Musings, or incoherent ramblings - the judgment is yours. This may be written in a slightly different style too, as a result.
NOTE: before you read this, you know I am critical about things, this does not mean I did not like it. I think that should be clear to those that actually know me, but I know it has often been misunderstood. :-) Not everyone appreciates a nuanced position! I tried to put the photo album posts in fairly plainly and without too much judged comment. Not sure I succeeded.
Naming it the "Beacons Of Democracy"[1] was a joke, clearly, but it is interesting that the two cities bookending my visit to Malaysia/Indonesia are major cities with a globalised outlook that seem to be more "developed"[2] than their neighbours in many ways.
I think there are some real questions as to why that is but that is not what I get/got asked upon my holiday being over. When I'm asked how was your holiday and what did you think of , the second one feels like a loaded[3] question - and it is only right to answer in a loaded manner.
What is Dubai famous for?
There is plenty of history and heritage in the Middle East and a lot of booming economies but that is not what is seen as special by those in power. A lack of a proper, democratic planning process (though, ironically, these places have well thought out plans - just not thought through properly) means destruction of cultures and communities for a homogenised "modernity". There are social reasons for this (aren't there always? ;-)).
There is a definite feeling of "we built this". They are much more statements of intent than anything else - and they show up the insecurity that some newer cities (understandably) can have. I think that is why the Burj Khalifa is so much larger than its competitors, it cannot be overtaken easily. I can understand it though - what else do you know about Dubai? It does make a name for it. Would anyone come to London for the Shard[4]? Will it have international named recall? If I remember correctly, it is the tallest in Europe, or was at least. It in no way defines anyone's London, whereas I think the Gherkin actually does to some degree. We are a little spoilt to have built up a city and a legacy over many centuries.
The Burj Khalifa is a little silly though. I think, at 829.8m, it is about 200m taller than the next but the observation deck is only a little more than about halfway up at 450m (which is 50% taller than the Shard in totality). It is great to be high up and looking down but then a part of me thinks - only if there is something to look down on[5]. Dubai has a coast of course (not that I really saw it in my day and a half this time) but I did not go up there so cannot comment on the view.
Dubai, and Singapore, are the classic "new" vertical cities and work well as stopovers in my opinion as they are generally compact. They are not really anarchic enough to be interesting as holidays for me. I know that is quite a personal preference though. KL was a little like that too - and aiming to be more like that and the Petronas Towers were apparently a pointer in that direction.
When I went to Shanghai the second time (2007), I was struck by the skyline - it was awesome in the literal sense - in the style of shock and awe. And the comparison to military seemed appropriate, it really reminded me of those Russian military parades through Moscow.
NOTE: before you read this, you know I am critical about things, this does not mean I did not like it. I think that should be clear to those that actually know me, but I know it has often been misunderstood. :-) Not everyone appreciates a nuanced position! I tried to put the photo album posts in fairly plainly and without too much judged comment. Not sure I succeeded.
I think there are some real questions as to why that is but that is not what I get/got asked upon my holiday being over. When I'm asked how was your holiday and what did you think of
There is plenty of history and heritage in the Middle East and a lot of booming economies but that is not what is seen as special by those in power. A lack of a proper, democratic planning process (though, ironically, these places have well thought out plans - just not thought through properly) means destruction of cultures and communities for a homogenised "modernity". There are social reasons for this (aren't there always? ;-)).
The Burj Khalifa is a little silly though. I think, at 829.8m, it is about 200m taller than the next but the observation deck is only a little more than about halfway up at 450m (which is 50% taller than the Shard in totality). It is great to be high up and looking down but then a part of me thinks - only if there is something to look down on[5]. Dubai has a coast of course (not that I really saw it in my day and a half this time) but I did not go up there so cannot comment on the view.
When I went to Shanghai the second time (2007), I was struck by the skyline - it was awesome in the literal sense - in the style of shock and awe. And the comparison to military seemed appropriate, it really reminded me of those Russian military parades through Moscow.
Look upon our wonders and despair.
Someone asked me what I thought of Singapore and I said it reminded me of a charmless Hong Kong (and I found HK "island" to be relatively charmless at the time - it isn't really but that may be partly due to Sleeping Dogs). It sounds harsh - especially as I enjoyed my time in Singapore a lot, but there was a brashness to it that also came through. As cities built around commerce, and quite specifically ex-pat commerce, they do suffer a little from being international and a little benign. There is plenty of interest in Singapore, and those that live there seem to genuinely love it, so this may be a personal position.
