Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc

7.6K posts

Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc banner
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc

Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc

@isnit0

LFG 🚀 | Building a City https://t.co/XZdoecJw3h | Growth @ElevenLabs All views my own. Come to my next party: https://t.co/7Xh2sfjXLl

London Katılım Kasım 2011
1.9K Takip Edilen9.2K Takipçiler
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
It was Samuel that pitted them as alternatives. I am all up for densifying urban areas, and frequently campaign for this. We often talk about the fact that we're just 8 miles from Cambridge. It's mentioned many times in our report, and even many times in just the introduction: forestcity.uk/report I'm not sure which white paper you're referring to? We don't tend to talk about GCDC much. I did a piece in CapX recently which might be what you're referring to? That's more focused on the challenges that the vision-less Development Corporation faces.
English
0
0
0
9
Charles D. Gall
Charles D. Gall@Dirigissimo·
Great, but that’s not what comes through above at all? i'd really encourage you to lean into this framing rather than present Forest City as an alternative to urban intensification. We need both. If its value is being 15 minutes from Cambridge, then fundamentally that means being part of a much bigger, better-connected Cambridge region, which goes hand in hand with intensifying the city itself. IMO your white paper spends too much time positioning Forest City as an alternative to CGC plans (very similar!) rather than articulating complementarity as part of an east Cambridge growth region, which would be a much stronger case to govt.
English
1
0
0
8
Samuel Watling
Samuel Watling@watling_samuel·
Its actually 4.3 million homes which would be the equivalent of building a second London somewhere. I think ill stick to the normal strategy of trying to build where prices are high and people actually want to live.
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc@isnit0

Stop rationing. Start building. We need to build hundreds of thousands of homes. The best way to do it is: - one planning battle - one infrastructure spend - one land agglomeration - one brand new city

English
3
2
17
3.1K
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
@freddie_poser @watling_samuel I don't disagree that poor planning law adds significant costs. But this data shows that even when the planning costs are removed, the value only uplifts a small amount. This is the point of planning flipping.
English
1
0
0
13
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
You realise we're effectively suggesting Mega-Cambridge? It's just impossible to densify central Cambridge because of the medieval streets and historical buildings. A significant part of Forest City's value prop is that it's 15 min into Cambridge, and will allow the productionisation of academic work, much like SF did for Stanford.
English
1
0
1
11
Charles D. Gall
Charles D. Gall@Dirigissimo·
well, they accreted over centuries around places with the strongest geographic and economic conditions for growth? what's your point? If anyone advocated building London II next to London, it would be seen as a bit silly as the obviously rational outcome would be to expand the existing city. Same applies here i'm afraid. Embrace the inevitability of Mega-Cambridge.
Charles D. Gall tweet media
English
1
0
0
10
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
@osmarks1 @watling_samuel Surprisingly, no! All the planning process, judicial reviews, etc. don't apply to a Development Corporation, which is how we've most recently built cities. A DevCorp just needs a single signature - the secretary of state.
English
0
0
0
11
osmarks
osmarks@osmarks1·
@isnit0 @watling_samuel But the reasons Britain is dysfunctional wrt. expanding cities also apply to building a new one.
English
1
0
0
18
Charles D. Gall
Charles D. Gall@Dirigissimo·
@isnit0 @watling_samuel Why then does the 6,700 year history of cities almost exclusively show a pattern of expanding existing places rather than building anew? Gotta agglomerate up in dat bih
English
1
0
0
16
Samuel Watling
Samuel Watling@watling_samuel·
@isnit0 "That unfortunately is not true" is not evidence. "Otherwise there would be loads of development already happening" misses the point that there would be lots of development already happening but it is blocked by planning laws. That is the problem.
English
1
0
2
45
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
> benefits to building in london can be high enough to offset increased costs This unfortunately is not true. Otherwise there would be loads of development already happening. > wheres your evidence it costs more to upgrade infrastructure than build a completely new city In the report: forestcity.uk/report As one specific example: cut and cover (only possible when the land is not currently developed) is significantly cheaper than tunnel boring
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc tweet media
English
1
0
0
56
Samuel Watling
Samuel Watling@watling_samuel·
@isnit0 Firstly even if you are correct it isnt enough to justify a new city over expanding london as benefits to building in london can be high enough to offset increased costs. But secondly wheres your evidence it costs more to upgrade infrastructure than build a completely new city?
English
1
0
1
38
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
Here are just a few reasons it's hard: - you need to dig up roads that people use - you need to halt trains that people use - you need to double either the speed or the throughput of our trains - you need to double all the existing utility provisioning, without disrupting current service - you need to get double the amount of power and water through our legacy electrical and water networks - you need to fund it somehow (with very little land-value uplift) - you need to fight a large number of people who try to block it - you need undo greenbelt classifications - you need to forcibly buy lots of land in one of the most expensive cities in the world - you need to tunnel, not cut-and-cover There are many more reasons to boot. They're surmountable, but it's much much much easier to just do it somewhere else.
English
1
0
0
30
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
@watling_samuel I didn't say don't expand London at all. And I constantly call for more homes and infrastructure to be built in London. I said doubling the size of London (or any city, for that matter) is very hard. Much harder than building purpose-designed city infrastructure from scratch.
English
2
0
0
55
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
@watling_samuel Obviously not impossible, but impractical. You're saying "because it's possible to do X we should never consider Y or Z". This is bizzare.
English
1
0
0
44
Samuel Watling
Samuel Watling@watling_samuel·
@isnit0 Im sorry, are you the person who spends your time going "YOU CAN JUST DO THINGS 🚀🚀🚀 LFG" and now you are telling me it is impossible to expand London?
English
1
0
2
48
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
@watling_samuel Doubling the infrastructure of London is not an easy feat Samuel. If you can do that, you've solved basically all urban regeneration, densification, and development problems that have stopped it from happening in the last 30 years. You could be a billionaire!
English
1
0
0
54
Samuel Watling
Samuel Watling@watling_samuel·
@isnit0 1. Yes 2. By building sufficient capacity to double the provision of said infrastructure.
English
2
0
3
100
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
@watling_samuel Would you be supportive of doubling London's population? If so, how would you double the public transport, water, sewage, electrical, and communications networks?
English
2
0
2
183
Shelly
Shelly@countshelly·
@isnit0 Can you explain in 1 sentence how building a set of new offices and homes drive fundamental scientific progress?
English
1
0
2
106
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
I think Britain is speed-running the political issues mentioned here, and will soon return to being the most stable, safe, and exciting place to invent the future. Forest City will really unlock the constraints on the science capital of Europe, and become such an attractive place for inventors to put down roots (and create new institutions for the future).
Balaji@balajis

