Why a Billionaire is Building a $400BN City in the US Desert 

Ah yes, that's definitely what the SW United States needs, another city in the desert. It's not like the region is struggling with water scarcity or anything like that.

It’s gonna end up another abandoned project due to unexpected costs and delays

I laughed so hard when he said a city of sustainability… in one of the most arid and water depleted environments in the world. 😂

I grew up on a ranch in Arizona and still live here. We had a saying, "The desert is where billionaire’s dreams come to die!"

One of the worst places in the US for drought, how are they going to supply millions with enough water?

What a nightmare, a city with no water in the middle of a desert.

Would make more sense to revitalize a city in the more habitable rust belt. .. or revitalize or build a new one somewhere in between Chicago Minneapolis and St Louis.

Cities should be located along major waterways, or at least in strategic locations with good access to natural resources. Instead of building a new gridded city in the desert, why not upzone Chicago or Detroit and revitalize those areas? Would be a lot more practical, and the location is so much better.

I live in Phoenix, and I’ll tell you now that this won’t work. They underestimate the monsoon and the lack of water. Dust storms all summer, and little rainfall in the winter will be a death sentence. We need to get rid of all these grass lawns and golf courses first before thinking about another major city in the desert

Nice visual concept, but it's insane. Just like the Line, this staggering amount of money could be used across so many other cities to upgrade districts/boroughs/blocks, public transit, utilities and services. The only benefit of building a brand new city is you don't have existing infrastructure and its problems. It's just silly.

Fun fact telos (τέλος) in Greek means the end. Maybe in ancient Greek means higher purpose as you said but in modern Greek language is just the end.

For a city in the middle of the desert to be WALKABLE they will need to create shaded paths and natural cooling areas. For shaded pathways it might be a good idea to engineer areas with retractable shade so they can be retracted for the fair weather winter months and be be fully out for the summer months. Powerless airconditioners can be built easily, areas that are surrounded in stone and do not see daylight ever and are several feet underground to make use of the cooler temperature below the surface level. These could possibly serve a dual purpose as summer walkways and winter water canals for water collection. Water resevoirs could be built with a greenhouse around them that will collect the cleaner evaporated water leaving behind sediment. It's doable but they don't see to include successful ideas to combat heat and water.

Nothing like a 15 minute walk to the store in 120 degree heat.

Referring to any land as “worthless land” tells me exactly what I need to know about just how much they care about sustainability.

As soon as I heard "equitism" my spider-sense blared.

"There is no shortage of water in the desert but exactly the right amount, a perfect ratio of water to rock, water to sand, insuring that wide free open, generous spacing among plants and animals, homes and towns and cities, which makes the arid West so different from any other part of the nation. There is no lack of water here unless you try to establish a city where no city should be.” -Edward Abbey

These projects just seem like unbridled megalomania. Imagine the good these billionaires could do if they were to infuse all this capital into existing cities. There's so many communities that could be completely transformed with a tiny fraction of this money.

Historically, cities have been established along trade routes and industrial centers, preferably next to a large body of water -- seashore, navigable river, etc. There are very few opportunities left for a large landlocked settlement in the middle of a wasteland to thrive and develop. One is Las Vegas, due to pure legalism, related to gambling, so the only other option is to turn this splashy utopia into yet another open air real-estate vault for billionaires and institutional investors to park/launder their wealth in a secure location. Then the only worry will be where to house the maintenance/service personnel.

Another international environmental project is Forest City in Malaysia. But despite it being marketed as an energy efficient green city that incorporates the local environment, it's really far from it. The development has actually led to irreversible environmental damage to the Johor wetlands due to reclamation...reclamation that happened WITHOUT the environmental assessment required. Plus after the reclamation happened, a nearby fishing village said there were reduced catches. The project wasn't targeted towards the local Malaysians but rather middle-class Chinese citizens looking to park their wealth abroad. And if that's not the tip of the iceberg, it is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area Rank 1 Area (meaning no development should occur unless it's low-impact nature tourism, education, or research)...the irony that just writes itself. The project is now a ghost town.

With $400B you can build a city in the desert and hope someone moves there or completely pay off the debt of an entire country with 182 options to choose from including Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, Ireland, New Zealand, Egypt, etc.

"Billionaire Marc Lore", "Billionaire Marc Lore", "Billionaire Marc Lore". Has that guy officially changed his name to include "Billionaire" or something? We get it. He's rich.

Rich people trying to play the SIMS but in real life, while knowing nothing about how to build cities... and when all of this money could be use to make already existing cities a better place to live..

