Yes, the entire project has egregious issues at the intersection of human rights, politics and economics. And I agree, it's nearly impossible to remove those from the conversation of The Line as a whole. However, if we're just talking about sustainability (which most commenters are), it seems most people are simply wrong. Sure, it's a huge structure that stretches 105 miles. But let's look at the issues. To make things clear, I'm going to compare it to a city that is pretty familiar internationally: Los Angeles. Yes, L.A. is one extreme example when it comes to urban sprawl, inefficiency, low density, etc. so it is being used as a bit of a foil. However, please feel free to compare The Line to any city you know of that is >9 million people and you're sure to find similarities. Okay, here we go! - It is huge. Okay, this one is simply ridiculous. Is it an enormous undertaking? Yes. Is it very rare, or even unheard of, to see development at this scale? Maybe. Remember how many cities China was building at once? To put the line in comparison to something tangible, let's compare it to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles metro area holds approximately 13 million people. Its area is approximately 34,000 square miles. The Line will hold 9 million people, and its area will be approximately 33 square miles! Please check my math on this, but even if I'm missing two zeros, it's still an astounding difference. If they were to expand to house the same population as Los Angeles, it would be a whopping 47 square miles. By the way, the 170km/105-mile length is just barely longer than the L.A. metro area from west to east. - It is a waste of resources and energy. See above. Imagine the amount of concrete, steel, excavation, energy use, loss of wildlife, loss of human life, carbon emissions, unrepairable harm to the landscape, etc. that has gone on in the planning, building, expansion and maintenance of Los Angeles for well over 200 years. Compare that to the number of resources it will take to build something with a footprint 1,000 times smaller in a fraction of the time. - It is inefficient. It is a straight line. There will be public transportation that runs in a straight line. There will be utilities that run in a straight line. Water, sanitation, maintenance issues, anything you can think of, will be in a line. Please, by all means, let me know of a more efficient method of moving things from one place to another that is not a straight line and you win. It runs east-west, the best orientation to combat solar gain. -It is killing nature. Okay, again I have to agree. Within its 500m wide x 170km footprint, it will kill some nature - whatever nature exists in that truly barren part of the world (we're not talking rainforests here). To once again put it into perspective, it is 1/1000 the size of Los Angeles. Not one-tenth. Not one-one hundredth. Landscape saved? 999 times more than was saved in the development of L.A., with the replacement landscape likely to be better. - It will cut off migratory patterns. It may, but we have seen no details about what happens at ground level. Renderings are schematic, at best, and on a scale that does not allow us to even guess about what happens there. Are the two 'towers' solid the entire 170km? We have no idea, but this thing is far from being designed, so let's hope those issues will be addressed, just like issues that come up in every other design project, even at scales in orders of magnitude smaller than this one. -Birds will run into it. Probably some will. The architects have already said that the facades will have printed patterns on them, like many skyscrapers, to help avert this. Now once again see above, and think of how many birds die flying into 34,000 square miles of developed land vs. 33 square miles of developed land that is already working to solve the issue. Would this be better if it were ten straight lines that all intersected in a hub and was only 17 km in any direction? Maybe. What if it made a plus sign? Sure, cool, maybe the next one. As a forward-thinking experiment that truly takes the future of our planet into consideration while leaving behind any traditional notions of what a city could be. I assume most commenters would agree that our cities have only led to our current dire situation, so it's very strange to see such negativity aimed at something that is actually trying to be a solution. Maybe the designers should apologize for making it so big? Better to only house ten thousand, I guess. Fingers tired. Done for now. Please comment (but please read and think before doing so). Thanks for your time.