When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

eyes on the U.S.

Mark Zuckerberg, King Abdullah And The Rise Of Private Cities

City kingmakers
City kingmakers
Benoît Georges

PARIS — First there was the campus. Next up Facebook city. The size of the "Zee town" project Mark Zuckerberg announced in February surprised many: For an estimated $200 billion, the king of social networks plans to build what will essentialy be an entire town — a 200-acre development in California's Silicon Valley featuring supermarkets, hotels, villas and even dormitories for the company's trainees.

The site will be located just a stone's throw from the Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park. The campus, where the now-defunct Sun Microsystems used to be based, is already home to a few shops, restaurants and a medical clinic in a setting that is reminiscent of Disneyland or "The Village" in the TV series The Prisoner. Zuckerberg — with the help of world famous architect Frank Gehry — now wants to take things further still, by crossing the thin line between a closed village and a complete private city.

Seen from France, the idea of a private city can seem shocking given how the creation of our own towns, including those built after the war, always developed within a municipal framework. In France, only municipal governments are allowed to manage public services such as schools, roads, public transportation, water and land planning.

City privatization is less iconoclastic in the United States, where gated communities in places such as Sun City, Arizona, developed specifically for the elderly, have been sprining up over the last half-century. "Everywhere in the U.S., parts of cities have been organized as joint ownership property called common-interest development," says Julien Damon, a researcher in the urbanism department at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po).

Old cities can't cope

The U.S. may have gotten a jump on this new kind of urban trend, but it's in the development world where private cities are really starting to make inroads, in some cases on a scale that makes Zuckerberg's plans pale in comparison.

In India, the HCC consortium began work a decade ago on a 100-square-kilometer town called Lavasa, located approximately 200 kilometers southwest of Mumbai. The project, which saw Italian-inspired buildings rise from the Indian mountains, is eventually expected to host more than 200,000 people. In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah Economic City (Kaec) hopes to have 2 million residents by 2035. And Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was elected last year, has hailed the future creation of "model" private cities.

[rebelmouse-image 27088827 alt="""" original_size="1280x608" expand=1]

Lavasa, a planned city in India. Photo: Yoursamrut

"The real needs are in developing countries," says John Rossant, chairman of the New Cities Foundation, which recently published a report on the topic. "That's where new cities must be built because the old ones aren't capable of absorbing the rural exodus."

Often because they aren't able to finance new cities or renovate old ones, more and more states are turning to private operators that not only construct the new cities but also operate almost every service normally considered "public."

"The public sector doesn't exactly disappear because there's always an initial agreement with the public authorities on the infrastructure program or the property management," Rossant says. "On the other hand, the private sector needs guarantees that its investments will last for decades."

No taxes, just "service fees"

In the case of Kaec, the Saudi government sealed a public-private partnership with an estate development group from Dubai called Emaar Properties. The city has no mayor. Instead it has a CEO, Fahd al-Rasheed, who staunchly defends the model. "The private sector must, by definition, create value," he explains. "Therefore I must sell for more than the production costs. Politicians, in contrast, often struggle to create added value with services. They know the cost, but the price they charge citizens depends on political factors."

In Kaec, residents aren't taxed per se. Instead they pay "service fees" for security, water and waste collection, which different companies are contracted to handle. "The people pay us for a service, not to finance an administration," al-Rasheed says. "And since they are our clients, they don't hesitate to complain if they find the service is poor. In that case, the city can easily change providers."

Franck Vallerugo, urban economy chair at ESSEC Business School, believes this approach raises a real governance problem. "This is business-oriented reasoning," he says. "They expect to buy public peace with services, luxury and security. The people who live in those sorts of cities don't even ask to be voters, by the way. They couldn't care less about that."

Indeed, to guarantee a return on investment, private cities often emulate American gated communities by targeting the wealthy. Lavasa is a case in point. It offers hotels, a conference center and a campus, which all appeal to the wealthy, but it is cut off from the rest of the Indian population. To this day, the project has attracted more investors than residents.

"To exclude themselves from ancient urban areas that have become impossible to live in, wealthy populations exit the system and build themselves protected worlds," Vallerugo says. "The developments look like cities, with local services such as schools, hospitals, universities, sports and cultural centers, but there's no functional diversity whatsoever, no social bonding."

Rossant also emphasizes the importance of diversity. "To be successful, cities need different groups living together," he says. "That's what makes them dynamic, creative. If a city only targets the well-off, it cannot achieve success."

No real city without diversity? Zuckerberg might disagree.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


What's Spoiling The Kids: The Big Tech v. Bad Parenting Debate

Without an extended family network, modern parents have sought to raise happy kids in a "hostile" world. It's a tall order, when youngsters absorb the fears (and devices) around them like a sponge.

Image of a kid wearing a blue striped sweater, using an ipad.

Children exposed to technology at a very young age are prominent today.

Julián de Zubiría Samper


BOGOTÁ — A 2021 report from the United States (the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) found that 42% of the country's high-school students persistently felt sad and 22% had thought about suicide. In other words, almost half of the country's young people are living in despair and a fifth of them have thought about killing themselves.

Such chilling figures are unprecedented in history. Many have suggested that this might be the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but sadly, we can see depression has deeper causes, and the pandemic merely illustrated its complexity.

I have written before on possible links between severe depression and the time young people spend on social media. But this is just one aspect of the problem. Today, young people suffer frequent and intense emotional crises, and not just for all the hours spent staring at a screen. Another, possibly more important cause may lie in changes to the family composition and authority patterns at home.

Firstly: Families today have fewer members, who communicate less among themselves.

Young people marry at a later age, have fewer children and many opt for personal projects and pets instead of having children. Families are more diverse and flexible. In many countries, the number of children per woman is close to or less than one (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong among others).

In Colombia, women have on average 1.9 children, compared to 7.6 in 1970. Worldwide, women aged 15 to 49 years have on average 2.4 children, or half the average figure for 1970. The changes are much more pronounced in cities and among middle and upper-income groups.

Of further concern today is the decline in communication time at home, notably between parents and children. This is difficult to quantify, but reasons may include fewer household members, pervasive use of screens, mothers going to work, microwave ovens that have eliminated family cooking and meals and, thanks to new technologies, an increase in time spent on work, even at home. Our society is addicted to work and devotes little time to minors.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest