AR7 report was scheduled for 2028 in time for Cop33 summit but some petro-states and major developing countries want to postpone it
.
Scientists are coming under pressure from some petro-states and major developing countries to delay publication of a key global report on the climate, despite pleas from vulnerable countries worried that postponement could spell disaster for them.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN-convened body of the world’s leading climate scientists, is meeting this week in Addis Ababa to discuss its seventh assessment report, a comprehensive survey of all that is known about the climate crisis.
The report, known as AR7, was scheduled to appear in 2028 in time for deliberations at the UN climate summit, Cop33, late that year. Cop33 is scheduled to critique governments’ actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement target of limiting temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
But a group of countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia and including India and China, is pressing for publication of the report to be pushed back to 2029.
They argue this is necessary in order to allow developing countries to have more input into the scientific findings. Climate science has been dominated for three decades by countries and blocs including the EU, the UK and the US, though under Donald Trump’s presidency in the last of these it has has been severely curtailed.
Waves crash against the waterfront promenade as Hurricane Simon approaches Mexico’s Pacific coast in Puerto Vallarta, on Sunday. More extreme weather is forecast globally. Photograph: Christian Ruano/Reuters
Many poor and vulnerable countries – which are also among those contributing least to the science – strongly oppose any such delay. Ministers from 34 members of the High Ambition Coalition, made up of some of the poorest countries and those most at risk from climate breakdown, as well as the EU and the Least Developed Countries grouping, called on Friday for publication of AR7 to be expedited.
Jess Gasper, a minister for the Marshall Islands, said: “We cannot allow political interests to determine which science the world is willing to hear.”
Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulai, the minister of environment for Sierra Leone, added: “The Paris agreement can only deliver on its promise if the best available science continues to guide climate change negotiations.”
Global temperatures have already exceeded the threshold of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, though the IPCC has previously suggested there is still a way to restore them. If current national emissions targets are met, global temperatures would exceed 1.8C. That is a very big “if”, as most countries do not have fully articulated plans for meeting the targets, meaning far higher temperatures are likely.
The global stocktake at Cop33 in 2028 is meant to provide a check on whether governments need to ramp up their efforts, and is crucial to the Paris agreement “ratchet” which demands stronger action.
The overflowing Gomti river flooded the Fazullaganj residential area of Lucknow, India, last week. Photograph: Rajesh Kumar Singh/AP
AR7 is the latest in a series of comprehensive reports on climate science dating back to 1988 that have grown increasingly stark in their warnings of the impacts of pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The last such assessment, published in three parts in 2021 and 2022, found that unless emissions were swiftly reduced the world would face unstoppable impacts that would swiftly become catastrophic and in some cases irreversible.
AR7 is expected to strike an even more urgent note, as greenhouse gases in the interim have continued to rise, and the impacts such as rising temperatures, heatwaves, floods and droughts are increasingly apparent. This year has seen temperature records tumble and drought grip swathes of Europe and the US, while a gathering El Nino weather system, supercharged by the climate crisis, is forecast to bring extreme weather and rising food prices.
The IPCC is supposed to carry on its work free from government interference. However, key documents known as the “summary for policymakers”, published alongside the thousands of pages of the official reports, are subject to approval from all governments that wish to play a role.
The Guardian has previously uncovered evidence of involvement in the IPCC’s assessments of representatives of oil interests under control of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Despite these flaws, the IPCC is the most authoritative global body on climate science, and many experts say delaying its input to the Cop talks would weaken the global response to the climate crisis at a time when adverse geopolitics already threaten progress on emissions. The US is leading attacks on climate action, but far-right populist politicians across Europe also want to water down the EU’s regulations, and in Latin America a tide of rightwing populism, particularly in Brazil, Colombia and Argentina, threatens the same.
Water levels in the Jatigede reservoir recede amid drought in Sumedang Regency, West Java province, Indonesia. Photograph: Claudio Pramana/Reuters
Within this context, waiting for developing countries to be able to contribute more science makes little sense, according to Claudio Angelo of the Observatório do Clima in Brazil. “It’s extremely concerning the way the structural issue of equity is being weaponised by some big developing countries,” he said. “It’s true that integrated assessment [climate science] models are mostly built by global north countries and therefore biased. [But] that’s not a problem that can be fixed just by giving the IPCC an extra few months to work. We can’t afford to leave Addis without a decision [to press ahead with the 2028 timetable].”