Telosa already exists, it’s called California City. Located northern Antelope Valley in Kern County, California. It is 100 miles (160 km) north of the city of Los Angeles, and the population was 14,973 as of 2020. Covering 203.63 square miles (527.4 km2), California City has the third-largest land area of any city in the state of California. PS - probably easier to reinvent California City rather then take a virgin desert and tear it up

Bearing in mind that coal is the only “Fossil Fuel” and the only vehicles on US streets that are at least partially fossil fuel powered these days are electric vehicles (20% of US electricity is still derived from coal) does that mean that EV’s will be banned in Telosa? Or just electrical power from the grid?

Developers typically give little or no attention to food and agriculture, and the natural resource they require, such as good soil and water. They say, "Oh, we will be able to import that import that from places that have those resources. Not a problem". It is not a problem until those with more money come in and buy the farms and products. So planning for self-sufficiency is needed on all levels.

Are there going to be real live unicorns in the city?! At least they don’t drink much water 😂

This would be like living in a theme park without being able to step outdoors, most of the year, due to the 125 degree heat.

I am almost ashamed that I even watched this. But everyone’s comments are refreshing! Good luck I really hope all the rich crazy people move there.

A Walmart executive talking about "putting people in the center" yeah...sure buddy

I think it would be a lot easier to start small sustainable communities or towns with 1-3,000 person populations. Building these 5 million population cities built on sustainability are unrealistic, but with 400 billion dollars you could easily have 100’s of successful towns built or revamped.

A follow-up video on one or more failed planned cities would be very interesting. I know there are a couple in California and Colorado, both placed in the middle of the desert.

They forgot one thing, WATER 😂😂😂

Sustainability is super important to us let's build our city in an extremely uninhabitable Landscape where just sustaining the existence of a single human costs massiv amounts of energy and non renewable resources...

Ah yes a billionaire educating us about equitism The irony

District 10, hunger games 😂

Historical cities were settled because of benefits of the land. Vienna is along one of the great European rivers. Florence is at the center of one of the best agricultural regions in the world. Singapore is in the middle of every trade route in the Asia Pacific. The cities grew naturally as their value increased over time. You cannot build a city in the desert with no natural resources and no strategic position.

0:39 "Your doodie is our duty"...that ad campaign is genius. Well played to them! Another planned Southwest desert city comes to mind when I see this project is Lake Havasu City in Arizona. Developer Robert P. McCulloch started by buying 3.3K acres in 1958 before buying over 13,000 more acres four years later and established Lake Havasu City in 1963 (and incorporated in 1978). The problem was, he couldn't get buyers interested because of its location far from population centers and the fact that it's in an arid climate. Then an idea came to mind...the City of London was putting the 1831 version of London Bridge up for sale. Robert's real estate agent convinced him to make the wild purchase of buying the bridge as a way to attract buyers as the city's main attraction. The bridge was transported through the Panama Canal in pieces, unloaded in Long Beach, and then moved to Lake Havasu City where it was re-assembled in 1967 and completed in 1971. The plan worked, as it's the second-largest tourist attraction in the state after the Grand Canyon, and over 57K people now live there.

Abandoned ghost town / construction site in the making. The region is already suffering from severe water shortage. Putting an entirely new settlement there is a brain fart of Muskian dimensions.

So you'd basically be applying to move to a community ran by a company or is it a governmental run city built by a company? Important part to know for a potential citizen I'd say.

For me the biggest downside is the lack of water, I would have a hard time living in a city without a river or lake being nearby. It also makes me a bit sceptical about all the greenery ambitions but if they manage to sort out the water issue on a sustainable way I really hope something like this will be realised.

I live in Yuma AZ and the soil in the Sonoran Desert is quite good BUT we're using water that comes from far away. A big advantage with desert farming for one is the year-round yields. The other is pest-free soil. That's great but the entire southwest is in an unsustainable situation. There are consequences to building these huge man-made lakes like Mead and Powell. Further development in the lower basin- Arizona, California and Nevada is a pipe dream. Fresh water should never be seen as infinite but the place to build these cities is the rust belt. Not the desert southwest.

A brilliant Adam Sonething video in the making

If it helps in greenification , reducing the carbon footprint, maybe reduce the rental crisis , and maybe even improve air quality. Go for it.

Why not build this in a state that actually needs a big city like this? One that's also easier to build a big city in.

