I read a different article on the same city, which discussed how the city planners want to project an image of being European. They have done this through tight laws and security measures, which have been a success but could also be the cities downfall if they are unable to populate it enough.

While the city would be great if it did actually happen (maybe), the likelihood of it actually materializing seems low. The article mentions how it is planned that there would be 400 species of plants, I would be curious to know if these are native or if there would be any chance of invasiveness?

This is yet another project that promotes sustainability while doing the exact opposite in reality. In the course of two paragraphs, they talk about how the city will have a major desalination plant, then go on to discuss how sustainability was central to the planning. How does this make sense??

There is no mention of what happened to the rhino sanctuary or why it closed down. I imagine they chose the location for good reason, but it seems as though it would be controversial to use a space that was previously a sanctuary. I wonder if there was any public opinion debating this choice?

While I'm sure this type of imagination has always been around, I feel like the current political climate is making it possible for the plans to come to light and gain more support. They have an underlying (but sometimes very obvious) racist tone that would maybe be more accepted now.

One of the central features of the city is the mosque, designed to be net-zero energy and the world's first of its kind. The design incorporates traditional materials and design to create a naturally cooling building. It is meant to be a beacon for the possibility of progress in sustainability.

In the city, symbolic eagles are very present. Eagles symbolize power and freedom and are used by many states today (US) and in the past (Nazi Germany) to foster nationalism among their people. Indonesia is looking to demonstrate these attributes by using the eagle as the symbol of the new city.

The city is very centered around tech, like many new cities these days are. One question that always come to mind for these cities is how they plan to ensure nothing stops working. In these smart cities, it seems that if one thing were to stop working, it would affect the function of everything.

The article argues that in comparison with other Saudi projects, like The Line, KAEC isn't as impressive, which is its downfall. I disagree that this is a negative thing, because it makes the completion of the project slightly more attainable and realistic in comparison with the other flashy plans.

The cities also seem focused on seeming European, one employee even saying they want to have a small Europe. Additionally, a lot of investment comes from foreign states like New Zealand, the United States, Norway, and the United Kingdom. All this together projects an image of being "world class".

The article also mentions that the project will not need any land reclamation or have any negative impact on the coral reefs. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to built an entire city on the ocean without impacting the habitat of marine wildlife.

This is yet another new city project that is centered around tech, including drones and self-driving cars. Planned around the GO train, it's heavily centered around transit. It is a concept that differs from any other canadian city, it would be good to see what the public opinion is on the plan.

**Update: different sources say different things about the size that the city will be. 2500 square kilometers is probably an overstatement though.

The city is meant to align with the environmental sustainability goals of the country. Construction of this size will no doubt have major effects on the enironment and disturb natural hanitats so I wonder how they are planning to mitigate or minimize these externalities as much as possible.

The revised date of completion is 2045, but I am sceptical that the technology that is crucial to the functioning of the city will be at the standard that they need to. Planning to have no cars or roads would require extensive and well-functioning tech that may not be ready in 20 years from now.

I would be curious about what their plans are for transportation as they aren't mentioned much in the article. With a city of 5 million, and a "people-first" narrative, both public and private transit planning would be crucial to smooth running of the city.

It is unusual now to see company towns in the US, so I would be interested about the legislation and legal hoops that would have to be jumped through to get this built. What are the laws on your employer also being the government, which is what is being proposed.

The computer generated image of the city looks very small and contained. It also seems to look nothing like they describe in the article, which mentions streetcars and places of worship. The image looks like it was made to look attractive but not reflect what the city will actually look like.