-urban projects. It’s framed as a new standard for planning in the region, with major residential, commercial, and lifestyle components all designed from scratch. The scale and recognition are impressive, but I’m curious how this master-planned approach translates into everyday experience.

-political narrative is so tied to the project.

-“Democracy City,” and the project is tied closely to the current government’s vision. Renewable infrastructure is one thing; building a place where people actually live, work, and build routines is another. I’m curious to see how this translates into everyday life, especially as the -

-from sea-level rise. But with prices starting around $250K USD, I can’t help wondering who this is really for. If locals can’t afford it, does it still function as a climate solution, or does it become more of a high-end experiment near a vulnerable area?

Love the “vibes” strategy 😂 but vibes alone don’t build an economy. Will there be pathways for local youth to enter tech and actually benefit? Otherwise, it risks feeling like a lifestyle ad more than a development plan.

Love the vision of a walkable, car-free environment, but it’s hard not to question how it aligns with reclaiming land and impacting coastal ecosystems. I’d be really interested to see if they can actually reconcile those goals, or if the “eco-city” idea stays mostly symbolic.

-who benefits here, and what’s the environmental trade-off for a lake that’s already so ecologically fragile?

The price tag and scale feel almost surreal given Kyrgyzstan’s economic reality. The design imagery is striking, but without clear financing and a track record of large-scale development, it risks staying aspirational. And building right next to Issyk-Kul also raises the question: -

or if it ends up feeling like an extension of Beijing instead of its own place.

The transit connection to Beijing sounds super convenient, but I’m wondering how that impacts Tongzhou’s identity. If most daily life still revolves around the main city, does Tongzhou get the chance to really stand on its own? I’m curious to see whether it grows into a real lived-in community-

- around it. It’s always interesting watching whether these mega-projects can turn into places people genuinely want to be, not just places that look good on paper.

I wrote about Bradfield too 🤭 One thing I keep wondering is how long it takes for these “future cities” to actually feel lived-in. It’s one thing to build the infrastructure and big vision, but another to get that everyday urban life (cafés, small businesses, community spaces, culture) to grow-

So fascinating! This really contrasts with new cities that are trying to attract global capital first and residents second. Yachay went academic first, but maybe without the ecosystem and steady funding, it couldn’t take off.

It’s fascinating how the skyscraper becomes the story instead of the city itself. It almost feels like the city is being built around a symbol rather than around people. Hopefully once the landmark attention passes, there’s a focus on livability and not just the “world’s tallest” title.

-benefit to whether major foreign involvement could limit Sri Lanka’s control over the space. It looks impressive, but I still wonder how it will feel for the people who live and work there in the long run.

-purely residential or industrial. Which raises the question: when a city is built around leisure and spectacle, what does everyday life in it look like? It’s such a different model from the usual “smart” or economic new cities.

-Abu Dhabi Developmental Holding Company (ADQ). What I find fascinating is when a city is designed from top-down as a tourism-investment spot, how does that affect residents and local culture? Will it feel like home, or feel like a showcase?

-growing middle class. But the risk? Property still costs $45,500 for a one-bed unit, which is out of reach for many. I’m curious if Tatu will really become a model of inclusive urbanization, or if it ends up serving only a small portion of the people.