I am worried about the lack of a railway, especially if there will be 5 million people in the future

Building a significant new city in the middle of a desert may seem exciting, but it has many dangers. These dangers become even more pronounced when the temperature climbs above summer temperatures. The intense heat radiating off the sand can cause severe sunburns and dehydration in those who venture outdoors without proper protective clothing. The combination of extreme heat and dry air is also known to cause severe respiratory illnesses in vulnerable populations such as seniors and children. What’s more, the extreme temperatures can make living conditions unbearable for many new city residents. It will become nearly impossible to remain cool inside buildings since air conditioning units are often inadequate when faced with such extreme weather conditions. As a result, many people here would likely have to resort to expensive alternatives to survive the summer months.

This is giving me “Demolition Man” vibes 😂

Good policy changes in literally any city or satellite suburban town can achieve many of these goals for far less money. Solid public transport, extra green zones, walkable urban areas, no car zones, water recycling with sustainable farming & renewable energy resources supplying the urban area. You're just missing all futuristic buildings, but you're removing the headache of moving millions of people hundreds of miles away from anywhere to live in a hot desert with no water. Amsterdam, Barcelona, Paris, Athens & many more are in different stages of already implementing this for far less than half a trillion dollars.

My 5 cents: Marc Lore needs to tap into the wisdom of human experience--why some cities have been more successful and why some others are failures. One way to approach this issue is to have a large (very large) pool of people brainstorming the problem trough a publicly accessible forum. The combined thoughts of thousands of interested people are more valuable than millions of dollars in consulting fees.

Labeling these projects as green and sustainable is just a fucking bad joke. Building these from scratch is an environmental catastrophe. Already existing city's and structures need to be reused and made sustainable.

In my opinion,you would have to create a magnificent place of tourism 1st to generate cash to fund such a big city. Create some type of monumental building or stadium that will attract people in awe. This place has to have the most beautiful views, or it' just not going to happen.

This is doomed to fail. Not only because of the track record of projects like this. Because of Marc Lore clueless statement "Worthless Land". Until Marc understands, there is no such thing as "Worthless Land" he will fail! Marc, I urge you to totally rethink what south-west is all about.

I know these planned cities have to start with imagination and CGI but usually they don't get much beyond that stage. When I see this city actually built, I will believe it.

imagine all that $400 billion being used to improve public transport and building more homes for the working class, but no, capitalists would rather waste it on nothing

About 40 years ago a confidence trickster sold London Bridge to a visiting American billionaire. At first people thought the workmen were just repairing the bridge, but by the time the city council became aware of what was happening, the bridge had gone and a few months later it was being rebuilt in the Arizona desert! Is it in the same place as this new city? It wouldn't make much sense to have a bridge in the middle of nowhere with no city and roads using it. I think there must be a canal pasing underneath it now instead of the River Thames.

As soon as you see futuristic "pods" as public transit you know the project is likely to be abandoned ;)

Considering the logistics of it, I think this would do way more harm to the environment than good. The resources are better spent building nuclear reactors and improving public transit.

Those pods are all you need to see to know that they designed the city around an architect never talked to an urban planner. American cities already have massive problems with how inefficient cars are. Trying to empty a stadium, skyscraper, university or airport using cars that carry 1-5 people at a time is inefficient, requires a lot of space for parking, requires massive roads and leads to non-stop congestion. That problem doesn't go away just because you're using "pods" that carry 1-6 people at a time. Grade separation and automation don't solve the problem that you're moving a lot of people in tiny packets. In cities of that scale, you need a train. Nothing else moves that many people efficiently. What is it with billionaires and their desire to build the most inefficient transport systems they can possibly think of? Moving 500,000 people around a city 1-6 people at a time is going to be a nightmare, much less a city of 5 million. Just build a damn train.

So many negative comments…..I think it’s an amazing concept. I’d love to know more and plan to keep up with the progress. As a retired contractor, new building ideas are interesting to me.

The fight for water rights are ALREADY in full effect in AZ. Currently, Residents in the unincorporated community of Rio Verde Foothills, just outside of Scottsdale, are suing Scottsdale to restore water delivery services, cut off due to extreme drought conditions in the Colorado River. It is well documented that ground water throughout the state is drying up, with towns like Strawberry, an hour north of Phoenix, in the pine forest, already refusing to grant new home hookups to the towns water supply. Here in AZ, water rights to the Colorado river were a central issue in the last election. Cool idea, but the notion that we are at the whims of few random billionaires is insane. We don't need projects based on ego. Imagine that money being pumped into already neglected infrastructure, water technology and education. That money would be transformational to an already existing city.

You can't build a city without an industry. Without a way to earn a living, nobody is going to move there. It doesn't matter what types of architectural grand vision the city has. Conversely, if there are ways to making really good livings, it doesn't matter how crappy the city is, people will move there.

This 'Equitism' idea reeks of WEF "stakeholder capitalism".

