed to inspire and to engage, to showcase the many exciting opportunities that are available in the startup city. We believe that this campaign will help to attract new residents, businesses, and investors to this community, and that it will help to build a bright and prosperous future for all.

Thank you for considering our proposal. We look forward to working with you to bring this campaign to life.

Sincerely,
[Your Ad Agency]

An insurance company emails the CEO of the startup city to explain why they have to raise premiums:

Dear CEO,

I am writing to you today to explain why we have had to raise premiums for our insurance policies in the startup city. I understand that this may be frustrating for our customers, and I want to take the time to explain the reasons behind this decision.

As you may know, the startup city is a dynamic and rapidly-growing community. This growth brings many benefits, but it also presents some challenges for insurance companies. In particular, the rapid pace of development and change in the startup city can lead to an increased risk of accidents, injuries, and property damage.

In order to protect our customers and to ensure that we can continue to provide high-quality insurance coverage, we have had to make the difficult decision to raise premiums. We understand that this may be an inconvenience for our customers, and we apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause.

However, we believe that this decision is necessary to ensure that we can continue to provide the level of coverage and protection that our customers expect and deserve. We remain committed to providing our customers with the best possible insurance experience, and we will continue to work hard to earn your trust and support.

Thank you for your understanding. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
[Your Insurance Company]

Subscribe now

Camera footage of a group of protesters arguing with residents about the startup city's success:

The camera footage shows a group of protesters gathered on a street corner in the startup city. The protesters are holding signs and banners that read slogans such as "Startup City: Built on Broken Promises" and "Startup City: A Place for the Rich, not the Rest of Us."

The protesters are engaged in a heated conversation with a group of residents who live in the startup city. The residents are defending the city and its success, arguing that it has brought many benefits and opportunities to the community.

The protesters, however, are expressing skepticism about the city's success and its impact on the community. They argue that the city has not lived up to its promises, and that it has only benefited a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations.

The conversation becomes increasingly heated, with both sides raising their voices and expressing their opposing viewpoints. Eventually, the protesters decide to march through the streets of the city, carrying their signs and banners and chanting slogans. The residents continue to engage with them, but the conversation becomes more heated and confrontational.

The camera footage ends with the protesters and residents continuing to argue and debate the success of the startup city.

Transcript of the Congressional hearing granting legal and regulatory autonomy to the startup city:

Congressman: The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss the proposed legislation to grant legal and regulatory autonomy to the startup city. We have a number of experts and stakeholders here to provide testimony on this important issue.

First, we will hear from the CEO of the startup city, who will provide an overview of the city and its vision for autonomy.

CEO: Thank you, Congressman. The startup city is a unique and innovative community that has been built from the ground up to be a hub for technology, entrepreneurship, and progress. Our goal is to create a thriving and dynamic ecosystem that can support the growth and success of businesses, individuals, and ideas.

To achieve this goal, we believe that it is necessary for the startup city to have legal and regulatory autonomy. This autonomy will allow us to create a flexible and adaptive framework for governing and regulating the city, and it will allow us to respond quickly to the challenges and opportunities that we face.

Congressman: Thank you for that overview, [CEO]. Our next witness is a legal expert who will provide more detailed information about the proposed autonomy legislation.

Legal Expert: Thank you, Congressman. The proposed legislation would grant the startup city the ability to create and implement its own legal and regulatory framework. This would include the ability to create and enforce laws, regulations, and policies that are specific to the city and its needs.

This autonomy would be limited, however, and would not allow the startup city to violate federal or state laws or to undermine the rights and interests of individuals or businesses. The legislation also includes provisions for oversight and accountability, to ensure that the city’s actions are transparent and in the public interest.

Congressman: Thank you for that explanation, [Legal Expert]. Our next witness is a representative from a local business association, who will provide their perspective on the proposed autonomy legislation.

Business Association Representative: Thank you, Congressman. As a representative of the local business community, I can say that the businesses in the startup city are generally supportive of the proposed autonomy legislation. We believe that this autonomy will allow the city to create a more conducive environment for business growth and success.

At the same time, we are also concerned about the potential impacts of this autonomy on the broader community and on other businesses outside of the city. We believe that it is important for the legislation to include provisions to ensure that the autonomy of the startup city does not harm the interests of others.

An argument between the co-founders of a startup city about whether the city should issue its own crypto token "UrbanCoin":

Co-Founder 1: Hey, [Co-Founder 2]. I've been thinking a lot about our city’s financial infrastructure, and I think we should consider issuing our own crypto token called "UrbanCoin".

Co-Founder 2: That's an interesting idea, [Co-Founder 1], but I’m not sure it’s the right move for us.

Co-Founder 1: Why not? I think UrbanCoin could be a great way to improve our city's financial infrastructure and to create new opportunities for businesses and residents.

Co-Founder 2: I understand where you’re coming from, but I think there are a lot of risks associated with issuing our own crypto token. For one, it’s a relatively untested technology, and there’s no guarantee that it will be successful.

Co-Founder 1: I agree that there are risks, but I also think that the potential rewards are significant. UrbanCoin could give us a lot of flexibility and control over our financial systems, and it could create new opportunities for innovation and growth.

Co-Founder 2: But, [Co-Founder 1], there are also regulatory risks to consider. Issuing our own crypto token could put us at odds with federal and state regulators, and that could create a lot of problems for us.

Co-Founder 1: I understand that there are regulatory risks, but I think we can work with regulators to ensure that UrbanCoin is compliant. Plus, I think the benefits of issuing our own crypto token outweigh the risks.

Co-Founder 2: I’m not convinced, [Co-Founder 1]. I think the risks are too great, and I don't think it's worth it to pursue UrbanCoin.

Co-Founder 1: I respect your opinion, [Co-Founder 2], but I think we should at least explore the idea further and see if it’s feasible. I think it could be a game-changer for our city.

A management consultant from McKinsey delivers his Powerpoint presentation to the management of the startup city:

Consultant: Good morning, everyone. I’m [Consultant] from McKinsey, and I’m here today to present our findings and recommendations for the startup city.

First, let me provide some context. We were engaged by the startup city to conduct a comprehensive review of the city's operations and to identify areas for improvement. We conducted a thorough analysis of the city’s operations, including interviews with key stakeholders and a review of relevant data and reports.

Based on our analysis, we have identified a number of areas for improvement. These include:

• Improving the efficiency of city services

• Enhancing the city’s infrastructure and public spaces

• Developing a more robust and diversified economy

• Strengthening the city’s governance and decision-making processes

To address these areas for improvement, we have developed a series of recommendations. These include:

• Implementing a performance management system to track and improve the efficiency of city services

• Investing in the city’s infrastructure and public spaces, including roads, parks, and public transportation

• Encouraging the growth of new businesses and industries in the city, through incentives and support programs

• Establishing a more effective and transparent governance structure, with clear roles and responsibilities for key decision-makers.

[ZC: ChatGPT coming hard for those corpo-speak-delivered-confidently jobs.]

We believe that implementing these recommendations will help the startup city to improve its operations and to achieve its goals. We are confident that our recommendations will provide a strong foundation for the city’s continued success.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our findings and recommendations. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The CEO delivers a speech to drum up demand for the city's IPO:

Thank you all for coming to hear about our amazing city and its upcoming IPO. As many of you know, our city was founded just over a decade ago, with the goal of creating a thriving, sustainable community in the heart of eastern Colorado.

Over the past 10 years, we have worked hard to create a city that is truly unique, with cutting-edge technology, sustainable infrastructure, and a strong sense of community. Our city has been recognized as a leader in renewable energy, with a state-of-the-art solar farm and a network of electric vehicle charging stations.

Our economy is thriving, with a diverse mix of businesses, from high-tech startups to established corporations. Our schools are some of the best in the state, and our crime rate is among the lowest. We are truly a city of the future.

Now, we are excited to offer you the opportunity to become a part of our city's success through our upcoming IPO. We believe that our city has enormous potential, and we are confident that investing in our city will provide our investors with strong, long-term returns.

We invite you to learn more about our city and our IPO, and we look forward to welcoming you as a part of our growing community. Thank you.

Subscribe now

A mob of angry twitter users send angry tweets to the CEO of the startup city:

Here are some examples of tweets that might be sent by angry users about the startup city:

• "The startup city is a scam! They promised us a utopia but it's just a poorly run shithole"

• "I invested in the startup city’s IPO and now I’m regretting it. The infrastructure is falling apart and crime is on the rise"

• "I can’t believe the CEO of the startup city is trying to sell us on their failed experiment. Don’t fall for their lies"

• "The startup city was supposed to be a model for sustainable living, but it’s just a facade. The air and water quality is terrible"

• "I used to live in the startup city and I was constantly disappointed by the lack of community and support for local businesses"

[ZC: 😂 ]

A major film studio negotiates the rights to film with the Chief Operating Officer of the startup city:

As the Chief Operating Officer of the startup city, I am pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with a major film studio to allow them to film in our city.

This is a great opportunity for our city to be showcased on the big screen, and we are excited to work with the film studio to make this happen.

Under the terms of the agreement, the film studio will have access to various locations in the city, including public spaces and privately-owned properties. In return, the city will receive a licensing fee and a portion of the film's profits.

We believe that this agreement is a win-win for both parties. The film studio will have access to a unique and visually stunning location, and the city will receive exposure and economic benefits.

We look forward to working with the film studio and supporting their efforts to create a successful and memorable film.

A press release announcing the acquisition of the startup city by Lennar.

We are pleased to announce that the startup city has been acquired by Lennar, a leading homebuilder and developer [ZC: Nice market knowledge, ChatGPT!]. This acquisition marks a major milestone for our city, and we are excited to join forces with Lennar to continue to grow and evolve.

The startup city was founded with the goal of creating a sustainable, technology-focused community in the heart of eastern Colorado. Over the past decade, we have worked hard to bring this vision to life, and we are proud of the thriving, vibrant city that we have built.

With the support of Lennar, we will be able to continue to innovate and improve our city, bringing new technologies and sustainable solutions to our residents and businesses. We are confident that this acquisition will be a win-win for both parties, and we look forward to a bright future together. Thank you.

An internal memo from an investment fund describing the financial prospects of a REIT based on the startup city:

To: Investment Fund Members

From: Investment Fund Manager

Subject: REIT Investment Opportunity - Startup City

I am pleased to announce that we have identified a unique and exciting investment opportunity in the form of a REIT based on the startup city.

As you may know, the startup city is a thriving, sustainable community in eastern Colorado, with a strong economy, low crime rate, and state-of-the-art infrastructure. The city has attracted a diverse mix of businesses and residents, and has been recognized as a leader in renewable energy and technology.

We believe that a REIT based on the startup city offers a number of compelling financial benefits, including strong potential for rent growth, low vacancy rates, and a diversified tenant base. The city’s focus on sustainability and technology also offers the potential for long-term value appreciation.

We are currently conducting due diligence on this opportunity and will provide further updates as they become available. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you.

An IT consulting firm pitches a software solution for managing the patrol routes of security guards:

To: Startup City

From: XYZ IT Consulting

Subject: Software Solution for Security Patrol Management

We are pleased to offer our software solution for managing the patrol routes of security guards in the startup city. Our solution, known as GuardTrack, is a cloud-based platform that allows security managers to easily plan, track, and optimize the routes of their guards.

With GuardTrack, security managers can quickly and easily create efficient patrol routes based on real-time data, such as the location of security incidents, the location of security cameras, and the availability of guards. The platform also allows managers to track the location of guards in real-time, ensuring that they are following their assigned routes and responding to any incidents.

GuardTrack is a cost-effective and scalable solution that can be easily integrated into your existing security systems. We believe that it has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of your security patrols.

We would be happy to provide a demonstration of GuardTrack and to discuss the potential benefits of implementing our solution in the startup city. Thank you for considering our proposal.

A local news story about the wildfires of 2036 and its impact on the startup city:

The wildfires that have been raging across eastern Colorado for the past week have reached the outskirts of the startup city, prompting concerns about the safety and well-being of the city's residents.

The fires, which were sparked by a combination of dry conditions, high winds, and lightning, have already burned tens of thousands of acres and destroyed dozens of homes. Emergency officials have issued evacuation orders for several communities near the city, and have set up shelters for residents who have been forced to leave their homes.

The startup city, which is known for its focus on sustainability and renewable energy, has been working hard to prepare for the impact of the fires. The city has activated its emergency response plan, and has deployed firefighters and other emergency personnel to assist with the response. The city’s solar farm, which provides a significant portion of the city's power, has been shut down as a precaution.

The city’s residents are understandably concerned about the impact of the fires, and are closely monitoring the situation. Many have expressed gratitude for the efforts of the city and emergency officials, and are hopeful that the fires can be contained before they reach the city limits.

Famed jam band Phish announces the new jingle for the startup city:

We are excited to announce that Phish, the celebrated jam band, has composed a new jingle for the startup city. This jingle will serve as the official theme song for the city, and will be used in marketing and promotional materials.

The jingle, which is titled "Startup City Groove," is a lively and energetic track that captures the spirit of the startup city. It features catchy guitar riffs, a driving rhythm, and upbeat lyrics that celebrate the city's focus on innovation, sustainability, and community. [ZC: Can’t wait till I can get AI to generate the song, too.]

We are thrilled to have Phish as the official jingle composer for the startup city, and we believe that "Startup City Groove" will be a hit with both residents and visitors. We encourage everyone to check out the jingle and to share it with their friends and family.

Thank you, Phish, for your support of the startup city!

