Looking at the first page of the article, I am reminded of an advertisement for the city – promoting people to come visit it. All jokes aside, I really liked this article and was impressed with the initiatives that the UAE is constantly undertaking. Through this project, Abu Dhabi hopes to expand its economy, expand its position in the global energy markets, position the UAE is a leader of sustainable technologies, and most importantly – “make a meaningful contribution toward solving some of the world’s most pressing problems.” It seems rather ambitious, but it does have good intentions.
A section that I liked most was then the authors were talking about the three E’s, more specifically the part on economics. UAE has identified the potential problem that in the future it will not be able to generate the money that it currently does from oil due to several factors, and is beginning to shift its focus to something else. I think this is a great example of how urban planning should always be perceived – identifying the problem before it happens, unlike all other cities that are now knee-deep with infrastructure problems and resource problems.
I did not like how the article was set up. It had a very good start, explaining the various aspects of Masdar and how it would benefit both the people and the nation as a whole. However, as it went into greater detail for these projects, I began to grow skeptical. The projects that Masdar hopes to undertake are very ambitious and do not seem to be as feasible as described. Although funding may not be a huge problem, as the article describes, only the wealthy would be able to afford to reside in the city and everyone else will be commuting. The authors described Masdar and its projects, and made the reader excited to see the city come to life, but shut that down real quick by explaining how most of this will not be possible given the climate in which the city is situated in.
I agree with the author that it’s difficult to just build a city from scratch like that, and have so many ambitious projects to undertake at once, but urban planners in other cities should use this as a model. I did my term paper on resource management and sustainability, and focused on the conflicts that urban planners have for finding the most effective solutions; and I think that this type of project is something they should consider. Though unlikely anyone will want to tear down a city and start from the beginning, there is always the option of implementing new projects in any city. There is always construction to fix current infrastructure, but how about instead of fixing it, we slowly replace it with something better?