Angelo queried why countries such as India and Saudi Arabia were claiming to be standing up for developing countries by backing a delay. “They have the money and the technology to send rockets to the moon – why couldn’t they bother to build their own models to be reviewed by the IPCC?”
But the row has exposed splits within the environmental NGO movement. Some civil society groups are sympathetic to calls for more science from developing countries, and the Guardian understands that some are considering backing the call for a delay.
The IPCC declined to comment. The Guardian has approached Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India for comment.
For decades, sustainable architecture has been shaped by a fundamental ambition: to reduce the environmental damage caused by buildings. Energy-efficient envelopes, renewable energy systems, recycled materials, and green certification schemes have helped establish measurable standards for improving the relationship between the built environment and the natural world.
Yet, despite these advances, the ecological consequences of construction remain profound. Buildings consume resources, fragment habitats, alter hydrological systems, and contribute to the depletion of biodiversity, even when their operational carbon emissions approach zero.
Regenerative architecture proposes a more ambitious objective. Rather than simply minimizing negative impacts, it seeks to create buildings and settlements that actively contribute to the recovery of the ecosystems in which they exist. This approach positions architecture as an ecological participant capable of supporting biodiversity, rebuilding soil health, restoring water cycles, and strengthening the resilience of landscapes. Its central question is no longer whether a building can operate without producing net emissions, but whether its presence can leave a place ecologically healthier than it was before construction.
Net-zero has become an influential benchmark in contemporary building design, particularly in response to climate change. A net-zero energy building generally produces as much energy annually as it consumes, while a net-zero carbon building seeks to balance its greenhouse gas emissions through reductions, renewable energy, and, where necessary, compensatory measures. Although these strategies are essential, they address only part of the environmental consequences associated with architecture.
An energy-efficient building can still occupy a biologically valuable landscape, introduce toxic materials into local environments, or disrupt the movement of wildlife. Similarly, a development that offsets its emissions may continue to depend on extractive supply chains and construction practices that degrade ecosystems elsewhere. Environmental accounting can therefore produce misleading conclusions when it treats a building as an isolated technical object rather than a component of interconnected ecological systems.
Regenerative architecture expands the definition of performance by examining relationships among buildings, landscapes, communities, and living organisms. It considers whether development can improve ecological functions, support species diversity, and strengthen the capacity of a place to recover from disturbance. This does not make carbon reduction irrelevant; instead, it places decarbonization within a broader framework of ecological repair. A genuinely regenerative project must demonstrate positive contributions to its context rather than relying exclusively on the absence of measurable harm.
Architecture as an Instrument of Biodiversity Recovery
One of the most significant contributions of regenerative architecture lies in its potential to restore habitats within increasingly fragmented urban and rural environments. Conventional development frequently replaces complex ecosystems with simplified surfaces, isolated ornamental planting, and impermeable boundaries. Such landscapes may appear green while offering limited food, shelter, or breeding opportunities for wildlife. Regenerative design challenges this visual understanding of nature by prioritizing ecological function over decorative appearance.
Buildings can support biodiversity through green roofs, vegetated façades, habitat corridors, native planting, and carefully designed nesting and shelter features. However, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on their ecological specificity. A roof covered with non-native ornamental plants cannot automatically compensate for the destruction of a diverse native habitat, while isolated green spaces may provide little benefit to species that require connected territories. Designers must therefore collaborate with ecologists to identify local species, migration patterns, habitat requirements, and existing environmental pressures.
At a larger scale, architectural and urban projects can contribute to networks of interconnected habitats. Restored waterways, tree-lined streets, ecological corridors, and permeable boundaries allow species to move through developed areas and access resources that would otherwise remain disconnected. The architectural site consequently becomes part of a wider ecological infrastructure rather than an enclosed property defined exclusively by human requirements.
Rebuilding Soil: The Hidden Foundation of Regeneration
Soil is one of the most overlooked components of architectural sustainability, despite its essential role in supporting terrestrial ecosystems. Construction commonly involves excavation, compaction, contamination, and the removal of fertile topsoil, processes that can destroy microbial communities and reduce the capacity of land to retain water and nutrients. Once damaged, soil may require years or decades to recover its biological functions, particularly when disturbance is extensive.