An email from the governor of Colorado informing the CEO of the need to raise taxes on the startup city:

To: Startup City

From: Governor of Colorado

Subject: Request for Higher Taxes

I am writing to request that the startup city increase its taxes to support the state's budget. As you may know, the state of Colorado is facing a significant budget shortfall, and we are in need of additional revenue to support essential services and programs.

I understand that the startup city is a thriving and successful community, and that it has a strong economy and low crime rate. However, as a part of the state of Colorado, the city has a responsibility to contribute to the state's fiscal health. I believe that increasing taxes is the fairest and most equitable way to address the state's budget shortfall.

I ask that the startup city consider increasing its taxes in order to support the state's budget. I understand that this may be a difficult decision, but I believe that it is in the best interests of the city and the state as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Governor of Colorado

The CEO responds:

Dear Governor,

Thank you for your letter requesting that the startup city increase its taxes to support the state's budget. I understand the challenges that the state is facing, and I appreciate your willingness to work with us to address these challenges.

However, I must respectfully decline your request to increase taxes. [ZC: 😂 ] The startup city has a strong economy and a thriving business community, and we believe that our current tax rates are fair and appropriate. We are committed to supporting the state and its residents, but we believe that increasing taxes would have a negative impact on our city and its residents.

Instead, we would like to propose alternative solutions to address the state's budget shortfall. For example, we are willing to work with the state to identify areas where we can reduce our own costs and expenses, and to explore opportunities for revenue generation that do not involve tax increases.

We believe that it is important for the state and the startup city to work together to find solutions that are fair and equitable for all parties. We are open to discussing this matter further and to exploring alternative solutions. Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
[CEO]

A press release from SpaceX announcing their new launch site in the startup city:

We are pleased to announce that SpaceX has chosen the startup city as the location for our new launch site. This state-of-the-art facility will serve as a base for our space exploration and satellite launch operations, and will help to support our mission to make space accessible and affordable for all.

The startup city was selected as the location for our new launch site due to its ideal location, strong infrastructure, and supportive business environment. We believe that the city is the perfect location for our operations, and we are excited to be a part of the thriving, innovative community in eastern Colorado.

Our new launch site will be equipped with the latest technologies and infrastructure, including launch pads, control centers, and support facilities. We will also be working closely with the city and local businesses to support the development of the site and to create job opportunities for the local community.

We are excited to begin construction on our new launch site in the startup city, and we look forward to becoming a valuable member of the community. Thank you for your support.

What’s your favorite AI hallucination? Let me know in the comments.

I stopped doing a monthly goodreads post a while back. Let me know in the comments if you like these or prefer more substantive articles.

Links

• Toronto converted parking to patios… which promptly made 50x more money. America’s urban environments are almost criminally under-monetized. The question is, in a city operated as a startup, how long would such profit opportunities lay dormant?

• The rise of the McBasement. It seems one unintended consequence of restrictions on the Earth’s surface mean that some homeowners are building underground. The WSJ is eager to ridicule one wealthy Aspen family. Pair with:

  Startup Cities

  Interview: Building Cities Underground with Substeading

  You’re reading Startup Cities, a newsletter about startups that build neighborhoods and cities. This week: an interview about building cities underground! I have a few goals for these interviews: To take innovators seriously, even if an idea sounds weird…

  Read more

  4 years ago · 5 likes · 1 comment · zach.dev

  

• A legal mishap may have aggressively YIMBY’d Santa Monica, California: “Last week, the Santa Monica planning manager revealed that the city had accidentally abolished its own zoning code for most of the 2022 calendar year.” This led developers to apply to build two decades worth of housing in eight months.

  

• Many focus on DAOs as the basis of a new city. But Lawrence Ong offers an interesting proposal for tokenizing mortgages to make them more affordable.

• Kanye West who, ahem, recently made headlines, announced his desire to build his own Mini City called, you guessed it, the “Yecosystem.” I’m all about elites entering the Startup Cities game but… maybe not like this!

  

• Bloomberg reviews Emergent Tokyo, a new book on Tokyo’s urbanism. How does Tokyo have such compelling urbanism and a rich web of small businesses? Cost. Space. And permission to build. I can’t help but quote in full:

  “This is going to sound wild to anyone who lives in the US, but for any two-story rowhouse in Tokyo, the owner can by right operate a bar, a restaurant, a boutique, a small workshop on the ground floor — even in the most residential zoned sections of the city. That means you have an incredible supply of potential microspaces.
  
  Any elderly homeowner could decide to rent out the bottom floor of their place to some young kid who wants to start a coffee shop, for example. When you look at what we call yokocho alleyways — charming, dingy alleyways that grew out of the black markets post-World War II, which are some of the the most iconic and beloved sections of the city now — it’s all of these tiny little bars and restaurants just crammed into every available space.”

  

• Noah Smith visits Tapei, Taiwan and offers some charming remarks on its urbanism. I’ve been lucky to spend long stretches living and working in Taipei and I consider it one of the world’s most underrated cities. Taipei offers world-class transit, walkable urbanism, an absurdly safe environment, and fantastic café culture. My wife and I still wax poetic about ending our work days, getting a UBike (a city-wide bikeshare) and riding through Taipei’s lovely alleyways for an evening of hotpot.

Noahpinion

Taipei urbanism

Another newsletter-type post today. First some travel blogging, and then on to a couple of econ debates. Taipei urbanism: some first impressions When I first set foot in Taipei, I had a disorienting sense of being back in Japan — so much so that I kept expecting people to drive on the left side of the street. So much of the infrastructure in Taiwan looks …

Read more

4 years ago · 77 likes · 44 comments · Noah Smith

Share

• There’s been lots of talk that the agglomeration of benefits of cities may be disrupted by remote work and collaboration technologies. Not so, says Ben Southwood in Works in Progress:

Works in Progress's newsletter

Agglomeration benefits are here to stay

A recent study by some top economists suggests that wage differences between cities are primarily driven by skill differences. Some commentators have used this to argue that there would only be small gains from allowing many more homes to be built in the most productive cities, because people are already being paid mostly based on their skill, not their…

Read more

4 years ago · 9 likes · Ben Southwood

• The World Bank discovers that cities can be operated as profitable enterprises in a new-ish working paper “Private Cities: Implications for Urban Policy in Developing Countries.” The paper seems a bit skewed towards large-scale megaproject type developments. But can I really complain about this idea inching towards the mainstream?

• The Federal Reserve Bank of SF argues that remote work “has been a key driver of the recent surge in housing prices.”

• Startup Cities reader and Charter Cities Institute scholar Jeff Mason has an interesting survey of new cities in Africa. In particular, he shows that African entrepreneurs are using the built environment to develop (and keep) Africa’s talent close to home.

• Bank branches are privately funded public financial infrastructure, argues Patrick McKenzie. There’s some interesting analysis of how banks pick locations for branches, why mostly empty parking lots at these branches are “close to optimal.”

• I have a weird interest in the Karen region of Myanmar because of the “Shangri-La with Landmines” story I told here. The region’s seedy side is once again in the news, now with reports that a special economic zone in the region is responsible for human trafficking. Yikes.

  

• The Dubai International Financial Center, which many consider a gold standard for “governance as a service,” announced their new tejouri offering. The digital platform seems to be a combination of typical e-gov services (uploading wills and titles) and crypto-oriented products.

• A delightfully wonky history of how county and city governments came to be.

• The always-excellent Brian Potter offers a deep dive into NEPA — likely one of the most damaging (though well-intentioned) pieces of legislation in American history:

Construction Physics

How NEPA works

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a piece of federal environmental legislation that was passed in 1969 towards the beginning of an “eternal September” of environmental laws, and is often called the “magna carta” of environmental laws because of how influential it has been in shaping environmental policy. Not only does NEPA significantly in…

Read more

4 years ago · 30 likes · 9 comments · Brian Potter

• Startup Cities reader Joel Anderson served up two great pieces recently. The first is about how we might transform the intensely negative-sum market of housing into a positive sum game:

  Joel's Jambalaya

  Positive Sum Housing Games

  In life, the challenge is not so much to figure out how best to play the game; the challenge is to figure out what game you’re playing. Kwame Appiah Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks…

  Read more

  4 years ago · 2 likes · 2 comments · Joel Anderson

• Joel’s second piece is on how transit reshapes cities. It put words to a feeling I’ve had over the years: you can be “a 5-10 minute drive” from a lot of places and still feel very far away from them. The subjective experience of walking or biking seems to change how you perceive distance and your relationship to things around you.

Joel's Jambalaya

Alice in Car Land

Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying ‘Faster! Faster!’ but Alice felt she could not go faster, though she had not breath left to s…

Read more

4 years ago · 2 likes · Joel Anderson

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups should build cities!

Share

This week: an interview with BuildCities.network co-founder Angelo Alessio.

Themes:

• Mapping your digital tribes

• Municipal DeFi & Gitcoin

• Transparency in municipal finance

• Meeting co-founders online

• Building startup communities

• The three types of startup cities

• DAOs

As with all these interviews, my goal is to give innovators a fair hearing. Enjoy!

Meet Angelo & BuildCities

ZC: Who are you and what are you building?

AA: My name’s Angelo and I’m the founder of BuildCities, which is a protocol for startup cities. We overlay digital communities in existing cities to form the foundation for building on and improving those cities with digital infrastructure.

What do you mean by “a protocol for Startup Cities”?

In short, we’re building infrastructure for anyone or any community or even group of communities to incubate, develop and scale Startup Cities around the world.

We view ourselves as the infrastructure layer for this new space that's emerging in Startup Cities and the Network State adjacent area. We’re a product company. We just launched our first public beta last week, which represents phase one of this foundation.

What are you hoping that people do in the new product?

The prerequisites for someone who's accessing it today is a Discord and a MetaMask, which basically covers everybody in web3 and crypto from what we've seen.

What that allows us to do is surface everybody's digital community or “digital tribes” as we like to say. One of our premises here is, hey, people are sometimes more aligned with their digital communities than they are to their physical ones.

Once we surface those, we have them select their top three communities. That’s a design constraint. They’re not selecting 200 because I don't think you can be vested in so many.

Then we have them select their top three cities around the world. We have 50 to start in the beta. The first thing they'll see when they log on and go through the onboarding is a map. They’ll see the network stack — all the different folks in their digital networks in their cities.

Each city has its own directory. Let's use the example of your newsletter, Startup Cities.

Imagine this site had its own Discord, right? Everybody who logs in and uses the app would be able to see everywhere around the world that there’s 10 people from the Startup Cities community in Sydney, Australia. Or there’s 20 people in New York, etc.

So let’s do a meetup there. We’re forming that connective tissue or bridge between our URL and IRL lives, as we like to say, in this new kind of crypto industry.

Moving From the Digital to the Physical World

So I arrive to your software and I'm able to connect with some people in a community. How does this end up affecting the real world?

The idea is that we eventually bring each city in that platform on chain. I’ll say that each city essentially becomes a DAO for the sake of our conversation.

We then allow those city chapters to fill up with more people. That’s the main prerequisite for the next phase: crowdfunding. For crowdfunding we focus on both ventures and real estate in each one of those cities.

The crowdfunding element leads us into phase two of the product. We’re calling phase two: “Municipal DeFi.” Basically: what does a crypto native municipal bond look like? We can finance things in cities and actually build them.

You just mentioned a transition to “the next phase.” What are the four phases?

Yes, we have four phases.

The first phase is discover. So, socializing the network. We bring that connective tissue between our cloud based or “digital lives” with our in real life lives and discover what that looks like. We figure out the digital tribe in your backyard and around the world.

The next phase is engagement. We already have a bunch of features laid out that start to engage those communities more actively in those given cities.

The third phase is empower. That’s the actual on-chain activation component. We feel there's sufficient amount of time for a lot of this to ride the tailwinds of the crypto industry. We think that there would be a sufficient amount of capital pools in each city to actually subsidize innovation: to fund startups and then crowdfund real estate itself.

There’s still some debate about phase four, so I’ll leave that out.

But what is Municipal DeFi? Can you explain more?

Cities today are financed through general obligation bonds, revenue bonds. Given that we’re building on web3 infrastructure, we look at this as: what does a crypto native municipal bond look like?

You might ask, what are the downstream implications for that? One fascinating thing to consider about the citizenry of cities today is that we pay city taxes and federal taxes and both basically go into a black box.

But what if at the end of your TurboTax filing you could actually allocate on a percent basis to each agency within that given city? Then you click submit and you see exactly where all your funds go based on your allocation.

We think that transparency alone would create a much more vested citizen. We’ve already done some pilots to crowdfund infrastructure in one city.

Build seems to transcend any particular national identity. The relevant unit is the city. Can you talk about this aspect of Build and how that’s reflected in your team?

Our team came together purely digital first. All of our co-founders found each other online first. I published a white paper about this just over a year ago now. That’s how we brought in our contributor network.

We have a co-founder based in Lagos, Nigeria. We have a co-founder in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. I’m located in Jersey City. All of our philosophies on what we’re doing were aligned. It takes more time to kind of establish trust over the internet, for sure. But where we were able to solidify those bonds in person that helped.

It’s the same for our contributor network. We have a lead designer who did the whole landing page, the product, in Eastern Europe. We have some contributors from Brisbane, Australia, Montreal. One from every continent at least.

Can you talk about the projects that already have a footprint IRL?

Our co-founder in Lagos is our technical lead. We met him from CityCoins. I think that’s a cool project that penetrated the public conversation about Municipal DeFi — how do we use crypto to fund in real life goods?