The fundamental difference between the two cities (in my experience) there is a feeling of evolution there rather than big-bang. Singapore has that a little too, but nowhere near. But "new" cities do have their charms too - I think you would be able to still enjoy them but for a shorter period. You know, cathedrals to commerce and consumerism rather than religion. Both help the weak in their own way.
It may just be that I don't feel an emotional connection but they are not interesting in the same way as major European cities are. I think a large part of that for me is how walkable a place is. Dubai is not walkable (outdoors) at all and clearly revolves around car usage. I'm just not really a fan of car travel (as you may know) and it always makes me feel really insulated from the surroundings. I took the Dubai metro to the airport from my cousin's when I left and it seems in that journey (45mins), I had apparently used the metro more than all of the three couples/young families I knew in Dubai, combined. Singapore is a little better in this respect as the city is far more integrated with the infrastructure.
I have done a a little travel around Europe and, for some reason, think of a trip to the industrial city of Milan. Nobody calls it a beautiful city (although nearby Como is pretty lovely...), but I think that it kind of serves its purpose after all and it is still more charming than some megacities that are built recently. Thinking of Milan, for instance, the fact that the metro system reminded me of a grey prison train was part of the trip for me. And the fact it felt lived in, the cracks in the city were not cracks in a façade, but just ageing. There wasn't really a "behind the curtain" to it and I sometimes feel there is with other places. In Shanghai (in 2004 and 2007), the city felt very different when you strayed even marginally off the beaten path (by which I mean main roads).
Some of this is time and evolution of course, Europe's cities were also not exactly open before and would have been remarkably ostentatious in the past. I do think we have become more enlightened as to the purpose of cities (people!) but I do not think it is coincidence that the countries I visited were not exactly hotbeds of democracy. I guess fast developing countries rarely use democratic means to get there. I also do not think that it is just a coincidence that they were within the British Empire and have strong UK influences, historically.
It is totally true that the terrible conditions that workers are put through in Dubai et al have parallels with the historical growth of European cities. And some of the supposedly ludicrous things in Dubai also have parallels in our great European cities. Is an air-conditioned beach really worse than heated swimming pools? Is the Victoria Embankment a blight on the natural ecology of the Thames? How many died to bring sewage control or underground railways to London? How many displaced for the national rail network? That was the money men lording it over the little people too. Camden is essentially a town that housed workers and navvies whilst all this stuff was built.
The difference is timing - as this happened before in our case - and society is happy to compare when it suits.
There is one other difference too, and a major one - experience. The modern cities are not trailblazing in the way London (or Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam etc.) were, they are following and essentially making some incremental improvements. That means that they are also aware of the negative parts of expansion. Post-enlightenment, I don't think you can say "they did it too centuries ago". It is wilfully irresponsible now.
Dubai, like Las Vegas, is an irresponsible cityscape with few thoughts about sustainability - which is a shame as it could be so much more. And the problem with the infrastructure is that it is entirely dependent on "oil" or energy use. In Dubai's case that infrastructure is predicated on car use. I think a huge problem is that the kind of place it is, and the type of people it attracts, is that they do not believe that taxation is a thing. I believe that the natural way of things is a tax on things to pay for the problems that they cause. That means that, essentially, things that are untaxed are being subsidised. As it is, we do subsidise Dubai as they do not allow people to stay there - so when it comes to the point when they are no longer "economically active", they are booted back to their homes and must be supported (eg pensions, care infrastructure) by us. I think that is essentially what I have difficulty with (and there are parallels in history for similar things with the industrial revolution but that was with something other than human capital).
1. I called it this in jest as some people think of my trip to be a little incongruous with my character.↩
2. What developed means is open to debate of course.↩
3. This is possibly paranoia, but I know some people do like to set me off and watch me go.↩
4. I have been told that it is a new hotel, for the Olympics - and I doubt many longer term Londoners even know it has a hotel in there, not sure it was designed for that at all.↩
5. I'd fully imagine this to change over time of course - it is already impressive of course.↩
The fundamental difference between the two cities (in my experience) there is a feeling of evolution there rather than big-bang. Singapore has that a little too, but nowhere near. But "new" cities do have their charms too - I think you would be able to still enjoy them but for a shorter period. You know, cathedrals to commerce and consumerism rather than religion. Both help the weak in their own way.