Regenerative projects address these conditions by treating soil as a living system rather than an inert construction surface. Strategies include preserving existing topsoil during site preparation, restoring contaminated land through appropriate remediation, introducing organic matter, reducing compaction, and re-establishing native vegetation. Landscape design can also support soil regeneration through composting systems, locally adapted planting, and the integration of productive gardens that return organic nutrients to the ground.
The benefits extend beyond vegetation growth. Healthy soils store carbon, filter pollutants, regulate water movement, and sustain organisms essential to ecosystem stability. By protecting these functions, architecture can contribute to ecological recovery that is largely invisible from the building’s exterior but fundamental to its long-term environmental value. Such interventions are particularly important on former industrial sites, degraded urban land, and developments where ecological restoration can transform neglected areas into functioning landscapes.
Conventional urban development frequently disrupts natural hydrological processes. Roads, parking areas, roofs, and other impermeable surfaces accelerate runoff, increase flood risks, and prevent rainfall from replenishing groundwater. Pollutants carried by stormwater can further damage rivers, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems. Regenerative architecture responds by redesigning the relationship between buildings and water, treating rainfall as a resource that should remain within the landscape whenever local conditions permit.
Nature-based systems provide practical mechanisms for achieving this objective. Bioswales, rain gardens, constructed wetlands, permeable paving, and restored stream corridors slow runoff while supporting filtration and infiltration. Rainwater harvesting can supply irrigation and certain non-potable building uses, reducing pressure on municipal water networks. Green roofs may also retain precipitation, moderate surface temperatures, and create additional habitat, although their performance depends on climate, substrate depth, vegetation, and maintenance.
Water regeneration requires more than installing isolated sustainable drainage features. Designers must understand watershed boundaries, seasonal rainfall patterns, groundwater conditions, and the ecological needs of downstream environments. In water-scarce regions, maximizing infiltration without considering groundwater quality or availability may be inappropriate, while excessive irrigation can undermine the intended benefits of native landscaping. Effective regenerative design therefore works with the natural behavior of water rather than imposing a universal technical solution on every site.
The ecological consequences of architecture extend far beyond the boundaries of a construction site. Extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal generate environmental pressures across global supply chains, including habitat destruction, mineral depletion, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Regenerative architecture addresses these impacts by reconsidering where materials originate, how they are processed, how long they remain useful, and what happens when buildings reach the end of their service lives.
Adaptive reuse is particularly valuable because retaining existing structures can avoid substantial quantities of demolition waste and the embodied impacts associated with new construction. Where new materials are necessary, designers can prioritize responsibly sourced timber, recycled components, low-impact mineral products, and materials that can be separated and reused without significant degradation. Designing for disassembly makes future recovery more feasible by replacing irreversible connections and composite assemblies with systems that support repair and material separation.
– Advertisement –
Nevertheless, circularity and regeneration are not interchangeable concepts. Recycling a material does not necessarily restore the ecosystem from which its original resources were extracted, and renewable materials are not automatically sustainable if their production damages forests, soils, or water supplies. A regenerative material strategy must consider both technical life cycles and the ecological conditions of production. Its success depends on whether material demand can be reduced while supply chains become more transparent, accountable, and compatible with the recovery of natural systems.
Regenerative architecture also draws on ecological processes to inform the organization and performance of buildings. Biomimicry, biophilic design, and climate-responsive architecture offer related but distinct contributions. Biomimicry studies biological strategies that may inspire technical solutions, biophilic design strengthens human relationships with nature, and regenerative design evaluates whether these relationships contribute to the health of wider ecological systems.
Buildings inspired by termite mounds, for example, have informed investigations into passive ventilation and temperature regulation. Other projects explore shading patterns derived from vegetation, building envelopes that respond to changing environmental conditions, and landscape systems that manage water through principles observed in natural ecosystems. Such approaches can reduce dependence on mechanical systems while improving the adaptability of the built environment.
However, copying the appearance or mechanics of a natural organism is not sufficient to make a building regenerative. A biomimetic façade may reduce cooling demand without providing any measurable ecological benefit beyond energy savings. The regenerative potential emerges when technical innovation is connected to the needs of a specific place, such as restoring habitat, reducing pressure on local resources, or improving environmental conditions for surrounding communities. Nature becomes not merely a source of architectural inspiration but a reference for understanding interdependence, adaptation, and ecological continuity.