Our real estate and community lead is Nick Smoot, our co-founder in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. And he’s been doing a lot of our thesis IRL for the last decade. A lot of that thesis is based off of Startup Communities by Brad Feld, which talks about his time building up Boulder as a startup ecosystem.

If you read that book it jives with what the Startup Cities Map of Adrianople Group is saying. “Type one” startup cities are cities that attract startups. I think that’s the core building block for any startup city. If we’re talking about type three, which are cities that are startups themselves — which I know is one of your main focuses in a lot of your writing — we think the prerequisite is still type one.

Nick has done the “type one” approach. He’s built a community around innovation. Over the last 10 years they have two giant community spaces. It’s like a tech-forward town hall. It’s a really awesome space.

They have an underground cigar and bar lounge. They have this giant TV area for families. I went in on a Saturday and families are just there hanging out. That’s the blueprint property or at least the blueprint for what we want to replicate around the world. He’s done that. He’s the expert there. And the place is in Coeur d’Alene — a beautiful area, right on the lake.

That’s our anchor point in IRL.

Municipal Defi

You have a Gitcoin listing to source solar panels in Nigeria. What’s up with that?

That’s related to co-founder, Ronald Maduka, who is our technical lead and founder of Khalon Bridge. We helped incubate the development studio that’s his. He’s attracted an amazing talent base of folks in Lagos. They’re also the primary tech contributors for our product. Collectively, Ronald and the Khalon Bridge network lead the Lagos and Abuja chapters of the network.

Lagos suffers a lack of electrical infrastructure. The average house gets four hours of electricity per day. Most businesses and residences, the ones who can afford at least, are paying for petrol for their generators just to power their houses. That makes a polluted atmosphere. So we thought: why aren’t we solving this?

That grant was a pilot for figuring out how we might crowdfund infrastructure in cities around the world. Let’s do it for ourselves first. We raised enough to get six solar systems. The results have been great. The developers now have 24/7 access to the digital economy. Their bills have gone down. It’s a win-win for everybody involved.

I think Gitcoin is a tremendous platform that does that for a variety of projects. We view this as a great pilot and MVP for what we want to have in our platform.

You tease some features that are still in development in the beta, including TownSquare, Treasury, and Hubs. What are these?

TownSquare is an engagement feature that surfaces what people ship today, what they discover, or what they question on a given day. It’s a design constraint to focus conversations around: what did we build today?

As more people come in and we have a critical mass, we’ll go ahead and introduce that engagement feature. It will take some A-B testing to get right. TownSquare is to socialize that network even more than now.

Treasury is a placeholder for Municipal DeFi. We’re not gonna have every city come on chain as a DAO right away. We’ll likely build for ourselves first. Then we’ll start with Coeur d’Alene, Lagos, and Jersey City. We’ll eventually fund public infrastructure with crypto there.

Hubs are the in-real-life access points to this protocol. So Coeur d’Alene, Idaho today is a hub. It exists. We informally direct members to go there and check it out. The Hubs feature will be a formalized version of: “hey, you wanna check out this space?”

We’re still exploring what types of properties we allow on. Is it primarily for a certain type of commercial property? Is it more for third places? Hubs is already built out, we just haven’t released it yet.

Share

Speed Round: Cold Starts, DAOs, and Highly Concentrated Venture Capital

The hardest problem of building a startup city is?

Ask me in 10 years.

The internet is the missing piece to solve the cold start problem for Startup Cities.

Yes and no. The internet is the new entry point for community building and city cohesion of the Startup Cities of the future. But they’ll never be realized without proper acknowledgement of challenges in the real world that we’re all used to.

80% confidence, yes. I agree 80%.

The most promising existing city is?

The one you call home.

The most successful Startup City of the next 15 years will not be in the United States.

I know this is another kind of dodgy answer, but I think it depends how you define success. If I was to-

Well, what's your standard for success?

In 2018, I wrote an article that threads together my journey on this whole thing. It’s called Putting the Venture into VC. It’s got all the pitch book and CBInsights data and showed the concentration of venture capital.

Venture Capital needs to be distributed everywhere around the world. It needs to go to the Coeur d’Alene and much smaller ecosystems because everybody can build great startups.

We shouldn’t be telling people where to go. That’s just convenient for the capital pools that exist in those areas.

There’s this other concept from Rise of the Rest, a fund founded by Steve Case. The idea is “tentpole companies," let’s find the tentpole companies in cities around the world. A tentpole company is the one that, once it becomes a successful startup, is able to reinvest the economic benefits into that city. It becomes the foundation for a startup city going from type one to type three, we think.

So to answer your question directly, I am a 70% confident that your statement will be true, and that it would be outside the U.S.

Subscribe now

It’s more practical to reform existing cities than to build new ones.

Depends on the city.

The most successful cities of the future will be run by DAOs.

Again, how do you define success?

I think the attributes of how that city operates are going to look much different. The level of difference will be such a great delta that people living there or not living there will define success very differently.

But I don’t think we'll see the level of success of, let’s say, a top five city in the world run by a DAO for another 15 to 20 years.

DAOs should operate as radical democracies.

Not fully. But the most successful DAOs should capture the intent of its most engaged members.

The most effective lever for changing existing cities is digital technology.

It’s one increasingly large part of the puzzle, but still not the biggest lever. I don’t think will be for a while.

I think brick and mortar, IRL, practicalities, physical infrastructure, things that do not require what we consider software will always be the bread and butter and the foundation of a city. When we’re talking about technology with respect to hardware, that changes the conversation a little bit more, but I can’t expand on that too much.

How can people get involved with Build?

If you have a Discord and Metamask, go to buildcities.network and launch the app.

Try out the app. See what we’re talking about in this protocol. We also have FAQs there, we have the roadmap. We’re updating it frequently. Our Twitter is joinbuild_.

And feel free to reach out directly to my DMs on my personal Twitter, our company Twitter, and on LinkedIn, just message me directly and I’m always happy to chat with people who want to talk about this stuff.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups Should Build Cities!

“Ask not what you can do for your city; ask what your city can do for you.”

– Startup Cities JFK

Local elections approach, which can only mean one thing: I’m mailed over 100 pages of legal text printed in all caps and in a tiny, unreadable font.

In theory, this document informs me.

In practice, it creates jobs at the local recycling center.

When I inevitably don’t read this document, am I to blame? Am I a bad citizen of my city? Am I lazy? Ignorant? Apathetic? A patsy of special interests?

Many would say yes.

But why should cities demand so much of their customers?

“Learn More!” “Get Involved!”

Many civic tech activists and city leaders repeat a mantra: citizens must know more and get more involved in the management of their city. The success of our city, such people say, depends on getting informed and getting involved.

Intellectuals love this mantra, too. Former Harvard president Derek Bok argues that communities are “a collective venture which falters or flourishes depending on the efforts citizens invest in its behalf.” (Bok then blames “poor and working Americans” for their “unwillingness” to invest time and effort to make their communities better. 🤷)

I hear this mantra at least once a month when someone asks me to write free code for some civic tech app. The argument is always:

1. Voters know nothing about anything. So we must build apps that give them information!

2. Voters don’t volunteer to fix their city’s problems. So we must build apps to make people do the things I want!

Projects like these come from a public-spirited place. I’m not knocking the positive motivation. But… aren’t residents basically the customers of a city?

Who has time to read 100 pages of small-print legalese? Why are activists telling me to work for free to fix problems in services that I pay the city to manage?

I know, I know. I sound like an awful, selfish person. But why isn’t our expectation of cities that things just work?

And why, when things go wrong — when people like me are ignorant about some complicated change or fail to volunteer for a cause — why do we hear leadership blaming customers for failing to “get involved” and “educate” themselves?

Customers Do Enough For a City by Living There

OK, I get it! There’s some romantic idea about citizen democracy in urban life.

But the modern city is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Does Microsoft or Tesla or Walmart or, heck, even your local Italian restaurant ask its customers to be responsible for the product?

Customers contribute to a city by living and working there. They fuel a city’s economy. They create its nightlife and culture. They evolve its urban design. They pay its bills! And they do this all remarkably well just by living their lives.

Why isn’t that enough?

When activists and city leaders demand more of customers, they’re quietly saying that people’s normal desires should be subordinated to the city.

Cities behave like customers should become experts in arcane details of law and economics so we can “hold management accountable.” They treat customers’ time as valueless by cajoling people to work for free on problems of their product.

Do we expect the working single parent to master enterprise procurement — so he can force city management to purchase things cheaply? Do we expect grandma to understand the finer points of a C-1 vs a C-2 zoning area?

In a sane world, every employee of a city would see the “man in the street” as a treasured guest, not as an ignorant and lazy impediment. A city with an entrepreneurial mindset wouldn’t bully customers to “do more,” but help them do things they already want to do with as little friction as possible.

Great Technology Hides Complexity. Great Cities Should, Too.

“Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them.”

– Alfred North Whitehead

As I’ve said too many times now, cities are technological systems. Great technology may hold tremendous complexity, but it offers a simple experience to users.

A healthy industry of cities would invert today’s habit of customer blaming. Just as great designers and engineers protect users from complexity in digital products, a great city builder would help customers think less about the city so they’re free to focus on their own lives.

In a way, startup culture is the opposite of customer blaming. You can even see it in the books. Books on product design have names like Human-Centered Design, User Friendly, and Don't Make Me Think!.

Compare these to dramatic, blame-the-customer tomes like American Politics in the Age of Ignorance, The Tyranny of Political Ignorance, and Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.

A culture of customer-serving must replace cities’s culture of customer-blaming. Startup Cities can build in technology’s spirit of liberation. Free the customer from problems. Build simple. Speak easy. Focus. Make things work.

And don’t mail customers 100 pages of tiny print.

Share

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups Should Build Cities!

This week’s essay is a bit different. A memory from 2016 in one of the world’s most fascinating neighborhoods.

There’s no denying its seedy side, but “Sodom and Gomorrah” has a liveliness that many American neighborhoods lack. It’s a frontier, with the hope and the hardship and the thrill of being just-on-the-edge-of-something that defines all dynamic places.

Enjoy.

I met the Mayor of Sodom and Gomorrah on a warm afternoon in 2016. The neighborhood stretched through a labyrinth of dirt streets and damp alleyways framed by the space between plywood shacks. A chicken flapped by. I was immediately lost.

Old Fadama squats in a lagoon-turned-electronics-landfill in Accra, Ghana. Recyclers comb the fields of smoldering waste. But, like everywhere else, workers want to live near their jobs. So a town grew around the dump. It’s not pretty, but Old Fadama has product-market fit: over 40,000 people migrated to make it their home.

Christian residents of Accra gave Old Fadama the inauspicious Biblical name of "Sodom and Gomorrah" because, well... use your imagination. As I walked the streets, women leaned out of windows to shout “obroni!” — slang for "white guy." Sodom and Gomorrah supports a variety of professions, including humanity’s oldest.

I crossed an alley and entered what I can only describe as a drug den. I pushed aside a blue tarp. A pungent cloud billowed. Men without shirts were sprawled everywhere in, ahem, “expansive” states of consciousness.

I stumbled through a hole in the wall back to the street. A man straddling a motorbike stared at me. It was clear he knew why I was there. And it was clear he was following me.

I was glad to be walking with Reggie, my local fixer. Reggie was a brilliant former telecom executive and stood about 6' 6'' with a build like a linebacker. He’d set up today’s meeting with Achiri, the “Mayor” of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Achiri is a very bad boy,” Reggie warned, “But he solves the problems, so he’s in charge.”

I was in Sodom and Gomorrah to interview with a swashbuckling Bitcoin startup. The company (and its big-name Silicon Valley backers) wanted to offer saving plans based in Bitcoin, a way to skirt dumb rules that exclude many of the world’s poorest people from traditional bank accounts. The corner shops that dot the dense, free-wheeling urbanism of Sodom and Gomorrah were the perfect distribution network for a decentralized bank.

But no business gets done in Sodom and Gomorrah without “Mayor” Achiri’s blessing.

We reached the Mayor's office. It stood on a busy central street, no doubt so Achiri could easily see who came and went. Bare wooden posts held a roof of corrugated metal. Layers of palettes raised the floor from the dirt beneath. Tarps formed walls on three sides and the missing wall was the entryway.

The missing wall and raised floor made a viewing window to Achiri's throne: a plastic lawn chair.

Achiri sat on the lawn chair throne. Two henchmen in tanktops stood on his flanks. Others scowled near motorbikes outside. Reggie and I unfolded chairs and sat down.

I shook Achiri’s hand. I thanked him for his time. He sat in silence, expressionless.

Desperate to relieve some tension, I smiled. He did not smile back.

Achiri leaned forward in his chair. He looked me straight in the eye. One of his eyes was piercing white and brown, the other a milky red and cut by a deep, old scar — like that made by the edge of a machete.

Some ancient voice in my head said, “Don’t blink! Do not blink!”

The stare dragged on. I sat there in my blue startup t-shirt, holding a little company notebook like some hapless minor character from an episode of Silicon Valley. My brain went existential: “What in the hell am I doing right now?” I tried to hide my growing panic by… doubling down on the awkward smile?

The tension broke. Suddenly, Achiri became a warm and gracious host. Whatever he was looking for — was it honesty? Fear? — he was satisfied. We admired photos of his friends and family. We talked about sports, where I managed to make myself look even more ridiculous by knowing nothing about soccer—I mean football. Silly obroni.

We got down to business. Achiri and his henchmen needed to renew a guarantee of safety for the bank employees that collected the savings of residents. Agents in startup t-shirts hauling bags of cash are easy targets — an armored car without the armor or the car.