Why not use the $400B to develop sea water filtration & delivery systems for current drought areas?

Wtf is that gondola transit system? Such cost effective. Much sustainable. Economy of scale? Yes Fun to see the Uber rich going full mask of with their feudalism

When you go to Burning Man every year and you are a billionaire. Let´s build a city in the desert. I like the renders and some of the ideas though.

Fresh water is the real innovation that is lacking and will be the deal-breaker. So build it in Florida, design for high winds and to capture rain, both easier to achieve. Even so, Equitism sounds like a community-wide pyramid scheme. The B1M seems to be depending more and more on so-called developers' publicity packages. I subscribe to their channels for information, not PR.

With all this value, this project could be implemented in a city that already exists, such as Chicago mentioned in the video, which naturally has a large water reserve. 🤷‍♂️

The location is suspicious. I always get dystopian creepy vibes and think they're 15 minute cities surrounded by unforgiving landscape to prevent you from escaping.

Why the heck aren’t they building these future cities in the Midwest? Water, plenty of impoverished counties that would welcome them with open arms, and closer to major transportation hubs.

It's an interesting idea. But in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, water is ALREADY an over allocated resource. The Feds already had to intervene because the states were not able to reach agreement on how to equitably share the diminished amount that can sustainably be extracted. Getting one of more states to set aside a part of their already reduced allocation will be a MAJOR challenge.

The city will be built by ... who? Where will those people be housed? This either needs to be located next to a city or pay outrageous prices to attract people in the trades who are already in short supply and so able to make solid money elsewhere. The idea is interesting, and I'm curious how they propose making it actually happen. Another aspect I'm curious about is land ownership. Will the land around the immediate city be owned by Marc and his investors so that they can cash in as the city expands? If so, he's banking on people being willing to move to a city where they know that billionaires and banks have a choke collar on them. While I find the city's idea compelling and attractive, I wouldn't go without substantial clarity on the long term plan for ensuring the city isn't constrained by billionaires and banks (in unreasonable ways ... I would expect these folks to make a profit on their investment, but not such a large one that it endangers the sustainability of the city).

Why not consider this in one of the Gulf states(not including Florida) where its humid and gets lots of water from rain and rivers; also, if I"m not mistaken, Florida and Louisiana are in the top 3 states that get the most rain. I know Florida is pretty populated; but Louisiana( I'm from there so I am little bias lol) , Mississippi, and Alabama are low populated states with lots of land and forest. I wouldn't let the fear of hurricanes be an issue because of the northern parts of any of the Gulf States besides Florida because by the time hurricanes hit the lower part of those states they will slow down and become just a regular storm by the time it reaches northern part of the states; hurricanes gain strength from the ocean but slow down on land. It's already green and watered; Florida is an exception because it being a peninsula and its location any part of the state can get hit by a hurricane. If not worried Texas is the future; the west part of the state is already desert. Is there a particular reason that they're choosing a desert to build the city in? I try to live by the phrase work smarter not harder; wouldn't it be easier for a city to be built and function in a humid place with lots green grass and forest already, that gets lots of rain with access to lots of rivers, lakes?

If a billionaire is going to throw $400 billion at a "city of the future" project, why not do it in an existing blighted area? Pick a blighted post-industrial area of Detroit, Baltimore, Indianapolis or Los Angeles and invest the money there. Build the dense, affordable, sustainable, and walkable city with effective mass transit and all of the other stuff. Spoiler Alert: they already have water, people, and businesses ready to move in. Why take up more and more land when we have underutilized land in major cities already?

I like the idea of building an entirely new city that avoids the problems of the past, and experiments with a non-typical ownership structures etc. However it seems like the water problem is a pretty big one for this city, and also the presence of a monorail in the visualisation immediately rings alarm bells lol

Yeah this is never gonna actually happen lmao

What people need most is affordable housing. Instead of starting from scratch, invest in a place that needs more housing and make it affordable. A city grows and thrives when people aren't spending all their paycheck on rent.

if they build this city in the middle of the desert, where on earth am i suppose to go cook meth in my RV?

Don't think it will happen but at least there's some cool concepts other cities could apply.

We need to start paying attention to all the alarm bells ringing because things are getting really out of hand, people are facing the highest cost of living in nearly four decades. My question is where should we put our investment money now to better prepare for the future and a liquidity crisis? I have $102,000 to grow

As soon as I heard fossil fuel vehicles are banned, I knew it was going to fail miserably. All that cobalt needed to mine just for it to last only 5-10 years. Amazing.

LOL. if he really wanted to do this he could work with an existing municipality to carve out some sort of special exemption from all the typical regulations. I suspect no one would just cede control to a billionaire for vague promises.

