yes. people like me worry about people like you.

potatolicious · on Dec 12, 2012

Unless the city is being built on already flood-prone marshland (which is a dumb idea even right now), the timeline for it becoming inundated is on the order of 200-300+ years.

The historical lifetime of residential buildings rarely exceeds even 100 years - with notable exceptions only.

How far ahead do you think we should be considering when building? 100 years? 300? 500? 1000? The Earth is not static, and practically all land that we stand on today will become dramatically different at some (probably distant) point in the future.

Cities rise and fall faster than the climate changes around them - even when accounting for man-made climate change. Cities are also organic, continually redeveloping - with portions of it becoming disused and broken, while previously disused parts become revitalized.

Considering the timescales we're looking at, the natural lifespan of most coastal buildings would be considerably less than the encroaching waters, and more than enough time for cities to organically grow away from them.

So wtvanhest's position seems sensible. There is really no reason to not live on the coastline today.

Someone · on Dec 12, 2012

I would think twice before buying coastline property in Dubai. Large parts of Dubai's beaches are man-made and may last a lot shorter than that 100 years you consider safe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(archipelago)#Project...)

Also, a house that is known to last only 100 years will be harder to sell in 50 years time, so forget about the pension investment benefit of buying such a house (yes, that should affect current house prices, but I think humans in general do not understand long time horizons that well)

Back to the subject proper: Dubai is gambling that they can become a Vegas and keep making money that way. That bet may pay out, but it is not a bet I would make. Problem is that there is no middle way here. Sure, if their income will be half what they expect it to be, they can kick foreigners out to keep the $/capita at decent levels, but what would they do with all those houses than? Demolish? Huge loss of money. Keep around? Even larger loss because of maintenance costs. Turn into a ghost town? That might become a tourist attraction.

Also, Vegas has survived so long by consuming the water from the Colorado river, but that is not sustainable. I expect huge problems in Vegas within 20 years. Dubai starts in the 'no water' position. But hey, I am not an economist, so don't take my word for it.