We talked about Bitcoin, and about a bank’s benefits to the neighborhood.

Achiri listened, considered.

He waved his hand with finality. "It is done," he said.

And I had no doubt that his word was good.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups should build cities!

AI models like DALL-E produce gorgeous art in the style of famous artists.

I’m partial to cityscapes:

For the art fans, here’s a big list of cityscapes by great artists:

These are neat, but too obvious. Could DALL-E create a “cityscape” in really abstract styles?

DALL-E captures some essential “city-ness” despite the abstraction.

This got me thinking.

(Almost) Everything is an Urban Aesthetic

If DALL-E can capture city-ness in an abstract Rothko, could we create realistic cityscapes from abstract ideas?

As it turns out, yes.

Models like DALL-E allow creators to generate buildings and cities based on any aesthetic — not just the obvious visual stuff like a famous artist.

As we’ll see, DALL-E can generate a coherent version of a “Bossa Nova city,” a “Benjamin Franklin City,” a “Gucci City,” and even cities that are mashups of elements of existing cities (“a city in Kenya with the architecture of Lisbon Portugal, the public transit of Taipei Taiwan, and the density of Tokyo Japan”).

DALL-E maps something essential about authors, music genres, brands, urbanists, and other ideas onto cityscapes.

With enough prompt hacking, you can create cool concept art for your own urban aesthetic — even if your aesthetic is music, a novel, a philosophical idea, a product, whatever.

The images below have their prompt modifier as the title. Most were generated with the simple prompt: “a painting of a cityscape in the style of {insert-aesthetic-here}”.

Notice that it’s not just the art style that changes. The elements of the cityscape reflect the geography, time, and aesthetic of the prompt. This is the key.

Let’s explore.

Cityscapes in the Style of Authors, Philosophers & Movie Directors

Authors like Dr. Seuss and Richard Scarry have an illustrated aesthetic associated with their work. Others don’t. Yet DALL-E still creates a cityscape that captures the vibe of both illustrated and unillustrated writers.

“Dr. Seuss”

“Jim Henson”

“Richard Scarry” (author of the Busytown children’s books)

“Ludwig Wittgenstein”

Vienna Greco-Roman Rationalist urbanism?

“Nietzsche”

Romanticist political revolutionary urbanism

“Benjamin Franklin”

Proto-Americana Tradurbanism

“Isaac Asimov”

Walkable Futurist Urbanism

“HL Mencken”

Prohibition-Era Baltimore Urbanism

“Carl Sagan”

The-Mothership-Has-Landed Urbanism

“Quentin Tarantino”

Reservoir Dogs Urbanism

“Leo Tolstoy”

Cold Russian Winter Urbanism

“JRR Tolkien”

Hobbit Urbanism

“Victor Hugo“

Industrial Revolution Les Miserables Urbanism

“Ayn Rand”

Art Deco Heroic Capitalist Urbanism

“George Orwell”

1984 Urbanism

“Hunter S. Thompson”

Should we call this one Gonzo LSD Urbanism?

Subscribe now

Cityscapes in the Style of Bands & Music Genres

Let’s get weirder! What about musicians and music genres?

Again, DALL-E captures the essence of these mostly non-visual concepts and maps them to buildings and urban designs that match.

“Flamenco” (Traditional Music of Spain)

“Bossa Nova”

“Punk Rock”

“Miles Davis”

“Skrillex”

“the Japanese 1980’s genre of City Pop”

“Van Halen”

“80’s Hair Metal”

“early 90’s hip hop”

“Biggie Smalls”

This one blew me away with how well it captures 90’s Brooklyn.

“Elvis Presley”

Tacky Vegas Motel Urbanism

“John Coltrane”

Saxophone Urbanism

“Led Zeppelin”

“The Beatles”

Abbey Road Urbanism

Subscribe now

Cityscapes in the Style of Corporate Brands

How about cities designed by iconic brands and product designers?

“Dieter Rams”

Electric Toothbrush Urbanism

“Apple Computer”

“Google”

“Rolex”

Mortality urbanism

“WalMart”

“Gucci”

Italian belt buckle urbanism

“Louis Vuitton”

Bling Futurist urbanism

Cityscapes in the Style of Famous Urbanists and Architects

“Zaha Hadid”

“Bjarke Ingels”

“Christopher Alexander”

Pattern Language vernacular urbanism

“Jane Jacobs”

Eyes on the Street Urbanism

“Robert Moses”

Run a highway through the Village Urbanism

“Patrik Schumacher”

Parametric urbanism

What does DALL-E think is “Good Urbanism”?

Let’s ask.

“bad urbanism”

DALL-E thinks bad urbanism is a cold megacity with trash and lost souls (?).

“good urbanism”

DALL-E thinks good urbanism is roughly Singapore, Vienna, and Paris/Stockholm.

“NIMBY”

This one cracked me up. DALL-E models NIMBY cityscapes as sprawl and a city that looks suspiciously like San Francisco…

“walkable urbanism”

Generating Startup Cities

Many of these aesthetics are too abstract to inform any real work. But could DALL-E dream up the aesthetic of real and possible Startup Cities?

Here’s a few prompts where I tried to generate concept art for real projects in the space. See if you can name them! Answers at the end.

“the city is in Tempe Arizona, the city has walkable urbanism, buildings have many balconies alleyways and courtyards, people are walking and riding e-bikes”

“the city is in Panama, the city has traditional Panamanian architecture, no building is taller than 3 stories, people are walking and riding bicycles”

“the city is on the edge of Lagos Nigeria, the city has an afrofuturist style, the city is full of tech startups”

“the city is in Texas Hill Country and on top of a hill, the city has traditional Italian architecture and is surrounded by a meadow and fruit trees”

“the city is on the tropical island of Roatán Honduras, the city is designed by Zaha Hadid, the city has a co-working space in front of a beach”

“the city is in Honduras, the city has white cement houses and a pretty green park, the city is next to a slum with houses made of plywood and corrugated metal”

Answers:

1. Culdesac Tempe

2. Porta Norte

3. Talent City Lagos

4. Montanoso

5. Próspera

6. Ciudad Morazán

Mashup Cities

DALL-E lets you freely mix and match the essential elements of different cities. This path deserves more exploration.

“the city has the architecture of Lisbon Portugal, the city has the public transit of Taipei Taiwan, the city has the density of Tokyo Japan, the city has the green space of Singapore”

Conclusion

Many of the aesthetics we’ve seen are absurd and unrealistic. But not all of them.

I think there’s much to explore here: I suspect fine-tuning prompts (and moving away from “painting”) can generate realistic aesthetics that align with real projects.

In a future article, I’ll use StableDiffusion and DALL-E prompt hacking to explore a different workflow than concept art… stay tuned.

Go forth and make {insert your random sauce aesthetic here} urbanism!

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups should build cities!

You’re reading Startup Cities, a newsletter about startups that build neighborhoods and cities.

This week: yours truly on Campfire, the podcast of CabinDAO!

Skip around to find what interests you.

Themes

• Charter Cities vs. Startup Cities

• What were the early days of the Startup Cities movement like?

• What would you do with a trillion dollars and a billionaire dream team?

• NEOM and disciplined entrepreneurship

• What prevents Startup Cities from being built today?

• Building portable & playbooks for negotiating with cities

• Metrics & why cities should focus on growth and profitability

• Balaji Srinivasan & The Network State

• Platform vs. Product Cities

• Buying a Municipal Land Bank with a DAO

• The Comprehensive City Text Stack

• Disappointing and Exciting Startup City Projects

Intro

Jackson Steger (JS): You've done a ton of interesting things, not just pertaining to Startup Cities. In addition to a software engineer, you've had a number of other hats that you've worn throughout your career. I'm curious, is there a single thread that ties your career and your writing?

Zach Caceres (ZC): There’s a common thread. I think of it as there's this concept of a social technology, which is thinking of things that are ephemeral in civilization, like law and governance and education and urban design and all these things, but as technological systems.

I think that has been an idea that I've been interested in since I was in university and that's animated a lot of where I've chosen to put my time and attention.

JS: So speaking of one of those social technologies being a place where maybe some people don't always think of it as being a technology — you're credited with coining the term “Startup Cities,” you write an amazing newsletter at StartupCities.com. I wanna spend just three to five minutes here at the beginning, talking about definitions.

What is a Startup City?

ZC: I appreciate that!

I frame Startup Cities as neighborhoods or cities literally built by startups.

I take it in the most literal way possible. There's a lot of really big ideas in the space and stuff about politics and morality and futuristic technologies and all kinds of stuff.

I'm not against any of those things. But for me, I'm talking about the straightforward entrepreneurial aspect which is that startups should build neighborhoods and they should build cities.

Charter vs. Startup Cities

JS: Is a charter city a startup city? Is a startup city a charter city? Can you help distinguish those two definitions for us? Are there any other varieties or sub genres of these cities that an audience interested in city building should be familiar with?

ZC: Yeah. There's a nomenclature explosion and jargon explosion in the space. I do think that can distract from what are a lot of the similarities.

Charter Cities are an an old idea if you consider that politically autonomous cities are an old idea. But, in its modern form, it traces back to a TED talk given by economist Paul Romer in 2009.

The core of a Charter City is legal, political, and institutional reform. The idea is the city has a charter with some other political entity. In negotiation with that entity, with that charter, they're able to have this scope of autonomy and maybe have their own police or provide a different way of incorporating a business or they can finance their infrastructure differently or have a different tax regime or whatever.

I think of Charter Cities as a very specific species of city that's focused on political reform and institutional change. Nothing about a Charter City suggests that it must be built by a startup.

Some things that look like a Charter City are being built by corporations that are an offshoot of the state [ZC: statutory corporations or public private partnerships] — the government itself. You also have privately owned and operated special economic zones that are maybe closer to something like a Startup City.

You have a lot of these unique sub-genres that I think often bring a particular ideological lens. For a long time people talked about “free cities” or “free private cities.” These kinds of things float around still today in the space.

I think a lot of that brings an ideological side where there's a particular conception of what political freedom is and what a free economic system is or what a free democratic or non-democratic system would be.

The idea is, “Hey, we're gonna build a city that will embody these pre-existing ideological ideas.” I don't have anything against these conceptions, but my focus is on the startup aspect: the entrepreneurial creation and the process of entrepreneurially creating living environments for people.

Examples of Charter and Startup Cities

JS: I love that context. In order to help us as an audience to understand the difference here, do you have any examples of Charter Cities or Startup Cities? Like you said, the language is so important here.

ZC: Yeah. For instance, in the charter cities conversation you'll often hear references to Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a “special administrative region.” So it enjoys significant and important differences in its institutions, its legal system, legal traditions, and how these processes work. Many things about it are different from the surrounding area of China.

Now it was also a colony. So there’s a somewhat… let's say, a mixed history associated with how it was that this charter came about. And people have very strong views about that because the world of colonies is a controversial world. But it does have a charter in there.

If you have Hong Kong on one side and then on the other side you take a project like a Culdesac — who I think was recently on this very podcast!

Right now Culdesac has 17 acres in Tempe, Arizona. They’re really a startup neighborhood right now, but their ambitions are to reach city scale. And in this case, you don't have any major autonomy or anything like that. Although they did have to seek [zoning] variances in city planning for the purposes of executing their design. So there’s a lite version of this charter thing happening.

But ultimately they trying to build positive places for people to live — walkable places where the car is not central to the user's experience of the lived environment.

Culdesac is a startup building a neighborhood. They're trying to own a user experience. They're venture funded. Then on the other hand you have something like a Hong Kong, which has unique political and administrative and legal autonomy and all of this, but it doesn't have this startup dimension.

There are examples that are somewhat in the middle. For instance, in Honduras, there are some projects based on a set of laws called the ZEDE laws. This is a kind of charter city law, but the people that are actually building these cities — well they’re more like town scale right now — are private companies and they are startups. You can see that as a sort of startup city with charter city elements.

Early Days of Startup Cities

JS: That’s really helpful context. And I appreciate you elaborating on those examples. I wanna talk a little bit about your more recent Startup Cities career.

In 2012, you led the Startup Cities Institute, a group of researchers based at a university in Guatemala. There were economists and law professors, a few architects, you raised some money from Silicon Valley… what was the purpose of your fundraise and of the Institute more broadly?

ZC: I think it's hard for people to believe because there’s a lot of interest in the space now, but 10 years ago, in 2012, all this stuff was just totally crazy town. It was very fringe.

There were no venture funds. There were no big events. It was a small number of people. I would describe this space as still quite small and still needing to grow a lot more. But it's massive compared to what it was 10 years ago! The Startup Cities Institute was something that was built in partnership with the president of Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala.

The former president of that university had been involved in some of the Latin American reforms, such as the one that I mentioned related to Honduras. He had a longstanding interest in whether or not these concepts of startups building neighborhoods and cities could improve urban life in Latin America.

The point is that we ended up collaborating to say, “Hey, can we make this idea a bit less crazy and a bit more mainstream?” We did typical think tank stuff like we published blog posts. I did interviews in magazines. We had some early events which connected some of the main players that are in the space now whose names you might know. It was trying to put some fuel on the fire.

One thing that we did realize, which I think is what everyone sees, is that if you can crack open an opportunity to build one of these things it's potentially a very valuable business opportunity. Very difficult and complicated, but also valuable.

We did raise some money. I took the idea to YCombinator, where we were rejected in the final round as being a bit too weird for their approach.

