Egypt unveils plans to build new capital east of Cairo | Hacker News Reader

Egypt unveils plans to build new capital east of Cairo

bbc.com

Well, this is why Burma did the exact same thing (anybody who casts their memories back a few years might see how this relates to Egypt):

>Naypyitaw, then, is the ultimate insurance against regime change, a masterpiece of urban planning designed to defeat any putative ‘colour revolution’ – not by tanks and water cannons, but by geometry and cartography. 320 kilometres to the south, Rangoon, with five million people, is home to one-tenth the country’s population. But even if that city were brought to a standstill by public protests and demonstrations, Burma’s military government – situated happily in the middle of paddy fields in the middle of nowhere – would remain unaffected.

>Of all the possible reasons why the junta chose to relocate their capital to this isolated, dusty place, this is perhaps the most plausible. And judging by the pace and scale of construction underway here, the transfer of capital is intended to be as final and irrevocable as the grip on political power of the Tatmadaw, the Burmese military.

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.sg/2007/02/dictatorship-by-cart...

More bad news:

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/05/how-geography-influe...

Louis XIV moved the palace from Paris to Versailles for the very same reason.

And that just worked out brilliantly, and the Ancien Régime ruled peacefully for the next hundred years.

Oh wait...

107 years, the court moved there in 1682, and the revolution only happened in 1789.

I think it's for the same reason why the US hasn't seen a revolution in a very long time, despite the obvious corruption in Washington. Most people are too far away from Washington.

Have you been to the mid-Atlantic region recently.

While skepticism is healthy, I'm not sure this is a fair comparison.

> Mr Alabbar told the BBC, saying that the new development would sit on the edge of the existing city.

They're talking about building something on the edge of the current capital. It's not like they're relocating to the middle of nowhere - the distance sounds more like Dallas/Ft. Worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann rebuilt Paris. That was partly for artistic reasons, but the wide boulevards had the nice benefit of being riot-safe.

Looking at a map of Kairo, this may be a similar approach, just that they build it next to the city (since they expect massive expansion in any case) instead of remodelling existing parts: whatever they will build will be more structured, and thus easier to lock down than the maze of the current city.

If a government wanted to relocate during unrest, couldn't they simply retreat to a loyalist military base? Would be cheaper than building another city.

Very bad optics. Surviving revolutions requires a show of strengths, and retreating to a military base is very much a sign of weakness.

Also as in Brazil case, the government consider that the biggest threat is the military itself (to the point it created recently another quasi-military organization completely separated from the military, it left the main military bases VERY FAR from the capital, and built those new "quasi-military" bases near the capital).

But what stops the quasi-military from staging a coup? The military?

In Egypt case, the new capital looks to be too close to Cairo to give this sort of protection.

Brazil changed the capital for that purpose too, and made it masterfully:

Brazil had two previous capitals, the first is in Salvador, the capital was there for foreign military reasons: The city is a natural fortress, to attack Salvador by sea you need to navigate inside a bay that has cannons on both sides of the entrance, and the coast is VERY high (Salvador major landmark is a elevator, that take people from the coast to the city proper... obviously a invader army cannot use said elevator, it was deliberately designed to not support an army).

Later it was moved to Rio de Janeiro, because Rio de Janeiro was the new focus of economic activity, mostly for agricultural reasons (Brazil southeast is much more fertile than northeast, also in southeast countryside you could mine gold).

Currently, São Paulo-Rio Megalopolis has 40 million people (out of 200 million on the whole country), crammed in 0.5% of the country territory.

And precisely to avoid this, the capital now is Brasília, Brasília is in the middle of nowhere, to get there by road you cross hundreds and hundreds of kilometers of roads bordered by forests, tiny villages and farms, the only actual "reasonable" way to get in or out of Brasília is by plane, in fact when Brasília was first built, all construction materials that could not be gathered on-site had to be shipped by plane.

And the city itself was designed in a way that the population cannot take over, the government buildings are wide apart, there are lots of sniper spots on said buildings (ie: defenders can snipe attackers easily), and it also allows tanks to roll around as necessary.

We have unrest here in Brazil, tomorrow, I expect many thousands to take the streets to try to topple the government (most of the protesters want impeachment, but many want outright army coup, even civil war is necessary), but all of those people will be in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro...

