End of the Line? Saudi Arabia to scale back plans for desert megacity
Saudi Arabia’s plan to build “The Line,” a 170 km linear megacity in the NEOM project, is being scaled back, prompting widespread skepticism about whether it was ever technically, economically or politically viable. Commenters frame the project as a vanity-driven, quasi-feudal cash-transfer scheme that relies on exploited migrant labor and heavy repression while being sold as green, futuristic urbanism. Many argue that the core concept of a vast linear city is inherently inefficient compared with conventional, denser urban forms, and see the retrenchment as emblematic of broader limits in Gulf states’ attempts to diversify away from oil through spectacle megaprojects.
Predictability and purpose of NEOM/The Line
- Many commenters say the scaling‑back was entirely predictable; the full scheme was seen as physically, financially, and administratively impossible at the announced scale.
- The project is widely characterized as a vanity or “ego” project of an unelected ruler in a quasi‑absolute monarchy, where no meaningful independent “sign‑off” exists.
- Several argue that such megaprojects mainly serve to transfer cash to regime supporters, launder money, and generate contracts for politically connected firms, not to build a viable city.
- A minority view frames it as a technological experiment that could produce useful engineering knowledge (e.g., materials, modular construction), even if the overall vision fails.
Urban design of a linear city
- Strong consensus that a linear city is geometrically and logistically inferior to roughly circular/disk‑like cities: average and worst‑case travel distances are far larger for the same area.
- Multiple comments run through simple distance and transit‑time calculations showing how a 170 km line is inherently bad for everyday mobility, even with fast express trains.
- Some note modest real‑world “line‑like” examples (e.g., cities organized around a long main street) and find the aesthetic appealing, but others point out those cities still expand into blobs.
- Authoritarian advantages are noted: a linear form can serve as a controllable choke point and can be segmented easily during unrest.
Human rights, labor, and ethics
- Commenters highlight executions and harsh sentences against tribes opposing the project, plus broader repression, public punishments, and criminalization of dissent and unbelief.
- There is extensive discussion of migrant worker exploitation and modern slavery in Gulf states, with comparisons to other regions’ hidden labor abuses.
- Some see the project’s collapse or shrinkage as morally satisfying, others reject framing it as “karma” relative to killings.
Energy, environment, and technology
- Debate over whether desert cities powered by vast air‑conditioning are sustainable; issues raised about desert solar (heat, sand, storms) and nighttime demand.
- Some discuss speculative passive cooling schemes (deep seawater, thermal mass) and backup power, while others question their practicality at the proposed length.
Economics, corruption, and diversification
- NEOM is placed in a pattern of Gulf prestige projects: ski resorts, giant cubes, prior Saudi “economic cities,” etc., many under‑delivering.
- One line of argument: megaprojects are used to bootstrap non‑oil sectors and local capabilities by forcing big infrastructure builds; critics call this a post‑hoc rationalization and say a “sensible” megaproject would do that better.
- Comparisons with Dubai/UAE: seen as somewhat more diversified and competent, though still heavily dependent on oil‑derived capital and migrant labor.
Cultural and political debate
- Thread repeatedly veers into moral relativism vs. universalism: whether Western societies can legitimately criticize Gulf autocracies given their own histories and current abuses.
- Some emphasize universal human rights (e.g., against slavery, executions for apostasy); others stress Western hypocrisy and selective outrage tied to energy dependence.