Measuring Regeneration: From Intentions to Evidence
One of the greatest challenges facing regenerative architecture is determining whether a project actually improves ecological conditions. Conventional building assessments often rely on indicators such as energy consumption, carbon emissions, water efficiency, and recycled material content. These metrics remain useful, but they cannot independently establish whether biodiversity has increased, soil has recovered, or ecosystem functions have improved.
A regenerative assessment requires a broader set of indicators tailored to the project and its ecological context. These may include changes in native species abundance, habitat connectivity, soil organic carbon, infiltration rates, water quality, vegetation survival, and the condition of nearby ecological systems. Establishing a reliable baseline before construction is essential because a project’s apparent success cannot be evaluated without understanding the conditions that existed beforehand.
Monitoring must also continue after occupation. Newly planted landscapes may initially appear successful but fail during drought, while green roofs can lose ecological value if maintenance practices gradually replace diverse vegetation with simplified planting. Long-term assessment allows designers and building operators to identify failures, adapt management strategies, and distinguish temporary improvements from lasting ecological recovery. Regeneration should therefore be understood as an ongoing process of observation, intervention, and adjustment rather than a certification awarded at project completion.
Ecosystems do not exist separately from human communities. Environmental degradation frequently affects disadvantaged populations through polluted water, inadequate green space, urban heat, flooding, and restricted access to healthy environments. A regenerative architectural project that improves biodiversity while displacing residents or restricting public access to restored landscapes may achieve ecological gains without producing a genuinely equitable outcome.
Social regeneration requires meaningful participation in planning, recognition of local knowledge, and the distribution of environmental benefits across communities. Publicly accessible green spaces, community gardens, restored waterfronts, and climate-responsive housing can support both ecological recovery and everyday well-being. In this context, architecture must consider not only what an ecosystem needs to recover but also who participates in the process, who benefits from its outcomes, and who bears the costs.
This relationship is especially important in urban regeneration, where environmental improvements can increase land values and contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Affordable housing provisions, inclusive governance, and long-term community stewardship can help prevent ecological restoration from becoming an instrument of exclusion. Regenerative architecture is most convincing when environmental health and social justice reinforce one another rather than compete for priority.
Moving beyond net-zero requires a fundamental shift in how architecture defines success. Carbon-neutral operation, resource efficiency, and reduced environmental impact remain necessary achievements, but they cannot fully address the ecological damage associated with contemporary development. Regenerative architecture introduces a more demanding ambition: to restore the relationships and processes that allow ecosystems to function, adapt, and sustain life.
Achieving this ambition requires cooperation among architects, landscape designers, ecologists, engineers, policymakers, and local communities. It also demands that ecological objectives influence decisions from site selection and material procurement to construction methods, landscape management, and long-term building operation. The most important measure of success is not the number of green technologies incorporated into a project, but the demonstrable improvement of the living systems connected to it.
Ultimately, architecture cannot independently reverse every form of environmental degradation, nor can a building compensate for the destruction of an ecosystem simply by adding vegetation or producing renewable energy. Its regenerative potential lies in recognizing these limits while actively contributing to broader ecological recovery. The transition beyond net-zero is therefore not merely a technical evolution in building design; it is a redefinition of architecture’s purpose, from occupying the environment with less damage to helping create the conditions under which both human and nonhuman life can flourish.
AI … new law under debate by Bahrain’s legislators
Bahrain could look into international experience to build a flexible legal framework for artificial intelligence, labelled nowadays as super intelligence by the Americans, that protects people and addresses and acknowledges emerging risks without holding back innovation, Shura Council human rights committee vice-chairman Ali Al Shehabi has said.
With AI, or SI, rapidly moving into almost every aspect of modern life, Mr Al Shehabi believes Bahrain’s proposed legislation, originally presented by him amongst others, had to be broad enough to keep pace with technological change while giving regulators the tools to deal with high-risk applications.
The proposed legislation calls for the creation of a specialised AI unit, with responsibilities including co-operation with government authorities using AI technologies and monitoring compliance with the proposed law to reduce risks arising from misuse.
It also provides a legal route for people harmed by AI applications to seek compensation, including circumstances where more than one party may be responsible. The owner of a robot or programmed intelligent machine could also be held responsible for damage caused by it.
The proposal includes administrative and criminal penalties, ranging from warnings and withdrawal of licences to escalating administrative fines, alongside criminal sanctions for specified offences.