The government will be sitting safely in the capital, the president even called all ministers to the capital to wait, and the federal government has a separate defense militia (we have federal police, armed forces, and the "National Guard", the "National Guard" does not obey the defense minister, neither the police hieararchy, and is directly under the president, also the "National Guard" people can easily rally and wait in the capital, their numbers are only enough to defende the capital, many of their members are government supporters, and the army suspect that the National Guard was created precisely to counter the army itself.

Regarding Brazil... but on the other hand, Niemeyer's Brasilia ended up being a place completely pedestrian-unfriendly, full of red dust, and generally speaking, not a desirable place to live. Sure, lots of federal employees live there, and take those jobs because they pay well and offer incredible security, but the wealthy who work in Brasilia typically reside in SP or Rio and just fly in to Brasilia Mon-Thurs or similar... including the politicians. They may have succeeded in designing a city that was strategically defensible, but if everyone who matters is mostly in Rio or SP anyway, ....

But isn't that the point?

Make the city unfriendly to masses of pedestrians rushing on your palace to topple you?

Then the dictator is missing the point.

A successful dictator is someone who can manipulate the masses of pedestrians to rush on the palace... to cheer the leader (and to stomp on whatever political enemy the dictator has). A dictator who has to hide from the people is a poor dictator, and the life expectancy of such a regime tend to be short.

Surely if there was a revolution, the other parts of the territory could simply ignore Brasília?

Yeah, this is the part of the argument I don't understand... why do you need to control the government buildings? Just declare new ones. It's the guns that you need to control to own a country.

Well, if the guns are controlled in the capital, how you control them yourself?

Many revolutions that worked, worked because the people in the capital physically wrested control, power is a funny thing, many people that have real power (example: the army soldiers, that actually have the guns with them), prefer the status quo unless it is very clear something changed (example, the soldiers might obey some rebels if the rebels kill and replace part of the chain of command).

But it works the other way, too. The soldiers might obey the current regime more faithfully (or at least more fearfully) if the government sits right behind their back and order them to murder people or be murdered themselves.

In any case, I seriously doubt any armed revolution would happen in Brazil anytime soon. It seems the nation has held popular presidential elections continuously since 1989. You can't persuade people to die on the street, when they can just wait four years and vote the man (or woman) out.

You need to arrest the old government and hold control of government buildings, because this will sway bureaucracy (both civil, police and army) on your side.

If you are interested in details, you should read "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook" by Edward Luttwak.

The most important institution to control in any coup is the media. I would be surprised if Brazil's big TV stations were all based in Brasilia.

In any event, I really hope (and believe) that Brazil is not on the brink of a coup or civil war. It would be insane to throw away the progress that has been made in recent decades. There should be a way to sort out the Petrobras corruption scandal without resorting to violence.

Australia's purpose-built capital city isn't militaristic in origin at all - basically when the country was federating, Melbourne and Sydney, as the largest cities, didn't want the other to be the capital and get more political power as a result. So the capital was built sort-of-maybe halfway between.

Washington was similar... though rather than cities it was regions that struck the power balance. The previous capitals (New York and Philadelphia) were too far in the northern region.

The idea that Brasília was designed to stop a popular revolution is a myth, just that. I lived there for close to a decade, and my mother was working in the government during its construction. At one point I tried to find any reference to this somewhat popular idea (amongst leftists, mostly), and I couldn't find anything. I talked to people involved in the architectural planning, and everyone pretty much laughed at the idea. Just because a place has good sniper spots doesn't mean it was the builders' objective. Also, many want impeachment, but many also are protesting against corruption and not impeachment, at least not yet. The people who want a military coup is a minority.

Also, the

Top Gear Burma special:

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uwTnP8ioiU

Empty 20 lane highway in the [Burma] nation's brand new capital.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-r..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_(series_21)

@downvoters: what's wrong? watch the video it's rather on-topic and interesting!

Man I wonder why automotive tourism isnt more popular. I'd love to rent a sportscar and go driving through that city

Another historical example is Ravenna! The capital of Western Roman Empire in Milan was not secure from barbarians, so they moved it to Ravenna, a little city hidden among the swamps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenna#Ancient_era

I visited Egypt eight years ago, and the the thing that struck me about modern Egyptian construction is that there was rebar sticking out of the top of everything. From adobe shacks on the edges of fields to the five-star hotels, everything looked like it had been built with the expectation of adding one more floor on later.