I get it! Honestly, we had no idea we were doing at that time, so I don't blame them at all. The focus at that time was to go to an existing American city to a land bank — land banks accumulate blighted properties in a city — and try to buy the largest contiguous piece of land possible, assembled from many small pieces in the land bank's portfolio. We’d offer them above market or even equity in the final outcome in the development.

There were land banks quite interested in this. But the layers of permissions that a person has to go through to make this kind of thing work… it’s very challenging if you don't have an in with the city. At that time I was a random 23 year old living in Guatemala and showing up and being like, “Hey, can I get all this stuff and do this super weird thing under a different zoning regime?”

So you might imagine the skepticism that you’d encounter. We ended up not pursuing it. I couldn't make it happen. It was disappointing. But I've always viewed this as a very long term thing.

Subscribe now

What would you do with a trillion dollars and a Billionaire Dream Team?

JS: I appreciate you sharing this. I can relate to that 23 year old facing zoning barriers. You've written how the more time you've spent living and working in poor countries like Guatemala, the more conflicted you became and how near total focus on governance was perhaps too one dimensional and you shut down the Institute 2016 to work with startups full time.

You wrote that the Startup Cities space is full of “overhang technologies,” ideas, and concepts where theory outstrips practice. We need way more founders and technologists building neighborhoods and cities, or we’ll drown in white papers, but never know what works.

And so imagine 10 years later, you have all this credibility that you've built through your newsletter and a bunch of other avenues. Imagine that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates and Elon Musk, Oprah Winfrey and a few dozen other extremely wealthy people were listening to this pod and they go, “Hey Zach, we heard you on Campfire and we thought you were awesome. Here is a trillion dollars and all of our connections.” You, as the steward of this project, what would you do?

What would your first tangible steps be as like someone carrying a Startup City’s idea forward?

ZC: Wow, well I suppose you've outlined everybody's fantasy in this space. The “convert the billionaire” thesis. You’ve got a lot of people out there trying to do that. And some projects like the city of Telosa are maybe this version made real. We'll see.

Honestly, I would turn down the majority of that money and raise a very modest seed round. I would take the social capital connections though!

There’s a lot of challenges. But one of the big challenges in having this unlimited budget constraint is that it invites way too many indulgent ideas and decisions.

If you have a trillion dollars, you're gonna try to build this thing that’s trending so hard right now: NEOM, “the line.” It's supposed to be this city that’s a line rather than square or a circle like a traditional city. It’s built in the middle of the desert in Saudi Arabia. And there's giant mirrors on the side and autonomous drones that deliver everything and all this.

My worry is that when you have a trillion dollars in the bank you think in this extremely grandiose, top-down way. And there's nothing wrong with the dream. But I would say that a lot of problems in cities and also, honestly, in the Startup Cities space come from this kind of really grandiose thinking.

Concretely, the kinds of problems that you're trying to solve are: where can I find a large enough parcel that’s either already permissioned with the kinds of rules that I need to build or that's just far enough outside city limits that I don't have to deal with those permissions, but also close enough to city limits that I benefit from the growth of a municipality rather than being in the middle of the desert and trying to bootstrap the demand for that place from zero?

It's crafting a value proposition for the environment. I don't really think it's “if you build, they will come.” There needs to be a reason for people to live there. You have to understand who that customer is and why it is that they would live there. If you're building outside an existing metro, you need to understand what it is that you're gonna build that’s gonna make people’s commute times worth it.

There's a lot of operational questions. Who takes out the trash? What is the upfront cost of infrastructure? Can you piggyback on an existing municipality's infrastructure? Do you have to build it all your own?

You want a modest amount of capital that allows you to proceed to the next rational stage of taking on something that’s this complex and ambitious. You don't want all the capital upfront because you want to do this in a disciplined way.

You do want to use the social capital that the billionaire dream team brings to the table. And you wanna use that to kick open the doors of permissions that you need from cities and other kinds of partners who are between you and being able to build.

There’s a lot that you could do with that kind of social capital, which would be fantastic. The main things are to craft that compelling value proposition, given the constraints of the physical environment that you're building.

It’s really quite challenging to understand all of the complexities associated with the capital expenditure around infrastructure, whether you can piggyback on an existing municipality or whether you can’t. There's all sorts of very basic operational things. How do you make it so that if something catches on fire, the whole thing doesn't burn down?

There's a lot of this basic stuff that’s unsexy, but deeply important. And to me that's the meat and potatoes of startup entrepreneurship. You can do that with a relatively modest seed round. Then you can go big later as you figure out what the heck you're doing.

What Prevents Startup Cities from Being Built Today?

JS: I appreciate you, like any startup expert, would keep us lean and not try to be overly bloated from the beginning.

I have a bunch of follow ups. You mentioned you might turn down the bulk of the money, but you would retain the connections such that you might be able to obtain some of the zoning permissions that you might need. What specifically are you looking for in these kinds of zoning permissions? What are the rules that would be favorable to a project like this?

ZC: Yeah, some of it is contextual. It depends where you build. But there's a general class of things that really stand in the way of high quality community building. In America, one of those things, which for instance Culdesac has spoken a lot about, are parking minimums.

This is the idea that every single bedroom or every single person in a development needs to have at least one parking space per person or per bedroom. And this changes the economics of a development in a crazy way.

Zoning is obviously a big culprit here too. It’s often called use-based zoning or single-use zoning. It means that things like mixed uses, meaning, say a cafe or a bar or something cannot coexist next to where a person lives or where a factory is.

This is not how traditionally cities are built. Even traditional American cities don't really do this. We do this now. It really stands in the way of realizing the value of the asset. I'm not just talking about aesthetic preferences here.

Generally speaking, a lot of people want to live in places where the grocery store is not 30 minutes away from where they live. It's just basic consumer preferences, but they’re illegal to build in our current world.

So those layers of permissions don't just change the aesthetics and experiences that you can provide as an entrepreneur, but they fundamentally change the economics of what is possible and profitable to build. To really go big and maximize the value of this new place you want to get beyond a lot of these permissions. Otherwise you just can't do anything.

Building Portable; Playbooks for Municipal Negotiation

JS: When Phil [co-founder of Culdesac] was on the show, we talked a little bit about obtaining the permissions that they needed in Arizona. Have you seen any successful playbooks for pushing for this kind of reform on a project basis? What is helpful in getting those sorts of permissions?

ZC: Depending on the city, I think this is an area where there's actually a huge amount of discretion by a city council or a planning board or whatever. Unfortunately to some extent the playbook that you see is that influential and wealthy developers are sometimes able to get through that process through all sorts of means, such as having a friend in city hall.

Sometimes boards almost extort developers. They'll say: “yeah, we'll give you permission, but you need to go and pony up money for X, Y, and Z cause and build a park over here and make a charitable contribution to this 501c3.”

To some extent, this “playbook” is a weird, totally above-board, almost institutionalized bribery or extortion. That’s sometimes what developers do now. This is the dark view.

The optimistic view is that there are sane cities in the United States. They probably tend to be smaller, maybe up and coming… places that are on the verge of “am I a large town, or am I a city?”

There are sensible people in city governments. The hard thing though is that the places that are in the highest demand — say just outside San Francisco — you're gonna have to run the gauntlet if you want to do something there.

Culdesac has spoken highly of their experience with Tempe. There's an example of a city council that was somewhat rational. This is a reason why I think you almost want to design in a portable way.

So you don't want to make this perfect design for outside San Francisco, because who knows whether you're ever gonna be able to run the gauntlet.

You want to make something that’s portable and you can shop it. “Hey, some town in Texas. Do you want this?” “Hey, Boise, Idaho. Hey, Lakewood, Colorado.” There's lot of places that people aren't thinking about. Ideally, you want to bring something that’s well crafted and strong and has a good value proposition, some sensible solutions to problems and shop it around.

It's never gonna be truly portable. It's the Java approach: “Write once run anywhere.” It never exactly works that way, but that's one strategy for dealing with the permissions.

Cities should just focus on growth and profitability

JS: Love that. I've worked now for three different startups over the years. And one thing that’s consistent in all of them is you have to measure what matters. You have to be careful in your metrics, selection, and have to grow the metrics that are important to actually achieving the mission that you're pursuing.

Andrew Yang, for example, talked about this during his presidential run. If he was giving a state of the union address, he would use PowerPoint.

Instead of GDP, we should have a happiness metric that’s some combination of air quality and all these other things. With all that as context, what metrics should Startup Cities use to measure success? How are those similar or different from metrics that legacy cities use?

ZC: I would say I'm somewhat old fashioned on this point.

I think a lot of these other measures are much less important than straight up vanilla economic measures such as GDP growth.

If we're imagining a Startup City operated by a private entity, it would just be the market cap of the company, the valuation of the assets, or just profit and loss within the firm — very basic nuts and bolts things.

I'm not suggesting that air quality doesn't matter, or that happiness doesn't matter! Obviously, those things are important.

But in the world of development economics people are constantly trying to find a way to avoid saying that economic growth is ridiculously important and that economic growth is the thing that's gonna deliver happiness and better air quality. People are hesitant to say that because there’s a bias against the idea of growth, in my opinion.

I think something similar happens in the context of cities. If you were to build a company [that built a city] and that company was ridiculously profitable because thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people wanted to come and live there… and you were able to continuously build and continuously densify and have such wonderful amenities that everyone was willing to be a premium to live there… well, what you’re doing is you’re capturing a huge amount of human happiness and human potential and the agglomeration effects of talent! You’re connecting people with opportunities and all of this stuff inside the metric of profit and loss.

I think people have this idea that in the pursuit of ruthless monetization a startup is going to pave over every single green space and never plant a tree. And every street is gonna be optimized for the maximum number of tractor trailers to blast through at 85 miles per hour. And it's just like, no!

Because no one wants to live in a place like that. None of the incentives that are rational for the developer of an environment would even remotely incentivize this very destructive behavior on the part of the management. Does it mean that it's gonna be a perfect utopia with no mistakes in every problem will be solved? Of course not.

The underlying incentives of profit and loss align the management of a city and with the happiness and health and even the environmental performance of the area much more than traditional city management.

Putting a horrible polluted lake in the center of your real estate development does not increase the value of your land or drive people to want to rent your apartments or visit your community or shop in the town.

The State of Metrics in Cities Today

We should talk about the state of metrics in cities today! I did some research on it for a long form piece that I've been working on, which I call “The Missing NPS.”

An NPS is a net promoter score, which is a common metric collected by startups. It's these little surveys that you get in an app that says, would you recommend app XYZ to your friends from 0 to 10?

This is a tried and true metric for understanding customer satisfaction. I did a deep dive to understand where do cities collect these things? Where is the data and all of this?

Generally speaking, government agencies and most cities do not collect a lot of this data. I even interviewed someone whose identity I can’t share (you’ll see why), who worked on a consulting project that was doing customer satisfaction surveys for a very large American Metro whose name you would recognize.

They found that people were extremely dissatisfied. The conclusion of their consulting contract was the city sweeping it all under the rug and saying, “no one will ever hear about this data ever again, because we don't want anyone to know what the truth is. We don't want our legacy damaged by evidence that we are underperforming our customers.”

I'm simple. Given the current state of this industry, even just building a place that regularly solicits customer feedback and giving it the old college try to respond to that feedback would be significantly better than a lot of what is.

I don't see the need to invent lots of new metrics. I think we could use existing metrics. Make them operational. Care about them. Have a business and management team that actually follows them. That would go a long way.

JS: I love that. For context for the audience, two products that are notorious for having extremely high NPS scores are puppies and ice cream. Hopefully we all aspire to build cities with NPS scores on that level!

The Network State

JS: I wanna transition a little bit because Cabin is a DAO and we do wanna talk about some more DAO native things.

I wanna talk actually about Balaji for a second. So for the audience Balaji Srinivasan is a former CTO of Coinbase and a partner at Andreessen Horowitz.

I'm bringing he him up because he recently wrote a book called The Network State. The book opens with this one sentence definition of a network state. It's a mouthful. And, Zach, I'd love your thoughts after I read this definition on the network state approach more broadly, as well as the individual components of Balaji’s definition that you think matter or don't matter to the Network State.

A network state is a social network with a moral innovation, a sense of national consciousness, a recognized founder, a capacity for collective action, an in-person level of civility, an integrated cryptocurrency, a consensual government limited by a social smart contract, an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories, a virtual capital, and an on-chain census that provides a large enough population, income, and real estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition.

So there's a lot there. I want your reaction to the question in any direction you wanna go.

ZC: I've followed and corresponded with Balaji on and off over the years. He was very early in the space and in perceiving all of these things. I really enjoyed The Network State and enjoy his work overall.

I will say that when I read the book I realized that we're actually talking about things that are much more different than I had thought. Not in a bad way. But I guess I had this sort of conception based on his earlier work that we were really pulling on very similar threads.

And when I read that definition, I would say that was the moment where I thought, “Oh, I think we're talking about two different species of things in this space.” Similar to when we were talking about sort of charter cities being its own animal in this space.

Platform vs. Product Cities

JS: You have this framework on platform cities versus product cities. I wanna give you the opportunity to talk about that.

I think that when you bring up product cities, then Balaji’s concept of a moral innovation or a one commandment is similar to what you might find in a “Fitopia.”

What’s the difference between a traditional platform and a traditional product? And, in our city analogy, what is a product city and what is a platform city?

ZC: Yeah. Platform City versus Product City is an article I wrote not too long ago and people really liked it.

Honestly, I think that the distinction is not totally clear and rigorous, but I think there's something here. The distinction is you can think of a traditional city and you can think also some projects in the startup city space as fundamentally focused on building platforms.

