Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth News Science

Indonesia Plans To Move Its Capital Out Of Jakarta, A City That's Sinking (npr.org) 95

Indonesia has announced plans to build a new capital city as its current capital, Jakarta, struggles with pollution, traffic gridlock -- and the fact that the city is sinking. From a report: After a Cabinet meeting on Monday, planning minister Bambang Brodjonegoro said President Joko Widodo has decided to move the capital out of Indonesia's main island, Java. It's not clear exactly when this will happen, or where the new capital would be located. The idea has been out there for decades, though previous leaders have been unable to accomplish the ambitious plan. Earlier this month, Widodo secured another term in office, according to independent polling organizations. His challenger also declared victory, and official results have not yet been announced.

"The idea to move the capital city appeared long ago. ... But it has never been decided or discussed in a planned and mature manner," Widodo said before the meeting, according to The Associated Press. Jakarta faces massive challenges. As the BBC has reported, it's the fastest-sinking city in the world, with almost half of its area below sea level.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indonesia Plans To Move Its Capital Out Of Jakarta, A City That's Sinking

Comments Filter:
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @02:07PM (#58517760)

    Jakarta faces massive challenges. As the BBC has reported, it's the fastest-sinking city in the world, with almost half of its area below sea level.

    That there's actually a list of fastest-sinking cities in the world is a little scary.

    • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @03:18PM (#58518158) Homepage Journal

      People build on the coasts because it's profitable for shipping-related commerce.

      The oceans have been rising for 12,600 years. It will continue. Cities built on the coasts in the past 300 years will be abandoned eventually, just like the ruins currently under 200' of water.

      I live beyond the splash-zone of an ocean-strike comet tsunami - it's less profitable here, but different people optimize for different values.

      Good for Indonesia for dealing instead of whining. New Orleans could learn a thing or two.

    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      But please understand that it is sinking.

      It's not the sea rising drenching it.

      They have at least used too much water from below the city. That may be tragic too but I just want to mention that so people don't confuse it with global warming.

      • Some of these places, it's also just flat-out the fact they built a city on that particular type of land--it's why Venice has been pretty much constantly been in the process of sinking for centuries.

        Climate change is not responsible for this. It's just really all various cases of humans being less than good when it comes to deciding what sort of land to build a city on...or at remembering that just because it's self-refilling doesn't mean it'll automagically increase the refill rate so it's never being dra

        • by ghoul ( 157158 )

          The Dutch didnt build there by choice. It was the only land they were able to capture to begin with as it was not guarded well by the Sunda kingdom (since it was considered worthless marshes). Same with Venice and the Portuguese in Bombay. Later on these cities become centers of power and Industry but the basic geography does not change.

          • I'd still consider that in general 'less than good' in some of those cases. I'd say that the Netherlands are probably the poster children for building cities on wetlands successfully, by having the engineering skills (and the willingness to use them) that were needed--and they don't seem to be neglecting the necessary infrastructure. Mumbai seems to have the same general mindset involved--this is where they could put a city, which actually seems to have used a lot of the same methods as the Dutch in build

            • by gwolf ( 26339 )

              Moving the capital out of Jakarta--shifting a significant amount of the economic activity away, and hopefully luring people to move away from Jakarta--might actually be enough to relieve a significant part of the pressure.

              Now, coming up with a plan for moving the capital and implementing said plan, are... Well, not often the same thing. Some countries' capitals have been moved for various right or wrong reasons (best example might be Brazil, where the capital moved to a freshly built city in the middle of nowhere). But opposite cases are abundant. Say, Argentina passed laws >30 years ago to move the capital to Viedma, in the Patagonia, to settle over-150-year-old domestic disputes. Mexican society has long argumented whet

              • by ghoul ( 157158 )

                This plan has been kicked around for a long time but costs prevent it from happening. Indonesia is as Bad as Japan in that 30+% of the national population lives in one city. Tokyo however seems to manage. Maybe Jakarta can too given enough investments into infrastructure.
                BTW in the US generally the state political capital and the economic capital are different and the political capitals are generally smaller towns so the political capital could be moved while the economic capital stays in Jakarta.
                Bandung is

  • If only there was another capital city that was underwater. . . oh yeah Amsterdam.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    And I'm holding on. I'm gonna be your number one!

  • Just rename it Atlantis. Problem solved.

  • > The idea has been out there for decades, though previous leaders have been unable to accomplish the ambitious plan.

    Been saying they would do it, multiple leaders didn't get it done. That reminds me of something.

    24 years ago, in 1995, the US Congress passed a law requiring that the US embassy in Israel be moved to Jerusalem. Despite the law, President Clinton didn't get it done - he kept issuing six-month delays. Bush junior issued eight more six-month delays. Obama again didn't get it done, delaying

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sure raymorris if you think that policy pushed by fox news pundits that attempts to subvert the Constitution is a good idea...

      Check this tidbit out, [wikipedia.org]
      "Former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations.