Unfortunately, I completely agree that the United States of America is rapidly descending into all-out conflict between left and right. The Luigi left, Kirk killers, anti-Tesla terrorists, and Altman attackers are already in shoot-on-sight mode against conservatives, libertarians, and technologists. The right isn’t there yet; they’re called reactionaries because they only react, so they’re always one cycle behind. Thus, the left has already started shooting while the right is still “only” mirroring the lawfare of last decade’s left. But anyone can see how incandescently angry the American right is getting, so one can expect them to mirror leftist tactics eventually, just as J6 followed BLM. A problem then arises. You see, when communists and nationalists duke it out, technologists tend to be hated by both sides…and tend to leave. That’s what happened in Europe. In the early 1900s, Europe was the undisputed center of science. But then the far left rose to power in Russia, and in response arose a far right in Germany, and then those two psychotic factions blew each other up and took much of Europe with them. The result was that scientists with options left. Shown below is the graph of Nobel prizes. Science used to be centered in Europe when America was still a relative backwater…renowned for cranking out widgets but not much else. Then, as Europe tore itself apart, the smart scientists (and capitalists) simply left for America. Many had no choice; you just couldn’t be a Russian capitalist in the Soviet Union or a Jewish scientist in Nazi Germany, no matter how many years your family might have been in the country. Passionate protestations of ideological loyalty and everlasting patriotism didn’t matter. At best the enemy classes and races were unbanked and denaturalized; at worst they were simply killed. And arguably, all of that — the communism, the nationalism, the wars — all of that arose from the disruption wrought by the Industrial Revolution. We might anticipate similar levels of disruption from the Information Revolution. If so, if America is torn between Democrats and Republicans, or Wokes and MAGAs, or whatever factions succeed them, it’s just not going to be a good place for technological progress. Instead, progress will decentralize to other locations around the world, as it did before.

English
5
0
27
6.2K
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc retweetledi
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc
Spotted on the table next to us… People really underrate Europe’s States-Scepticism.
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc tweet media
English
2
2
15
1.3K