What that means in practice is their idea is: “We do not prescribe the particular details of the lifestyle or career or values that you're going to pursue in this place. We're focused on specific nuts and bolts of the urban experience.” So for instance, the project on Roatán, Honduras, Próspera calls themselves a “platform for economic development.”

They're saying, “Hey, incorporate any company you want here. We make it really easy. We make it fast. It's easy to pay your taxes. We don't bother you a lot. You can select the regulatory jurisdiction that you're under.” That's very much just having a neutral view.

And again, nothing about what I'm saying is trying to minimize this. It’s a totally legitimate strategy and possibly also a strategy with the highest upside.

But there’s an alternative, which is to say, “hey, what if instead of saying my customer is ‘everybody’ and I'm making a neutral platform for ‘everybody’ — like Facebook might think of themselves — you say no, I'm gonna make a very specific experience for a very specific kind of person.”

I think this is more like crafting a traditional product, like a vertical software as a service company in startup parlance.

I use a fake example called “Fitopia.” When you come to my neighborhood or city there's no unhealthy eating options whatsoever. There's a ban on fast food and there's every kind of keto, paleo, vegan mashup thing you could imagine. And the sidewalks all have chin up bars installed every block so you can do chin ups while you're waiting to cross the street.

And there's an amazing bike share. And there's citywide sunrise yoga in central park every day. You can take it as crazy as you want.

You could even imagine some things that many people would find somewhat objectionable. For instance, you can't be a resident if you're not at a certain level of physical fitness, which I think many people would have an issue with. But you can see how this framework defined more narrowly could tend in that direction — a kind of exclusivity to the experience.

I think this is a bit more in line with Balaji’s definition of a Network State. I think it's a narrower, more focused definition of what it is that we would want or expect from the Network State.

It would also revolve around a values-constructed experience meant for a particular kind of person with a particular values, maybe particular income level, particular location.

Scaling Product and Platform Cities

JS: Yeah. Thanks for connecting those separate threads.

I'm curious, how do these different approaches such as Próspera in Honduras vs. Fitopia — how do they scale?

ZC: The classic argument by proponents of the platform city is that the neutral platform play will always have bigger upside. If you can actually pull off the “urban platform that everyone wants to be a part of,” hey, ‘everybody’ is a much bigger customer base than fitness fanatics are!

That's the classic argument. On the other hand, you could also imagine a version of the product city approach that's almost a private equity fund that buys up a lot of companies in different verticals and then manages them all and tries to manage them all competently.

People have strong opinions about private equity management, but you get the idea. It's not about having Fitopia have a billion people in it. It's about having a Fitopia and then there’s Cartopia, which is just all about people that are obsessed with classic cars or whatever. And then there's Nerdtopia, which just one giant history of computing museum with blazing fast internet and coworking spaces.

You can think of a million ridiculous and maybe some not so ridiculous versions of what the product city would look like. So maybe it's more about replication and a kind of a franchise model or a multiple franchise model rather than making the megacity that everyone wants to live in.

Buying Municipal Land Banks with a DAO

JS: We were discussing earlier there being this blueprint for pitching your own product city and being able to go to places like Boise or Lakewood with that approach.

You mentioned that you had this YCombinator pitch that you made to buy municipal land banks. You recently wrote that maybe a DAO is the right kind of organization to buy such a thing. Cabin and others in this space are DAOs. Many in the audience and Cabin members are well aware of my personal skepticism towards the efficacy of many different kinds of crypto projects.

But I've been keeping an open mind, especially as it pertains to crowdfunding assets. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on just like why is a DAO potentially suited to buy a land bank. What can the DAO do with that land bank to rejuvenate?

ZC: I would be keen to understand your skepticism. I think one of the things that has been a real boon to Startup Cities as a meme and putting the idea into the Overton window and out of crazy town is the rise of Web3 and DAOs. It has been fantastic for this space.

So I'm grateful to CityDAO and Cabin and all these people that are doing this stuff, because you all are really carrying an idea that matters a lot to me out into the mainstream.

My own view of DAOs is pretty aligned with yours. I'm very bullish on it as a way of connecting people around a particular niche. Just finding those people and being able to get in touch with those people, I think of as mining the long tail of the internet.

On the internet there's every kind of person with every kind of weird interest you could imagine. Finding those people is not that trivial. A DAO getting those people all together, that's great and really valuable.

Another aspect is as an aggregator of capital around these very niche and sometimes eccentric interests like ConstitutionDAO buying a copy of the constitution. It's a very particular kind of person who wants to be partial owner of a constitution.

It's fantastic that the Dow was able to get those people together and to have them try to make this purchase and stuff.

JS: I’ll interrupt real quick to share that ConstitutionDAO in its heyday, one of its core team members was doing all of that from the cabins at CabinDAO. So just plus one-ing on that moment as this lightning bolt. There's a plaque currently at Cabin commemorating that moment in time.

ZC: How cool! I had no idea.

I think a lot of people are falling into a trap that many technologists and technology entrepreneurs fall into, which is the view that the problem with collective decision making is:

1. That people don't have enough information to make the decision. So we just need to give them more data and then they'll be sensible in their decisions.

2. That decision making power is not broadly distributed enough. If only we had more people with more votes and more committees and stuff, then we would have good and equitable outcomes and everyone would feel engaged.

I would love to live in that world. I just don't think it's true.

I think there's enormous, overwhelming evidence from public choice economics from the study of political ignorance, voter participation rates, even just the existence of the corporation versus co-ops — there's just overwhelming evidence in reality that actually that’s [voting and collective decision making] is probably not where the value of the DAO is. Unfortunately, in the DAO space, you see a huge amount of attention and resources being put into that aspect.

All the resources of the DAO space should just go to finding the people, figuring out how to have a sensible, normal management team, and aggregating capital to purchase the assets.

This is my biased view of DAOs.

The land bank conversation is possibly this tailor made use-case for a DAO. You have about 250 land banks around the United States and these banks collectively hold thousands and thousands of properties all around America.

Many are in reasonably nice cities. And these properties, generally speaking are some of the worst properties in the city. There’s just no gentle way to describe it.

They're blighted. They're abandoned. The bank had to reclaim them and then they have tons of back taxes, this kind of stuff. What land banks do? They get these properties, they then try to clear away back taxes and other like barriers and legal issues to getting them on the market.

Often they practically give these things away or sell them at a loss, which is one of the most depressing things possible. You do all this work and then you lose money every single time one of these things gets back on the market. It's crazy.

The challenge with land banks is that you can buy a parcel in Omaha, Nebraska for $200. Now, why haven't you done that? The answer is that owning a single parcel in Omaha, Nebraska that's totally blighted and surrounded by other blighted property is actually not that great of a deal!

It's not that great of an investment. What the land bank wants you to do often as a condition of the purchase is you can't just sit on it. You gotta put it back and build a house on it or open a business on it or whatever.

But, again, the reality is that very few people want to go live out in the middle of blight. No business is gonna be supported because there's no one nearby to go and be a patron of the business.

There's a certain sense in which a barrier to the realization of the value of the assets in the land bank is the ability to kick off a positive feedback loop [of development].

My proposal, which is admittedly a hare-brained idea here, but… I use the example of Omaha, Nebraska. I scraped the database of their parcels and saw that there was a couple million dollars worth of land. Much of it was concentrated in one particular part of Omaha.

My thought was, hey, you go to a DAO, you organize a DAO, you go to the Omaha land bank and you say:

“You have $2 million of essentially worthless land. We'll give you 2.3 million if you sell us everything, every single bit of land in your portfolio to this DAO. We'll pay above market to sweeten the deal for you all.”

“But what you [the Land Bank] have to do is you have to help us go to the city and remove zoning and land use restrictions from these parcels — because it's not possible to realize the value that's in these parcels in their current state, which is why they’re sitting blighted for decades in the land bank!”

You make a sweetheart deal. You buy up everything that you possibly can, and then you have the DAO spin off mini DAOS. Anyone in the DAO with an idea for the thing to do can go and lease that land from the DAO and undertake an entrepreneurial project on the parcel.

Even just with the land use restrictions removed, the value of all those assets would immediately increase if you just changed zoning and land use on them. If you got variances for the whole thing, it would immediately become significantly more valuable because of the potential future revenue of the land.

Then you're effectively trying to crowdsource with sensible incentives the owning and operation of the land through the DAO. So that's what you do. Get it all, kick off the positive feedback loop of development.

The actual capital number is not that big. We're talking a couple million dollars to get that land into circulation, assuming you could be persuasive enough with these land banks, which is a whole other thing.

JS: I’m certainly aligned that the best decentralized projects have a very clear plan and vision and then are aggregators of capital.

I do think that the land bank is an awesome example of something we could do. I shared the article that you wrote about that. I recommend users check it out as well. We'll put it in the show notes.

I shared it in the Cabin Discord and it got a lot of enthusiasm and attention. Kudos to you for writing that.

The Comprehensive City Tech Stack

JS: You talked about the common thread of your career being these different social technologies. And then more recently we've been talking about Startup Cities. So what is the comprehensive city tech stack?

We've talked about this at Cabin. In our neighborhood that we have outside of Austin we have 29 acres of land where there's both our hardware tech stack, which includes our prefab cabins and the internet towers and the septic system, but then also the software stack, which is Discord and all of the different ways that we create and retain the community

ZC: I'm a big fan of that article. It’s by John Hillis, right? I like it a lot.

It’s very difficult to define the tech stack for a Startup City simply because a lot of the tech stack is contextual. I would argue that it's almost perfectly analogous to software.

In software there is no universally perfect tech stack for a given company. The technology decisions have to be driven by the use-case.

You could go and build in Texas Hill country and try to be off grid because that's part of the value. The kind of customer that you all seem to be building for I would describe as probably above-average income, above average-education level, tech-oriented, maybe remote job, on the younger side (say, under 45), probably leans small family size, this kind of thing. I'm just guessing.

But based on that, the tech stack that you're going to build is cool modular cabins, beautiful views, that sort of thing. That makes total sense because you're crafting a particular kind of space. You have a lot of people doing knowledge work, deep work?

But how about a person that wants to come and build with a lathe or a carpenter or something? Maybe the carpenter would work. But there's a lot of professions who I think would not translate well to the current Cabin tech stack.

I'm not trying to knock it. I'm just trying to illustrate that the tech stack is reflective of the customer experience you're trying to make.

Building for Flexibility and The Big Dumb Box

ZC: All that said, there are probably some commonalities. For example, the kinds of buildings that you want to build, probably you want to build for flexibility.

For example, industrial space has a bad rap in a lot of cities, because everyone views it as ugly and awful. But an industrial facility is one zoning decision away from becoming luxury lofts or a hip brewery or a co-working space.

In some ways, the buildings that seem to have longevity in a lot of American and also European cities are what some people call “the big dumb box.”

The big dumb box is the traditional vernacular of European urbanism, which is you put the big dumb box and you set it right next to the road. And there's a door that transitions you from road to the big dumb box. And that big dumb box can be in history: a brothel, a textile factory, an apartment building, and now it holds a startup.

So part of the tech stack you could imagine is this vocabulary of physical forms that are built for change.

Another aspect is operational software. Which is again, very boring, but high quality ticketing systems so that you understand how to coordinate people to solve problems. Also RFID.

One of my biggest gripes in real estate, even in luxury apartment buildings… I live in a really nice building here in Denver. But no one that works in the building is ever where I need them! Why are the people not in the right spot?

This is a standard operational difficulty that I, as the customer need a particular person in a particular spot at a particular time. And it just never happens.

Your tech stack should be able to operationalize having people and things in the right place in the right time. And that is again, a very unsexy, basic problem but I think it’s absolutely unavoidable for operating a living environment.

Beyond those broad brush strokes, I think a lot is driven by the individual opportunity. With an individual opportunity, I would be much more opinionated about the details.

JS: Cabin’s industrial prefab brothels coming to you soon! You heard it here first, folks!

ZC: I'll take equity in that one.

*laughter*

Which Projects Have Disappointed? Which Projects are Most Exciting?

JS: I want to lean on your large experience here to ask you which city building project over the last 10 years were you really excited about that didn't quite live up to the expectations. And then conversely, what city building project are you most excited?

ZC: I would say one sad history of the city building space is that there's a massive megaproject graveyard that stretches for decades.

I was never that excited about those.

The thing is, if you are an engineer and you have a technology-oriented mindset, you have an inherent skepticism towards people who think they’re going to waterfall [the project management philosophy] to utopia.

Or that we're just one consulting document away from utopia or something!

I think that’s just crazy. It’s a sad part of the space and where a lot of hopes and dreams have washed ashore and crashed into the rocks of reality.

I would say one body of work that many people in this space don't know about, but should, is the “megaprojects and risk” world of scholarship. In particular, there's an Oxford professor named Bent Flyvbjerg whose last name I can’t pronounce or spell.

He has a wonderful book called Megaprojects and Risk and a paper called “What You Should Know About Megaprojects.” If you just look at the numbers on the performance of these grandiose schemes it's gonna disabuse you of the notion that the super grandiose visionary stuff is the way to go because the outcomes are insane.

It's something like 98% of mega projects underperform by their own standards. On every single metric that they state the numbers are just incontrovertibly crazy. So those things as a class have generally underperformed expectations.

As far as personal disappointment, I was fired up about the first round of reforms in Honduras — the RED reforms which was the predecessor to the current reforms.

I was living in Latin America at the time. I knew a lot of people in this space. We were all just like, this is gonna be huge! It's gonna be so innovative. The reality is that the reform was destroyed and repealed.