Greatly appreciated. We need more of this everywhere, On the other hand there are many ways of manipulating the market. I am glad as a small investor that I am putting my hard earned savings into the most that being said the only transparent market there is day trading. I've made over 11BTC using Kaisar Coin method, his trading skills is exceptional.

A city that will never get finished or abandon

Building a city in the desert is never a good idea unless they somehow manage to terra form it, transform the land first into a huge forest with artificial lakes or rivers and mountains and the city would either be underground or enclosed in a dome in a deep trench or between cliffs. The city should be based on permaculture or solarpunk theme with a lot of nature integration that will provide shade.

It's like the 12-year-old me suddenly had billions of dollars in Cities: Skylines building the perfect city of my dreams then end up a total disaster lol

What annoys me is that we shouldn’t be relying on the charity of billionaires to build infrastructure. Should it not be governments taking the initiative of investing in levelling up infrastructure and crafting a more sustainable future?

Let the water wars begin

Sort of reminds me of Elysium. The super wealthy get to live in on the Halo ring, and everyone else gets to live on the polluted earth that was used to make and support Elysium.

How do they get around the weird U.S. zoning laws fors this and where are the people living there supposed to work or do they have to drive hours out of the desert to get to their work places?

The impulse to start with a clean sheet is pretty strong. Anyone who thinks about how to build a better machine, or house, or car etc. gets off to this kind of exercise. Currently, the way a city forms is organic and slow and much like an evolving creature, ends up looking a bit strange. Much like the economy, I'm not sure anyone really understands how a city works.

Citizens of freedom : "meh European 15 minutes city and walkable city is extremely government control and communium and CCP" Also Citizens of freedom : Build from scratch in desert, what can go wrong right

"Everyone has a stake in the city they can sell for money!" And what happens when they do that? Unless they're regularly given a new stake, this is temporary state of affairs, not a long term solution.

Obviously water is the major obstacle to building in the southwest. On the other hand, if you want a solar powered city, you pretty much have to build in the southwest. If they considered using nuclear they could remain carbon neutral and put the city somewhere closer to water. There are plenty of locations on the great lakes where you could build a city closer to where people already live with ocean access via the St. Lawrence River. Revitalization of Gary or Detroit makes more sense than a de novo city in northern AZ.

It's viability will pivot on sustainable, long-term access to good water

WEF exercise in Onanism. Lore is wrong to call desert land "useless." While I have no desire to live in a desert, I know as a biologist that they are ecologically rich with unique species of flora and fauna. Scraping out more than 150,000 acres to build what appears to be a futuristic prison camp is against the tenets of freedom and true environmentalism. How will they build it if fossil fuel vehicles are banned? You simply cannot build something at such an ambitious scale without using fossil fuels. Planes, trains, automobiles, and heavy equipment will be necessary to build it. EVs are having a far more negative humanitarian and ecological per-unit impact than internal combustion engines. Keep in mind that the Greta Thunbergs of the world are now calling for an end to massive wind turbines due to their catastrophic effects on birds. The AOCs of the world are calling for a revival of the nuclear energy sector. So, again, this is just a WEF pipe dream that will never come to fruition. These billionaires need to put their money to practical use fixing REAL problems, not on impractical utopian (or rather, dystopian) projects that stroke their egos and make them appear as though they give a damn about the world and those who live in it. Lastly, Equitism is another word for high-tech communism. The "innovative" concepts and political philosophy described in this video need to die and quick and painful death. They will NOT work, and neither will Telosa.

Instead of building this in the middle of a desert, he should build it in Mississippi or Alabama maybe. Land there is definitely cheap but still very hospitable, and the state could really use it as they are pretty backward states with struggling economies.

Beautiful concept! If this does come to fruition, it will be for the wealthy class. The poor will only have access because someone has to run the city infrastructure.

Equitism, just like the rest of this proposal, is just a new word slapped on an existing idea, in this case Bruce Katz New Localism concept. I've been watching this for a while and am still not convinced about how they'll get adequate water into the city. Finally, whichever way you cut it, it's gonna be expensive to live there, if it get's built, so how will they cater for the middle and low income earners?

Terraforming the desert will be expensive. Place a city where the struggle for water will always be a problem does not seem like the best place for a city of millions.

Interesting idea, although i just get angry when all these futuristic projects (specifically the renders) just try to reinvent public transport. Just use trams, busses, etc, these pod designs are inefficient and literally "slow moving" the alternative already shows it works a million times better than anything else. If you want another oppinion watch "Adam Something"s video on excatly this.