Why build it ? It's far easier to lobby the current nation states to get what they need. They just have to keep enough of the public funded government policies and infrastructures they need to continue to strive.

> Why build it ? It's far easier to lobby the current nation states to get what they need.

You are truly an optimist. Google can't even get Mountain View to allow them to put up a few skyscrapers.

"Google’s plans to build housing on its Mountain View campus in Silicon Valley are being resisted on the ground that residents might keep pets, which could harm the local owl population." (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use...)

This was such a ludicrous decision. I've heard through the grapevine, though, that the council were concerned that if Google build residential housing in North Bayshore (or really anywhere in Mountain View) that they would end up being a large voting block that would control the entirety of local politics. If this was the justification, which I could certainly believe, they should have just said so... not give Intuit the building rights with no additional comment period. Intuit's plan, of course, only includes commercial development, which will make local traffic even worse. But hey, it doesn't cost the city of MOuntain View anything since most of the affected roads are state highways, and the town will collect millions in property taxes.

I have never seen an owl in SV. Nor have I ever met a person who has seen an owl. To me, that either indicates the population is in far worse straits than I imagine or this issue is entirely made up (porque no los dos? Because the land proposed for development is already pretty developed -- not remotely "pristine wilderness", I don't really see much happening to drive out what's not there.

Seems like google could just move anywhere they wanted or threaten to and the city would have to comply.

Google already has moved: they have offices around the globe, Sydney, Singapore, New York, London, etc. They still rely on Mountain View as their main campus.

Yep. Every time the new thing comes along (megacorp 'cities'), it breaks the old assumptions about how/why things are done ('build'). Why own a car when you can Uber everywhere? Etc.

Why build your own city if you can just settle in an existing city and rebuild it in your own image?

This is pretty much what Facebook has been accused of.

You can't build a city, you'll end with something not entirely livable and very boring.

USSR did this with cities like Tolyatti and Magnitogorsk. You can convince Soviet serfs to live in one but not to-be employees of megacorps.

This sounded plausible until you came to "megacorps". They are not very much different from the Soviet state

Brasilia did better

Everyone who has to live in it hates Brasilia. You can force people to live there because it's a powerful capital city, but it's still awful.

Are you sure? I've mostly heard complaints about it.

A national capital is an exception, not the rule.

Of all places its one has smallest chances to move or go into crisis.

sure but it certainly did move there. So it's not like it's 0% chances long term.