Recently there have been various attempts by people in my intellectual sphere to rehabilitate the Great Man theory of history. The reasons behind this rehabilitation are twofold: intellectually to lay bare the poverty of the thinking of those who lazily ascribe all events to the inevitability of historical processes, and practically to shake people on the right out of their fatalistic doomer convictions and force them to reckon with the fact that perhaps they could change history if they only chose to try.
I think part of it, frankly, is the meltdown of Dubai's competitors. In the middle of the 20th century, the Middle Eastern countries to bet on would have seemed to be Lebanon and Iraq, which had advantages Dubai could only dream of.
First of all they are not at the shipping and aviation crossroads of Eurasia and Africa (maybe only if one flies from Sri Lanka to Greece). Airplanes stop there not because these cities are at the aviation crossroad but because there are no cities with adequate infrastructure at the actual aviation crossroads of Eurasia and Africa. When it comes to shipping they are deep inside a gulf with very narrow strait which is as far as it can be from a shipping crossroad.
More importantly it's hard to talk about Dubai (and other GCC cities) success. For a city to be successful it needs to last and I'm not sure these cities will manage to last.
A city that has no source of fresh water, no food production, has a terrible climate is not designed to last. It's so dependant on fragile technological infrastructure, as we saw during the latest conflict. an enemy can make these cities completely unlivable in a matter of days (if not hours) just by by damaging (not even destroying) some of the basic infrastructure like desalination plants or power generating facilities, or in weeks by blocking shipping of food.
From this point of view, these cities are like long forgotten medieval walled cities of Europe that had no water well or food storage.
If you went back to 2005 though I also think the differences would be more stark between Dubai and its imitators.
Also agree re Yarvin I think Dubai is the best example of neocameralism in the world today.
Saudi's development is very impressive. I think overall it will be a great success, but I do think there are signs of hubris and white elephants that you didn't see with Dubai, 'The Line' especially.
And re 'great men' yes, others have pointed this out and it's a good point, that the Dubai Sheikhs used their intelligence and drive in a particular direction (aligning with US backed globalisation) which happened to be the right horse to bet on, at least economically, in the last half century. But you can equally have great men with a different vision that is less successful just due to the wind not blowing that way, or because they prioritise other things e.g. religious values over wealth.
I think part of it, frankly, is the meltdown of Dubai's competitors. In the middle of the 20th century, the Middle Eastern countries to bet on would have seemed to be Lebanon and Iraq, which had advantages Dubai could only dream of.
Yes you can also see Kuwait and Bahrain having maintained their positions were it not for political strife.
First of all they are not at the shipping and aviation crossroads of Eurasia and Africa (maybe only if one flies from Sri Lanka to Greece). Airplanes stop there not because these cities are at the aviation crossroad but because there are no cities with adequate infrastructure at the actual aviation crossroads of Eurasia and Africa. When it comes to shipping they are deep inside a gulf with very narrow strait which is as far as it can be from a shipping crossroad.
More importantly it's hard to talk about Dubai (and other GCC cities) success. For a city to be successful it needs to last and I'm not sure these cities will manage to last.
A city that has no source of fresh water, no food production, has a terrible climate is not designed to last. It's so dependant on fragile technological infrastructure, as we saw during the latest conflict. an enemy can make these cities completely unlivable in a matter of days (if not hours) just by by damaging (not even destroying) some of the basic infrastructure like desalination plants or power generating facilities, or in weeks by blocking shipping of food.
From this point of view, these cities are like long forgotten medieval walled cities of Europe that had no water well or food storage.
Thanks! I think Dubai undoubtedly has the best skyline but I also think Doha especially is a good example of Arabofuturism. I think it's really the Burj Khalifa that makes Dubai's skyline, without that it's not so different from the others. I do love this one of Riyadh in the desert context https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Riyadh_Skyline_showing_the_King_Abdullah_Financial_District_%28KAFD%29_and_the_famous_Kingdom_Tower_.jpg/800px-Riyadh_Skyline_showing_the_King_Abdullah_Financial_District_%28KAFD%29_and_the_famous_Kingdom_Tower_.jpg.
If you went back to 2005 though I also think the differences would be more stark between Dubai and its imitators.
Also agree re Yarvin I think Dubai is the best example of neocameralism in the world today.
Saudi's development is very impressive. I think overall it will be a great success, but I do think there are signs of hubris and white elephants that you didn't see with Dubai, 'The Line' especially.
And re 'great men' yes, others have pointed this out and it's a good point, that the Dubai Sheikhs used their intelligence and drive in a particular direction (aligning with US backed globalisation) which happened to be the right horse to bet on, at least economically, in the last half century. But you can equally have great men with a different vision that is less successful just due to the wind not blowing that way, or because they prioritise other things e.g. religious values over wealth.