Well, this article is an example of poor journalism.
- It makes the area to be developed sound huge, when it’s <1.5 square miles.
- It makes it sound like it’s been a secret, when it’s been in the news for months.
- He’s planning on building such communities around the globe, with 4 currently in the works… but the article is totally focused on one <1.5 sq miles because the campaigning lady doesn’t want it around her place.
- Doing the math, this “high population density” area as an density of about ~3,000 ppl/sq mi. This is equivalent to a standard suburbia neighborhood.
- Lot of really unwarranted, unnecessary, and over-the-top-dramatic language. Example “tycoon”, “mega-utopia”, etc. A more accurate title would be "developer wishes to develop <1.5 sq mi sustainable high tech community in Vermont and local residents declare “not in my backyard!” ".
I read the article and don’t completely agree with you.
First off, I actually love his design!
- Gardens, park space, walking trails on the interior so everyone has natural views.
- Businesses on lower levels, living spaces above.
- Interior passages connecting the entire perimeter.
There are some excellent concepts here for sustainable living – not only sustainable for the earth, but sustainable for the heart.
But like so many utopians, I think he’s taken his initial ideas WAY too far.
- “Families and individuals who wish to join must invest their net worth…”
- “Those who start Vista Bizzes will be given startup funds by the community but must surrender their IP rights…[and] agree to put nearly all their profits back into the community in exchange for what Hall calls ‘dividends’.”
- “Roomba-sized robots that rearrange furniture for different needs and times of day”
- “Medic is developing a water-efficient toilet that also measures blood pressure, weight, and overall health by using sensors and sampling what passes through it.”
If he’d just stick with an excellent design and allow people to create their own communities and way of life, he might not be perceived as a cult leader instead of a problem-solver.
He goes into a rural area that is sparsely populated, and he says, “I’m gonna build a community for 20,000 people here,” and he wonders why people are upset? Seriously?
He seems clueless and completely callous to the people who already live there, people who chose the area because it was rural. My first home was a 600 sq ft cabin on several acres. If he’d showed up with engineers and blueprints in our community, we would’ve had the same reaction!
Maybe he should buy up land on the edge of suburbia instead and show how it’s more desirable than our current living situations.
I also found it interesting that the folks in Provo, UT are fighting back as well. Again, his design is intriguing and has such promise. But his extraneous ideas make the whole thing feel cult-like. He’s vying for too much control over how people actually use his design.
Well, that’s my two cents anyway.
But no worries, my friend, this is just a nutty variety of “alternative living,” kind of vaguely along the lines of sixties communes, in a way. That’s maybe a poor analogy, but regardless, I am definitely in no danger of converting to Mormonism! You might find the article eye-opening, if you feel like chancing it. As lax16 said, the robotics part captures the imagination.