It may just be that I don't feel an emotional connection but they are not interesting in the same way as major European cities are. I think a large part of that for me is how walkable a place is. Dubai is not walkable (outdoors) at all and clearly revolves around car usage. I'm just not really a fan of car travel (as you may know) and it always makes me feel really insulated from the surroundings. I took the Dubai metro to the airport from my cousin's when I left and it seems in that journey (45mins), I had apparently used the metro more than all of the three couples/young families I knew in Dubai, combined. Singapore is a little better in this respect as the city is far more integrated with the infrastructure.
I have done a a little travel around Europe and, for some reason, think of a trip to the industrial city of Milan. Nobody calls it a beautiful city (although nearby Como is pretty lovely...), but I think that it kind of serves its purpose after all and it is still more charming than some megacities that are built recently. Thinking of Milan, for instance, the fact that the metro system reminded me of a grey prison train was part of the trip for me. And the fact it felt lived in, the cracks in the city were not cracks in a façade, but just ageing. There wasn't really a "behind the curtain" to it and I sometimes feel there is with other places. In Shanghai (in 2004 and 2007), the city felt very different when you strayed even marginally off the beaten path (by which I mean main roads).
Some of this is time and evolution of course, Europe's cities were also not exactly open before and would have been remarkably ostentatious in the past. I do think we have become more enlightened as to the purpose of cities (people!) but I do not think it is coincidence that the countries I visited were not exactly hotbeds of democracy. I guess fast developing countries rarely use democratic means to get there. I also do not think that it is just a coincidence that they were within the British Empire and have strong UK influences, historically.
It is totally true that the terrible conditions that workers are put through in Dubai et al have parallels with the historical growth of European cities. And some of the supposedly ludicrous things in Dubai also have parallels in our great European cities. Is an air-conditioned beach really worse than heated swimming pools? Is the Victoria Embankment a blight on the natural ecology of the Thames? How many died to bring sewage control or underground railways to London? How many displaced for the national rail network? That was the money men lording it over the little people too. Camden is essentially a town that housed workers and navvies whilst all this stuff was built.
The difference is timing - as this happened before in our case - and society is happy to compare when it suits.
There is one other difference too, and a major one - experience. The modern cities are not trailblazing in the way London (or Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam etc.) were, they are following and essentially making some incremental improvements. That means that they are also aware of the negative parts of expansion. Post-enlightenment, I don't think you can say "they did it too centuries ago". It is wilfully irresponsible now.
Dubai, like Las Vegas, is an irresponsible cityscape with few thoughts about sustainability - which is a shame as it could be so much more. And the problem with the infrastructure is that it is entirely dependent on "oil" or energy use. In Dubai's case that infrastructure is predicated on car use. I think a huge problem is that the kind of place it is, and the type of people it attracts, is that they do not believe that taxation is a thing. I believe that the natural way of things is a tax on things to pay for the problems that they cause. That means that, essentially, things that are untaxed are being subsidised. As it is, we do subsidise Dubai as they do not allow people to stay there - so when it comes to the point when they are no longer "economically active", they are booted back to their homes and must be supported (eg pensions, care infrastructure) by us. I think that is essentially what I have difficulty with (and there are parallels in history for similar things with the industrial revolution but that was with something other than human capital).
1. I called it this in jest as some people think of my trip to be a little incongruous with my character.↩
2. What developed means is open to debate of course.↩
3. This is possibly paranoia, but I know some people do like to set me off and watch me go.↩
4. I have been told that it is a new hotel, for the Olympics - and I doubt many longer term Londoners even know it has a hotel in there, not sure it was designed for that at all.↩
5. I'd fully imagine this to change over time of course - it is already impressive of course.↩
3 comments:
i'll be getting back to you Big Brother on this. Some of this I agree with, but unfortunately (for you)/fortunately I don't agree with most of it.
I've never been to Dubai, so this maybe off the Mark, but sense of purpose? Mike Tayls
Sohela, I look forward to it.
Mike, not sure what you mean by sense of purpose.
Post a Comment