But, the government has raised a series of concerns and called for the legislation to be reconsidered, arguing that AI is evolving at such a rapid pace that extensive technical studies are needed to properly assess its benefits, risks and impact on individual rights, freedoms, security and ethical standards.
The government has also pointed to existing Bahraini legislation covering electronic transactions, personal data protection, information technology crimes and civil liability, saying these laws already address a number of issues targeted by the proposal.
It has instead suggested that AI licensing and regulatory oversight could initially be developed through a regulatory sandbox, giving companies a controlled environment in which to test innovative products and services for a limited period.
Such an approach, it said, could support startups and technology companies while allowing regulators to monitor emerging risks without imposing unnecessarily heavy requirements on new businesses.
“We need legislation that is flexible enough to keep pace with artificial intelligence, rather than a law that becomes outdated as soon as technology moves forward,” Mr Al Shehabi said.
Mr Al Shehabi
He urged MPs to look closely at international models and consider modifying his proposed Bahraini law, already drafted by the government and referred to Parliament, to make it more practical, adaptable and capable of responding to emerging technologies.
Among the models he believes deserve attention is Taiwan’s Artificial Intelligence Basic Act, which establishes a national framework combining AI development with safeguards covering areas including privacy, data governance, cybersecurity, transparency, fairness and accountability.
This approach also provides for risk-based regulation, allowing greater controls to be applied to higher-risk AI applications rather than subjecting every technology and business to the same regulatory burden.
“The objective should not be to restrict artificial intelligence. It should be to regulate its risks, protect people and at the same time create an environment where innovation can grow,” Mr Al Shehabi said.
His comments come as MPs prepare to debate and vote on a proposed law regulating AI technologies and their uses during the exceptional term later this month.
The proposal, submitted by Mr Al Shehabi, Shura Council first vice-chairman Jamal Fakhro, second vice-chairwoman Dr Jihad Al Fadhel, public utilities and environment affairs committee chairman Dr Mohammed Ali Hassan and legislative and legal affairs committee chairwoman Dalal Al Zayed, seeks to regulate AI technologies and their peaceful uses in a manner consistent with public order and the public interest while protecting individual rights, security, freedoms and ethical principles.
It would also prohibit the use of dangerous robots and intelligent machines whose movements cannot be controlled.
Mr Al Shehabi said Bahrain could benefit from studying such international experiences while developing a framework suited to its own needs. “We should learn from the experiences of countries that have moved ahead of us, but the Bahraini framework must be designed for Bahrain,” he added. “We can take the best elements of international models and adapt them to our own legal, economic and social environment.”
He also believes the legislation should go beyond the limited areas of robot-assisted services, manufacturing and medical intervention.
The government has criticised the proposal for not sufficiently covering the full range of sectors in which robots and intelligent systems are being deployed, including autonomous vehicles, care and domestic robots, as well as emerging applications in legal services.
“Artificial intelligence is moving into every part of our lives. Our legislation must, therefore, be capable of moving with it, protecting society without placing unnecessary barriers in the path of innovation,” Mr Al Shehabi said.
An undated photo of the Beijing Citizen Service Hotline Center, which operates around the clock. /Xinhua (Courtesy of the interviewee)
.
Editor’s note: Yan Yu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a lecturer at the School of Government at Beijing Normal University. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
.
As cities around the world embrace artificial intelligence, big data and digital platforms, the idea of the “smart city” is often associated with sensors, algorithms and connected infrastructure. Yet a more fundamental question deserves equal attention: How can a city actually hear its people and turn their everyday concerns into effective government action?
This question will be especially relevant when this year’s Beijing Forum on Swift Response to Public Complaints convenes in Beijing on October 12 and 13 under the theme “Digital Intelligence Era and People’s City.” Beijing’s experience suggests that the future of smart urban governance depends as much on institutions and collaboration as on technology.
Beijing’s 12345 citizen service hotline represents an important experiment in making government more accessible and responsive. It allows residents to report problems, seek public services and communicate directly with the municipal government. The city has expanded these services through websites, mobile applications and other digital channels.
But digital access alone cannot make a city responsive. Our comparative research on Beijing and New York City helps explain the institutional arrangements behind this responsiveness. The two cities have developed different forms of internal government collaboration.