And then wave two finally happened. And it looks like this one is also now being destroyed — the jury's out. It's possible that things will survive, but it's certainly much less good than it was even six months ago because of political changes.

I would probably that some of the more ambitious stuff in the charter city space has been a sad disappointment. It's sad because we're not going to be able to see the full scope of innovation that could have been made if those things were given a stable footing for a long time to build the project.

The project that I'm personally the most interested in right now is Ciudad Morazán, which is a project outside of Choloma, Honduras.

It’s really a hybrid. It contains charter city aspects, but the entrepreneur behind it is the creator of one of Latin America's largest pharmacy chains. He’s very much a meatspace entrepreneur, a logistics [and retail] entrepreneur. I was fortunate enough to see some of the design documents and finances and some of the urban plan and to follow the construction closely.

I think he was not only visionary, but he really understood his customer to the point where they actually sent people out into the informal communities — the slums in Choloma — and asked people about their budgets, what they wanted and then built that. I think that’s the thing that's really missing in a lot of Startup Cities projects, it’s a problem of “solutions in search of problems.”

He did not do that. And I admire it. It showed a commitment to the customer. That's really fabulous.

The other company that other people should know more about — well there's really two.

One is Vail Resorts. I live in Colorado. They [Vail Resorts] own and operate Vail. There's a whole interesting history of towns that were essentially built by firms. Many of the firms were essentially startups of their day and they were built around the monetization of a particular natural resource.

No one can possibly call Vail an evil Dickensian company town. It's a ridiculously bougie place that people from all around the world go to.

The other company is Howard Hughes Corporation, which I've only started recently going deep into. They operate communities like The Woodlands in Houston, which has 120,000 people in it — essentially a small city.

Most people don't know about them. They fly under the radar, but they have a very interesting business model and they pursue unsexy platform-oriented urban development. It has worked really well for them. Those are the companies that I'm excited about.

Not so excited about dreamy, utopia-in-the-desert, grandiose things. I just can't get excited about it.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups should build cities!

Startup Cities reader Zane Austen has made a 12,000 page compendium of Lee Kuan Yew’s words.

The collection is brilliant, but many of the documents were old and not formatted for search. I worked with Zane to apply some OCR technology to make the archive fully searchable. So here it is: a new and improved motherlode archive on Lee Kuan Yew’s career. All credit goes to Zane.

Zane Austen

The Comprehensive Lee Kuan Yew Anthology

The PDF is at the bottom. Enjoy…

Read more

4 years ago · 3 likes · 3 comments · Zane Austen

While those interested in Singapore’s story will find much to explore, one thing stands out: Lee Kuan Yew is a world-class communicator.

He's crisp, straight to the point. He shrinks from no questions, minces no words. He admits when he’s wrong. He talks about what he doesn’t know. There’s a pragmatism, a clear-eyed candor that, honestly, sounds refreshing from a politician.

LKY’s most famous speech might be the day he stood down an illegal strike by Singapore Airlines pilots.

This short speech is a masterclass in what made LKY so effective. On average, he uses fewer than 10 words per sentence. He punctuates like a wicked left hook: "Stop it!" "Give it up!" He has marvelous parallelisms: “This is not a game of cards. This is your life and mine!”

And there's his aesthetic. LKY looks like someone's angry grandpa, with modest clothes and rolled up sleeves. There's no pomp. No big music. No fireworks. No ridiculous tank parade. But, somehow, this combination of strength and casualness – as though he hopped on stage en route to the grocery store – makes him more formidable.

LKY on Cities

So without further ado, here's some fun snippets on urbanism from Lee Kuan Yew.

On building practical community centers rather than "impressive monuments"

In the past, the community centres were the few expensive and impressive buildings, largely in the suburban areas where the population is sparse. One such monument is the one at Buona Vista Road costing over $400,000 in what is a thinly populated area.

The policy of the P.A.P. government is to build many modest, small and medium sized community centres costing about $15,000 each, and to have one at every thickly populated area to provide the escape valve for the recreation of children in the day, and adults in the evening.

...[t]he lack of land and building space mean that every piece of land and every building must be utilised to its maximum ... In the mornings, the building will be used as children's social centre where some education will be given to the tens of thousands of children who have not been able to find places in schools in the past.

One room will be set aside as a creche to serve the needs of working mothers. In the afternoons, the building will be used as a youth club and a sports centre for the older children. In the evenings and at night, the building will be used by adults as a community centre in which there will be literacy classes, classes in singing, dancing, drama and other forms of healthy recreation.

On the unavoidable reality of land economics

Everyone likes to live in the centre of the city. It is easier and quicker to get to places and generally more convenient. We are planning to rebuild the old city and we have for our second five-year plan, starting in 1965, a target of 60,000 housing units at a cost of $194 million.

For the present first five-year plan we are spending the same amount of money for only 50,000 units. We expect to make this new target of 60,000 units for the same cost because the experience that we have gained will enable us to cut down costs and increase efficiency in building.

Even so, there is one factor which we cannot change, i.e. the price of land. Land is much more expensive in the central urban area than in the suburbs. If we are to rebuild the old city successfully, then our policies must be practical and realistic.

I know many people would like to get these flats in the city area at $20/m for one-room flat, $40/m for a two-room flat and $60 for a three-room flat, instead of $30, $60 and $90 respectively. But it is not possible because of the price of land.

On mixed-use

We are also experimenting in these two blocks of flats with shops on the ground floor and a creche. If this is successful we shall adopt this in other Housing Board schemes. By next year, over 2,000 units for Singapore Harbour Board workers would have gone up on the land opposite these two blocks, and shopkeepers doing business here will find business better. (2434)

On crushing cost curves

We spend 15 times as much as Kuala Lumpur on social welfare benefits ($8.9 per head as against Federation's $0.59), about three times as much on health benefits ($37 per head as against Federation's $13.5) and twice as much on education ($52 as against Federation's $32) per head of population.

What is more, we get more worth out of every dollar than Kuala Lumpur. We build a two-room flat at $4,100 whilst Johore builds the same type of unit for over $7,500. We build a three-room flat for $4,900 whilst the same type of unit in Malacca cost $9,000.

And so it is with the cost of all the schools, hospitals, clinics, creches, and community centres. We have over 150 community centres, both urban and rural type, for an island of 220 square miles. We have over 25 clinics, including maternity and child health centres, to ease the pressure on five hospitals. (2479)

On building green

I have always believed that a blighted urban jungle of concrete destroys the human spirit. We need the greenery of nature to lift up our spirits. So in 1967, I launched the Garden City program to green up the whole island and try to make it into a garden.

After 30 years of sustained effort and learning on the job, the Parks and Trees Division, now called the Parks and Recreation Department, have turned Singapore into a verdant metropolis. Trees and colourful shrubs line the roads.

Flowering plants and creepers brighten up concrete structures. Green open spaces and parks soften the urbanscape everywhere we go. We have created a pleasant living and working environment for Singaporeans. It is good for morale.

This green transformation required political will and sustained effort ... In the 60s and 70s, we planted fast-growing creepers like “vernonia elliptica”, and “maiden’s jealousy”, and "instant" trees like angsana, rain tree and eugenia grandis, for quick results. Once we had greenery over the main parts of the island, we added dashes of colour with free-flowering trees such as the Yellow Flame, and the deep pink frangipani.

We planted colourful bougainvillea on our overhead pedestrian bridges creating hanging gardens across our roads. To get variety, I encouraged the Parks and Recreation Department to send men to visit Botanic Gardens in other equatorial and tropical regions of the world to select new species of trees and shrubs which can grow in our climate. The results of this active search became visible in the 1980s, when swaths of colour began to appear along many of our major roads and in our HDB new towns.

We also developed our parks. In July 1973, we formed the Garden City Action Committee, which is still doing good work. Existing parks were replanted, expanded, and spruced up. New ones were developed. In 1967, we had 700 hectares of parkland. Today, besides the nature reserves, we have some 2,400 of parkland, in 57 regional parks and 313 neighbourhood parks spread throughout the island. (11846)

On underground highways and being wrong about rail

The one other project I associate with Ong Teng Cheong [ZC: an architect who was hired as a Minister] is the MRT. Because of his training as a town planner, when I had lunches with him before he joined the government as a Senior Minister of State, he would urge me to build an MRT to maximise the use of our limited land and avoid traffic jams.

I was not enthusiastic. I believed that our problems would be better solved by upgrading the bus service and giving buses priority on the roads through reserved bus lanes. When the roads became inadequate, we could build underground roads. This would give more flexibility in the destinations.

An MRT had no flexibility, people had to get in and out at fixed points. As the traffic situation worsened, he again pressed for an MRT this time as Minister for Communications.

I was still not convinced that fixed rail was better than underground roads. We had an American team of transportation experts to study the alternatives. After many discussions and a thorough study of our traffic and road situation, they put up their report.

They convinced me that underground roads would not be able to carry the same high volume of people as reliably as underground rail. In rainy weather, as roads became slippery, traffic would slow down; worse any break-down of any bus or vehicle in the tunnels would seize up the underground road system. Under all weather conditions, rail was very reliable and could move large numbers of people with punctuality and speed. So we decided to fund the MRT. (236)

On the source of the infamous chewing gum ban:

We banned chewing gum after we started our metro. Young boys stuck chewing gum on the sensitive parts of underground train doors so that they would not automatically close, but would spring open.

It is not the end of the world to live without chewing gum. We have thrived for thousands of years in Asia before the Americans introduced this disgusting habit to Asia. If the West finds that amusing, I am happy to oblige because it’s at no great cost to me. (258)

On traffic

And we also know that we were in for great traffic problems because we had, through lack of traffic planning, to match our city planning. We have built a city just like the city of London, which is dead at night. So, everybody comes into the city from all directions, and they have only one entrance without having to cross water. (Three sides of the city is water – our office, centre, what we call the CBD).

And, therefore, an unpleasant decision has to be made. There are buildings now going up which, when they are filled, will cause an enormous traffic jam, even if everybody goes by buses. And we cannot get the underground trains before ten years. So, we have to take some very tough measures, which we did last year in June, and again this year, to keep the cars down, which is very unpleasant. Although we've had complaints, the people understood. If we don't do this, then everybody suffers.

Their business will come to a halt. So, the preference must be given to the buses, to the vehicles which carry goods to the harbour, to the airport, and that we must put up with something convenient -- either you share your car with three other persons in which case you can go in or you pay for the privilege of going in alone or you take a bus. But there is an understanding -- and we tried to accommodate. We spent millions of dollars building fringe car parks on the city edges. So you can park your car and take a bus in. But the people decided, "No, if I have to take a bus, well, why should I leave my car in the sun and the rain? I take a bus from home." Well, so much the better.

So, the roads are absolutely clear from 7.30 to 10.15. Everybody gets over. And I hope we can hold this until we got the underground system working, at least in the centre of the city, which we must get going within ten years or a tremendous jam will be caused. (8039)

On laid-back European culture (sorry, I couldn't resist)

I watched the Europeans with a certain fascination and sympathy. They were great civilisations. They still are civilised. In fact, culturally, they are much more congenial, more elegant in their manner of life. But they have lost that sense of importance which drives the people.

[Questioner]: "To the outside world..?

No, to themselves. They knew that they no longer decide the events of this world, that it is decided in Washington, in Moscow. So they have become preoccupied with trivial, irrelevant things – with the consumer society, with how to enjoy life, how to enjoy the weekend. (8041)

I’m in San Francisco repping Startup Cities at the Future Forum. Shout if you’re in town!

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: startups should build cities!

This week: the wild but true story of an American town built by a towel factory.

Robert Tucker: Shoe Emperor

I bet you’ve never heard of Shoe Show Inc, a shoe retailer from rural North Carolina. I hadn’t either… until I found this little book sitting next to a cash register in a small town:

I couldn’t resist… I’m a sucker for obscure business history. But Shoe Show is no little mom and pop. It has 1,150 locations in 47 states. It’s privately held. And it made $6.2 billion in revenue last year. How’s that for a family biz?

Shoe Show is a classic bootstrapped empire. The founder, Robert Tucker, went from sweeping up a local shop to shoe emperor over 60 years. He sold shoes from his car. He built his own shelves. He employed his children. He bought and leased dumpsters to himself to get $50 a month off his store lease. He took the unsexy path and won.

But Shoe Show likely wouldn’t exist but for an obscure town built by a towel factory.

Kannapolis: The Town that Towels Built

In 1904, entrepreneur J.W. Cannon bought a thousand empty acres in North Carolina. Cannon was head of the world’s largest sheet and towel producer: Cannon Mills. Its newest mill, built on these empty acres, employed over 30,000 people.

J.W. Cannon understood the same thing that companies like Google do today: happy, healthy people make better employees. So Cannon built 1,600 homes, a YMCA, a movie theater, a daycare, a hospital, roads, parks, even an artificial lake.

Cannon endowed schools with land and funding. He even “supplemented the salaries of additional deputy sheriffs” in cooperation with the county. Cannon also pioneered life insurance, possibly the first entrepreneur to ever offer it to employees.

Kannapolis, the cheesy name of his burgeoning city, was a classic company town:

Cannon Mills Company owned all the real estate, including homes and commercial property, within a radius of several miles of the headquarters. Mill hands paid low rent to live in one of the company’s 1,600 four- and five-room clapboard houses that were arranged in neat rows along streets.

Subscribe now

Wait, But Aren’t Company Towns Evil?

I know what you’re thinking. “Are you seriously about to say something positive about company towns?”

Yes.

