phuketrichard wrote:

Samouth wrote:Sorry for my ignorant about Burma. I have never read about this Southeast Asia country.

I just wonder that why Naypidaw seems to be really quite? Furthermore, what was the point of creating a new capital city instead of improving the existing one?

Cambodia moved its capital
Thailand moved its capital

not unusual

ITs easier to build than to rebuild

Soi Dog wrote:

Samouth wrote:Sorry for my ignorant about Burma. I have never read about this Southeast Asia country.

I just wonder that why Naypidaw seems to be really quite? Furthermore, what was the point of creating a new capital city instead of improving the existing one?

Some ancient big capital cities grew so fast and without any hint of urban planning...meaning existing roads, power/water supplies and other important infrastructure are woefully insufficient. Once a place gets so over-crowded, making sufficient infrastructure improvements becomes extremely difficult without forced evictions and private property confiscations needed to widen roads, create parks, build mass-transit, etc.

So when things like traffic, transport of goods and pollution get so bad that doing business and running the government in the old capital city are next to impossible, sometimes countries try to create a new capital from scratch. Places like Canberra and Brasilia come to mind. Neither one are great examples of success, though. It doesn't sound like Naypyidaw is very successful either, so far. When cites are located and built for strictly political reasons, as opposed to natural human interactions and economic viability, it sounds like a recipe for failure.

China has built literally hundreds of brand new, mega-sized ghost cities. Seems like an economic disaster in the making, to me.

Samouth wrote: Thanks for sharing. All these reasons make so much sense for me. Again, If Canberra and Brasilia can be succeeded, why Naypidaw and some of the cities that china built couldn't?

Soi Dog wrote:

Samouth wrote: Thanks for sharing. All these reasons make so much sense for me. Again, If Canberra and Brasilia can be succeeded, why Naypidaw and some of the cities that china built couldn't?

Just a misunderstanding. Read my sentenced again. "Neither is very successful" means that those two cities mentioned, Canberra and Brasilia, are NOT particularly successful (in my opinion - some will disagree)...just like the Chinese cities and Naypyidaw are not successful (yet).

Duncan wrote:i would say Canberra is a partial success, cause it allowed us to put all the idiot politicians in one building so we know where to find them.