      Regarding the status of Jerusalem specifically, President Bus

      • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @03:39PM (#58518254) Journal

        > Sure raymorris if you think that policy pushed by fox news pundits that attempts to subvert the Constitution is a good idea...

        It's actually a law passed by *Congress*, a different (and possibly dumber) group than Fox News. When exactly did I say it's good? I simply recited the timeline. If you think that the president following the law is good, that's your own judgement, not mine.

        > The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President.

        Which article and section of the Constitution is that?
        Your assertion is false. (And so obviously so, anyone can read the Constitution and see, simply remember what they learned in middle school.)

        The Constitution has a few clauses dealing with foreign affairs powers:

        Treaties - require approval by the Senate, signed by the president. So as to treaties the president and Congress share power.

        Military actions - The President is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy (Article II, Section 2); the Congress is given the authority to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a Navy (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13).

        The Congress alone is given the power to declare war, and Congress is given authority to define offenses against the law of nations and to set punishments for them (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10).

        Congress is assigned the powers of controlling foreign commerce.

        Appointment of diplomats is again shared, one becomes a diplomat after the Senate approves the appointment, which follows nomination by the president, after advice from the Senate,

        That leaves a lot of foreign policy power unassigned by the Constitution. Aside from the above-listed powers, the Constitution does not assign the remainder of foreign affairs to either branch.

        James Madison argued that the remaining foreign policy powers naturally fall to Congress. Alexander Hamilton disagreed. It was soon pointed out, and generally agreed, that certain tools of foreign policy, such as embargoes, foreign aid, etc, can clearly be best wielded by Congress. Other instruments of foreign policy, such as state dinners, are best conducted by the president.

      • "Former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations.

        This is also why not much came of the Iran-Contra scandal.

  • Drain the swamp! /sarc

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      Seems the problem is the drained the swamp too much and they need to refill it so their city stops sinking
  • by q4Fry ( 1322209 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @03:04PM (#58518086)

    Their third capital will burn down, fall over, and then sink into the swamp.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    >The dramatic rate at which Jakarta is sinking is partly down to the excessive extraction of groundwater for use as drinking water

    Read the story, it's not rising sea levels, it's millions of persons using groundwater illegally.

    Clay soil + well water pumps + lots of time === much ground subsidence

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @05:12PM (#58518630)

    The city was built on essentially mud among rivers. That was marginally workable with light-weight wood framed structures, but as the city developed and more steel and concrete and people and cars and all the rest added weight to the top of the mud pile, the whole mess sank. There's nothing mysterious here - it's related to the skyscraper in San Francisco that is leaning because it was built on fill. Such heavy structures (individual big buildings, or entire cities of them) must either be built on solid ground or they must have foundations or pilings that go down to bedrock - anything else will sink, and if it sinks unevenly will also tilt.

    Cities have often been founded as small towns in unwise locations, because it worked long ago when the place was just a small town and the founders were unconcerned about a future they could not imagine. There's nothing really wrong with that since it suits the needs at the time and the following generations have better resources to upgrade or relocate. New Orleans is a good example - useful to the French whou founded it at the mouth of the Mississippi river, but problematic now with a huge population living below sea level right next to the Gulf of Mexico in a hurricaine zone. For New Orleans, the solution is probably ultimately the one Chicago implemented a century ago (raise all the streets and buildings). For Jakarta it's probably reasonable to build a new capitol elsewhere.

    The lesson is simple: do not build lots of heavy stuff on mud and sand surrounded by water; build on bedrock.

    No doubt, the Cult of Global Warming will be dishonestly using this for propaganda as they have used New Orleans, but for people paying attention the effort will fail. When a place sinks 10ft into the sea, it's not necessarily because glaciers melted and the oceans rose 10ft (if THAT had happened, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Miami would have submerged).

    • No doubt, the Cult of Global Warming will be dishonestly using this for propaganda as they have used New Orleans, but for people paying attention the effort will fail.
      There is nothing dishonest in pointing out that NO will get ore water due to more storms and bigger storms ...

  • Rumour has it the military want to relocate the capital to Darwin.

  • What should a modern city built from scratch look like? Should there be any cars on the surface? Should they go in the tunnels underneath? How do you do public transport? Has this Musk guy tweeted about it yet?
    • If you would build a _modern city_ from scratch it would not have any cars at all, except for emergency forces.

      You would basically indeed have some of Musks things, aka "pneumatic tube" like systems to transport goods, and an option that the cabin can enter your house or park close to the house.

      Humans would use public transport or bikes, perhaps even ebikes and similar "small scooters". Obviously if you do it right, you have lots of channels and lots of green, perhaps even agriculture inside of the city.

  • The capital city should be in the center of a country, IMO.
  • With 9.6M people, this is what unsustainable living looks like. I first visited Jakarta in '86, and even then it was a shit hole. Filthy and over populated. The city tour we took showed us virtually nothing of interest except the national museum. This is not to say that Indonesia itself is that way. Yogyakarta (with Borobudur) and Bali were amazing.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...