New York follows a horizontal mode of collaboration, with technology-oriented leadership, a relatively fragmented institutional framework and contractual cooperation among city agencies. NYC311 has been especially strong in technological development and accessibility. Its customer relationship management systems, mobile applications, open interfaces and data tools allow residents to submit and track requests through multiple channels. Cooperation with municipal agencies is organized largely through Service Level Agreements, which establish response standards and expected time frames. Regular communication among agencies further supports coordination.
Beijing has built what we describe as a vertical mode of collaboration, characterized by administration-oriented leadership, a comprehensive institutional framework and cross-level cooperation. Its approach illustrates an important feature of urban governance: Citizen demands are connected directly to the administrative system and can mobilize coordination across organizational levels. Since the launch of the Swift Response to Public Complaints reform in 2019, Beijing has treated the 12345 hotline as more than a communication channel. Requests received through the hotline are assigned to responsible agencies and local governments, while performance in responding to residents is incorporated into government evaluation.
The Regulations of Beijing Municipality on Swift Response to Public Complaints promulgated and implemented in 2021 further institutionalized the process, covering the reception, classification, assignment, handling and feedback of citizen requests, together with evaluation and accountability arrangements.
International guests visit the Beijing Citizen Hotline Service Center to learn about the city’s “Swift Response to Public Complaints” reform, Beijing, China, June 26, 2026. /VCG
This institutionalization matters because many urban problems do not fit neatly within the boundaries of a single agency. A complaint about a neighborhood environment, a public facility or a local service may involve several departments and different levels of government. Beijing’s cross-level coordination mechanism enables grassroots governments to request assistance from higher-level authorities when a problem exceeds their own jurisdiction or capacity. Relevant agencies are then required to participate in resolving the issue. The result is an organizational mechanism that connects local knowledge with resources and authority located at different levels of governments.
Beijing offers a broader lesson for urban governance in the digital age. Technology can help governments sense social needs, process information and connect citizens with public agencies. But the ability to transform information into action depends on how authority, responsibility and resources are organized inside government.
This is where Beijing’s experience adds a distinctive perspective to the global discussion on smart cities. Its practice demonstrates how digital platforms can be embedded within administrative reform, legal rules, performance evaluation and cross-level coordination. Citizen input consequently becomes part of the routine operation of urban government rather than remaining simply a stream of data collected by a digital platform.
For cities searching for ways to govern increasingly complex societies, there is no single institutional model that can simply be transplanted across political and administrative contexts. The more transferable insight is the importance of aligning technology with governance. Smart technologies can expand the capacity to sense the city, while institutions determine whether and how governments respond to what they sense.
Beijing’s practice ultimately points to a broader question for the digital-intelligent era: What makes a city truly smart? The answer may lie less in the sophistication of its technologies than in whether those technologies help governments understand people’s needs and translate them into meaningful action. A people-centered city, in this sense, is one in which digital intelligence is ultimately measured by its capacity to make urban governance more responsive to citizens’ everyday lives.
The incredibly ambitious Jeddah Tower is currently under construction in Saudi Arabia. Due to be the world’s new tallest building once complete, it has already made it into the top 15 tallest buildings worldwide – and it’s still less than halfway to its final height.
The Jeddah Tower (aka JEC Tower and Kingdom Tower) is designed by skyscraper specialist AS+GG – i.e. Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill, with Smith responsible for the design of the world’s current tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, when he was at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
To put the scale of this mind-bogglingly huge project into perspective, the Jeddah Tower is already a supertall skyscraper. As of writing, it now consists of 118 floors and sits at 474 m (1,555 ft) in height, narrowly surpassing the USA’s second-tallest skyscraper, New York City’s Central Park Tower, also by AS+GG. However, the finished building will eventually rise more than twice as high. Though its final exact height hasn’t yet been revealed, we do know that it will exceed 1,000 m (3,281 ft), easily eclipsing the Burj Khalifa and bringing it to about twice the height of the USA’s tallest building, the One World Trade Center.
The Jeddah Tower will eventually exceed a height of 1 km (0.62 miles)
Thornton Tomasetti/YouTube
Inside, a collection of 59 elevators will zoom people around at high speeds, allowing them to navigate between a luxury hotel, lots of office space, and multiple palatial apartments, along with numerous tourist facilities, including the world’s highest observation point.
The Jeddah Tower will anchor a new urban development in the Saudi port city of the same name. It’s being developed by Kingdom Holding, and construction originally started back in 2013. However, work stalled at the 60th floor and was paused for several years, with multiple reports naming palace intrigues and purges by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as the cause for the delay.