Because not all company towns were smoke-stacked Dickensian hellscapes. And they offer powerful lessons for today’s city builders.

Let’s face the moral stuff first. We should judge company towns like any other product. Some were good; some were not. Critics dismiss all company towns on grounds that it’s inherently evil for a living environment to be owned and operated by a private company.

I disagree. And, more importantly, so do real customers: many privately owned and operated communities have lower vacancy rates and premium prices compared to the area that surrounds them (a subject for a future essay):

There’s no way to deny the paternalistic element to company towns, which many people find gross. But then again, what do you think your enlightened tech company is doing when they give you therapy apps, kale lunches, and a gym membership? What do you think your city government is doing when they ban smoking, make it harder to drive downtown, and rant about “food deserts”?

The subsidized living of company towns like Kannapolis were the lavish benefit packages of yesteryear. We shouldn’t dismiss them outright.

Daily Life in Kannapolis

We must also be extra careful not to romanticize the American South of the 1940’s. But those that assume Kannapolis must have been a dystopian land of trampled worker’s rights can check the evidence. Roving filmmaker H. Lee Waters visited Kannapolis in the 1940’s to shoot film of daily life there.

You can find the footage in the Duke University archives. Here’s one clip:

Kannapolis looks like a well-run version of other blue collar Southern towns of the era (for better and worse). Cannon plowed profits into Kannapolis to improve it and to draw new residents.

Residents say the town worked well. And people moved there, which is the biggest endorsement a city can get. Here’s the Tucker family:

Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, the object of Cannon’s personal attention over the years, provided some of the best health care in the area. Kannapolis was orderly and neat, and Cannon’s people kept it that way.

Kannapolis also offered better urbanism than many of today’s American cities, including tradurbanist architecture and Jacobsian mixed-use, walkable spaces with commerce on the ground floor:

… The buildings in the central retail district reflected the architecture of Colonial Williamsburg… The ground level of most of the buildings was reserved for retail stores and shops, while the upper floors of multistory buildings were rented as offices for lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, and others offering professional services.

Contrary to the “company-towns-must-be-evil-monopolies” view, Kannapolis also had a vibrant retail and services sector:

Competition was keen. There were five shoe stores and a department store on Main Street alone. One block over on West Avenue, the community’s main shopping area, there was another independent shoe store as well as the Belk and JC Penney stores…

Retail competition was so fierce that Cannon’s property managers first refused to lease to a young Robert Tucker — the future founder of Shoe Show. The market was saturated, they said!

But Tucker prevailed. He got his first location in downtown Kannapolis with a handshake deal. From this beachhead, Tucker conquered his market.

There’s no denying that Kannapolis worked. It grew into America’s largest unincorporated municipality.

Until the 80’s.

The Hostile Takeover of Kannapolis

In 1982, billionaire corporate raider David Murdock bought Cannon Mills. I encourage you to play this song while reading this next part:

Unfortunately for the residents of Kannapolis, ownership of the city and the textile firm were legally the same.

The Tuckers recall:

The Cannon sale shocked the entire community and brought a level of uncertainty to Kannapolis that it had never known before.

Murdock gutted Cannon Mills. It passed between holding companies. Global competition bankrupted acquirer Pillowtex in 1997. 4,340 Kannapolis residents lost their jobs on the same day. The mills were demolished. Kannapolis slumped.

But Kannapolis didn’t die.

In 2004, Murdock appeared again. He re-purchased downtown Kannapolis and built a $1.5 billion research center, which is now the North Carolina Research Campus.

Hilariously, Murdock sold downtown Kannapolis back to the city itself — now an incorporated city with a traditional municipal government. Today, Kannapolis is North Carolina’s 19th largest city.

Some residents don’t like the new Kannapolis, instead yearning for its past as a blue collar company town:

Barbara Hunter said the changes, like the new research campus, have left people like her behind. “It was never intended to benefit the people who worked at the mill,” she said.

Lessons for Startup Cities

What can we learn from the crazy story of Kannapolis?

That’s the Power of Love Unified Ownership

First, Kannapolis is a story of dynamism: the highs and the lows of economic change.

Kannapolis has an interesting history because its downtown was a single owned unit. It wasn’t locked in typical zoning, or the impossibly high transaction costs of a subdivision with thousands of parcel owners. Downtown Kannapolis could evolve because it changed hands like a slot on a Monopoly board.

Over 100 years this downtown went from empty land, to the busy urban core of a company town, to the blighted sprawl of a bankrupt mill, and now to a high-tech research center.

One reason why I’m skeptical of traditional subdivision and traditional city government as tools for building cities is because they often limit dynamism like this. Kannapolis proved more unstable than a typical city. But it had more dimensions for innovation and change. Unpredictability is the cost of adaptability.

Company Towns Are Fragile

Though Kannapolis is a positive story overall, Startup Cities should be careful not to model themselves after company towns. The core of a company town is that the biggest employer in the area is also the owner and operator of the community. It’s dangerous to couple these functions. If the mill dies, so does the town.

Kannapolis learned the hard way when their town was acquired alongside the mill. The industrial company town is a fragile monoculture, where too much depends on the success of a single firm.

On the other hand, the traditional company town had a quick solution to the cold start (“anchor tenant”) problem. The community owner is the anchor tenant! The city builder can seed the urban network itself!

I think the usefulness of the traditional company town depends on context. In the United States, I’m skeptical it would work today because you’re building for a wealthy service economy where many people no longer even work at a single central location.

But this isn’t true everywhere. You could argue that Ciudad Morazán in Honduras is a company town. But in Honduras this makes more sense — the country’s GDP is less than the valuation of many top tech startups. And many of the best jobs are in fields like textile manufacturing, the same industry that Cannon Mills dominated 100 years ago.

Besides, traditional cities aren’t immune to the problem of a single point of economic failure either — go read a history of Detroit and the rust belt!

Companies Can Build and Operate Successful Towns

Kannapolis also disproves the popular idea that companies can’t build cities and, if they do, that those cities can’t work. Kannapolis is surely imperfect, but is it fair to call a city of 54,000 people and a household income of $55,923 (just below the median for North Carolina as a whole) a “failure”? I don’t think so.

Finally, Kannapolis shows the secondary effects of a healthy city. Its management had the right incentives to make it easy to live and do business in Kannapolis.

And this is how Robert Tucker of Shoe Show got his start.

Entrepreneurship is about power laws. Most successes are modest. But a small number of firms end up shifting the market. We need easy onramps for entrepreneurs to start a business, in particular for meatspace businesses like retailing.

Tucker had just that. If Tucker had lived in one of today’s sclerotic cities, would I be reading his memoir? Maybe. Or maybe he’d have vanished into obscurity, another great entrepreneur lost to the battle with city bureaucracy.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startup Should Build Cities!

This week: a guest post by my friend Jeff Fong. Keeping in the spirit of Startup Cities, Jeff looks at American housing as a technology stack shaped by regulation.

About the Author

Jeff Fong is a writer, technologist, and housing activist. He was an early stage employee at Lyft and later took on roles in both product and leadership at Postmates. A longtime contributor to Market Urbanism, his work has also been featured in publications like Caos Planejado. Jeff also serves as Board Chair at YIMBY Action, a policy advocacy organization dedicated to the controversial idea that houses are good and we should have more of them. Follow Jeff on Twitter.

When we talk about entrepreneurship, we often talk about disruption and replacement. New companies come in, old companies die out. And at the level of individual firms, that’s mostly true. But when we look at the housing industry as an ecosystem, we see something else.

Across areas as diverse as finance, property management, and regulatory compliance there’s a trend of abstraction and productization that’s changing the way we deliver housing. In particular, startups add new layers on top of old institutions and build bundles out of fragmented services.

To understand how policy constrains innovation in housing, we must first look at a few startups in the stack.

Millennials and Mortgages 

In part, housing is expensive because we’re forced to over consume it. A minimum lot size regulation might stipulate that properties be no smaller than 5,000 square feet. This makes it illegal to divide a lot and sell two smaller, less expensive properties. In other words, if you can’t afford the 5,000 square foot property, you can't afford anything at all.

Millennials have also built less wealth than previous generations. That and higher home prices has meant lower rates of homeownership. Startups like Divvy, Landed, Unison, Haus, and ZeroDown stepped in with new forms of finance to serve less wealthy homebuyers.

These new startups separate housing as a financial asset from housing as shelter. They let people buy part of the asset upfront while getting the immediate benefit of a roof over their heads. The companies take a co-equity stake in a property and make their money when the customer buys them out in the future. The customer gets a home at a lower upfront price and the company gets the spread on the equity at buyout. 

This business model seems especially tailored to a world with high (and continually rising) real estate values paired with low cost capital. It remains to be seen how useful it will be if interest rates stay high and housing prices plateau. 

Productized Property Management

Property management startups Belong, Mynd, Funnel, and RentRedi help homeowners become small-scale landlords. Making revenue from your property is an attractive option if you can figure out how to landlord. 

A typical customer would be a homeowner who wants to rent out – instead of sell – the family home after a move. These companies provide payment processing, marketing, tenant screening, insurance, maintenance, and everything else. They tell you what you need to do, give you a way to do it, and make it all manageable via mobile app.

Landlording is not new. Neither is property management. These products provide a bundled service with a modern software wrapper for the customer. Productizing the experience should make everything easier and, if these startups succeed, be enough to encourage an increasing number of property owners to rent instead of sell.

Compliance-as-a-Service

California has a lot of great qualities. Its regulatory regime for housing is not one of them. It’s not easy to get permission to build a new home, especially at missing middle levels of density. Recent reforms opened new pathways for development, but accessing these regulatory HOV lanes isn’t user friendly (if you’re aware of them at all). Fortunately, that’s where the entrepreneurs at Homestead come in.

Homestead is a housing developer with a speciality. They use state level reforms to split existing lots and provide smaller, less costly housing. For owners, splitting their property in two and selling off a second lot with a duplex is a great way to partially cash out. For prospective buyers, acquiring a property to immediately split and redevelop may be the only way to get into housing at all. 

Homestead makes it easy to tell if a property qualifies for redevelopment. And for prospective buyers, they even help with some of the financing (if customers could afford to buy an entire existing property upfront, there’d be less need for this kind of service). 

Products Need Platforms

It’s misleading how we talk about disruption and reform. Reform sounds like we delete lines of code and disruption feels like replace old for new wholesale.

Usually, this isn’t the case. All the startups here are additive. They try to make legacy systems better or easier to use, but they’re not making these systems simpler. They're new products built on top of existing platforms. And they’re indicative of how reducing complexity for an end-user might mean increasing it for a system as a whole. 

As platforms age, we see entrepreneurs solve for the failings of legacy systems. Our home finance startups fall into this category. They don’t create a replacement, they bolt on new features to keep old features running.

This differs from our examples in property management. These companies use new technology to improve a stable legacy industry. They don’t try to keep a failing system functional.

And Homestead, the property developer / regulatory guide, splits the difference. They extend a broken system, but were made possible by  “refactoring lower level code” — California’s new SB 9 law.

It’s this last example that’s most instructive.

Changes to state law updated local regulations and created an alternate permitting process. Homestead plugs into this new permitting path. It makes the path more accessible for humans who aren’t experts in navigating regulation. By rewiring old functionality at the bottom of the stack, new opportunities for problem solving were created at the top.

Entrepreneurship doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The solutions we envision are molded by legacy institutions. Most of today’s housing startups tinker on top of deeply broken regulatory code. Cities will have to make big changes to this legacy code to enable more entrepreneurship in housing. Or entrepreneurs will need to find ways to bypass these limits, perhaps by building Startup Cities away from existing municipalities.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget: Startups Should Build Cities!

Next week: a deep dive into the history of a little-known American startup city.

Wait, what’s a Municipal Land Bank?

I was 24 and my startup’s runway was dwindling. At the time, I was a bit drunk on Jane Jacobs and laser-focused on building walkable, mixed use spaces in American cities. A potential investor told me: "Look, if you can secure land with attractive development rights you'll have all the money you want to build!"

That's when I learned about municipal land banks. Municipal land banks are agencies that handle blighted properties. Back taxes, mortgage defaults, lawsuits, and abandonment can tie up a piece of land. No one can build on it. No one can buy it. No one can sell it. The land is dead.

Enter land banks. The land bank acquires blighted land does a lot of tedious legal wrangling to make the property sellable. Then they often sell it at a loss. As a guy at one land bank told me, "Yeah, it's a pretty thankless job."

I made this offer to a land bank:

1. We'll buy whichever properties in your portfolio form the largest contiguous piece of land.

2. Then we'll give the Land Bank a generous equity tranche in the future development…

3. … but only if the Land Bank helps us navigate the city bureaucracy to unify the land into a single parcel and to remove onerous zoning and other restrictions.

The land bank guy was silent for a while. It was clear that no one had ever offered to share upside with them before. It was "a compelling idea" he said. But it was a grey area and, in the end, they decided the concept was too risky.

I've always wondered if the ask was too big for the size of the offer.

But what if we had made an offer so audacious, so over-the-top that the Land Bank would look like it was violating its mission if it refused?

"Hello! Can I buy this abandoned neighborhood?"

What would it take to buy an entire land bank and then unleash hundreds of entrepreneurs to develop the land?

Let's look at the concept with a real example: the Omaha Municipal Land Bank in Nebraska.

Their mission is to "partner with our community to transform Omaha’s distressed properties into positive neighborhood assets." The Omaha Land Bank has 289 properties. Some are in far-flung parts of the city. But the majority concentrate in North East Omaha, near the border with Iowa.