Our tour guide told us that this was for tax reasons -- "unfinished" structures are taxed at a lower rate. A brief search online finds more evidence for this explanation (https://vagabondvirginia.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/foto-fact-...). If that really is the reason, I can't imagine why the government doesn't shut down the loophole that is both being exploited so blatantly and also uglifying the modern construction in the country. Here's to hoping that they fix the regulatory issue before the practice is applied in their new capitol!

Our tour guide (roughly 8 years ago as well) told us it was because these homes are generational - as sons get married they keep building them up - adding new levels for the new family. So they're always a work in progress.

I didn't know some countries could still play Sim City. A tunisian friend was talking to me about the same thing. A new coastal city, big investments coming in, we make this city a center for investments, arts, technology, finance. Well... Good luck. It's more likely to end up empty, like a big mall or expensive appartments no one can afford.

You'd expect China or the booming Gulf States to do something like this. Irrational exuberance.

They do: http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2...

I apologize for being critical, but that piece is extremely ignorant of what China is actually aiming to do.

Were the city builds part of economic stimulus? Yes, of course.

However China also has a goal to move 250-350 mm citizens into urban living by 2025.

Here's a 2009 report on the subject:

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/preparing_for_...

Without being rude, my link is substantially more weighty / less noisy than yours.

There are definitely plans to move a lot of government functions out of Beijing into nearby Hebei cities. But the problem is that Beijing is becoming too congested and polluted (the surrounding cities in Hebei are just as bad, so I'm not sure if this will actually work).

> I didn't know some countries could still play Sim City.

I wish more countries would - at least cities wouldn't be "designed" by bunch of developers fighting against each other for cash, building tons of useless buildings, destroying parks and public spaces. Cities I know could use some order and effective design.

I was a bit resentful of the ideas behind urban design and architecture, then two weeks ago I found this on imgur (http://imgur.com/gallery/4FuyX/comment/373343373):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYE3w5TWHs (skip to the second half)

It seems a creative, yet more balanced environmentally and humanly, way to conceive buildings (and in the large, cities).

Sometimes big is all needs to be. People will come for novelty. It may suck energy from surrounding places, drying them, becoming the new center.

Sounds like a great way for corrupt officials to make huge money on kickbacks.

This is precisely the reason many of these huge projects are built. The Gulf countries have been and are still doing them (KAUST, KAEC, KAFD, huge mosque expansions, etc.) with a huge number of contracts going to Saudi Oger or the Binladin group. These contracts are rarely even negotiated properly.

The difference here is that Egypt can hardly afford this so they have to blag the money off of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

South Korea has been trying to have a go at this (following patterns in the France, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, etc.) and establish Sejong City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_City

However, the high court ruled that it was illegal to move the capital from Seoul to Sejong, so most of the government offices will move anyways, but the capital and some key ministries will stay in Seoul. In effect, South Korea now has two capitals.

You can use Google translate to read Egypt Today's "New Administrative Capital in the NUmbers" piece, as well as see design pictures for those interest.

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/679047

I believe it has English pages. I still stick to pre-revolution oppo media, so Egypt Today (Almasry Alyoum) and the Constituion (Ad-dostour) "original", not the new one that was bought out and sold out.

I hope the Egyptian HN crew can provide better reactions and info, as I am out of Cairo foo for some time since I have not been there in years.

The official homepage is here http://thecapitalcairo.com/index.html

Almasry Alyoum and al dostour aren't as good as they used to be, they run the same crap the others do.

The new kid on the block is mada masr http://www.madamasr.com/, much more credible than the old opposition media these days.

The key is following the writers, the outlets are easier to change than people.

I'll check out Mada. I did not mention them, but I have heard of them. I did not mention them originally as I am like 50-50 sure some old friends in Cairo write for them, so I would not throw that one out without actually checking the quality first.

So, I am not such a great friend. I also knew people who wrote for Cairo 360, which is not such a great news source, but a culture site. I find it too expat focused, and that for Cairo media is always garbage.

Also on the BBC (and linked at the bottom of the article): Eight countries that have moved their capital cities: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-31877909

$45 billion for a city of 18 million?

Assuming 5 people per house that's $12 thousand per house.

Even in Egypt I doubt building are so cheap.

Cairo has a population of 18 million, this new city will be designed to house 5 million.

Is there an example of a successful government-planned city anywhere? Best I can think of is Canberra.

Washington DC would be the obvious example, but it's organic growth is more of the reason for its success as opposed to governmental action.

Milton Keynes in the UK

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuja

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamabad

I think it is more common than you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community

Are these successful though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com