Now that it’s back under construction, the skyscraper is poised to be a remarkable success story for Saudi Arabia, thriving at a time when several of the country’s other ambitious “gigaprojects” – like the Mukaab and the Line – have fallen by the wayside. Completion is still due for late 2028.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
An undated photo of the Beijing Citizen Service Hotline Center, which operates around the clock. /Xinhua (Courtesy of the interviewee)
.
Editor’s note: Yan Yu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a lecturer at the School of Government at Beijing Normal University. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
.
As cities around the world embrace artificial intelligence, big data and digital platforms, the idea of the “smart city” is often associated with sensors, algorithms and connected infrastructure. Yet a more fundamental question deserves equal attention: How can a city actually hear its people and turn their everyday concerns into effective government action?
This question will be especially relevant when this year’s Beijing Forum on Swift Response to Public Complaints convenes in Beijing on October 12 and 13 under the theme “Digital Intelligence Era and People’s City.” Beijing’s experience suggests that the future of smart urban governance depends as much on institutions and collaboration as on technology.
Beijing’s 12345 citizen service hotline represents an important experiment in making government more accessible and responsive. It allows residents to report problems, seek public services and communicate directly with the municipal government. The city has expanded these services through websites, mobile applications and other digital channels.
But digital access alone cannot make a city responsive. Our comparative research on Beijing and New York City helps explain the institutional arrangements behind this responsiveness. The two cities have developed different forms of internal government collaboration.
New York follows a horizontal mode of collaboration, with technology-oriented leadership, a relatively fragmented institutional framework and contractual cooperation among city agencies. NYC311 has been especially strong in technological development and accessibility. Its customer relationship management systems, mobile applications, open interfaces and data tools allow residents to submit and track requests through multiple channels. Cooperation with municipal agencies is organized largely through Service Level Agreements, which establish response standards and expected time frames. Regular communication among agencies further supports coordination.
Beijing has built what we describe as a vertical mode of collaboration, characterized by administration-oriented leadership, a comprehensive institutional framework and cross-level cooperation. Its approach illustrates an important feature of urban governance: Citizen demands are connected directly to the administrative system and can mobilize coordination across organizational levels. Since the launch of the Swift Response to Public Complaints reform in 2019, Beijing has treated the 12345 hotline as more than a communication channel. Requests received through the hotline are assigned to responsible agencies and local governments, while performance in responding to residents is incorporated into government evaluation.
The Regulations of Beijing Municipality on Swift Response to Public Complaints promulgated and implemented in 2021 further institutionalized the process, covering the reception, classification, assignment, handling and feedback of citizen requests, together with evaluation and accountability arrangements.
International guests visit the Beijing Citizen Hotline Service Center to learn about the city’s “Swift Response to Public Complaints” reform, Beijing, China, June 26, 2026. /VCG
This institutionalization matters because many urban problems do not fit neatly within the boundaries of a single agency. A complaint about a neighborhood environment, a public facility or a local service may involve several departments and different levels of government. Beijing’s cross-level coordination mechanism enables grassroots governments to request assistance from higher-level authorities when a problem exceeds their own jurisdiction or capacity. Relevant agencies are then required to participate in resolving the issue. The result is an organizational mechanism that connects local knowledge with resources and authority located at different levels of governments.
Beijing offers a broader lesson for urban governance in the digital age. Technology can help governments sense social needs, process information and connect citizens with public agencies. But the ability to transform information into action depends on how authority, responsibility and resources are organized inside government.
This is where Beijing’s experience adds a distinctive perspective to the global discussion on smart cities. Its practice demonstrates how digital platforms can be embedded within administrative reform, legal rules, performance evaluation and cross-level coordination. Citizen input consequently becomes part of the routine operation of urban government rather than remaining simply a stream of data collected by a digital platform.
For cities searching for ways to govern increasingly complex societies, there is no single institutional model that can simply be transplanted across political and administrative contexts. The more transferable insight is the importance of aligning technology with governance. Smart technologies can expand the capacity to sense the city, while institutions determine whether and how governments respond to what they sense.
Beijing’s practice ultimately points to a broader question for the digital-intelligent era: What makes a city truly smart? The answer may lie less in the sophistication of its technologies than in whether those technologies help governments understand people’s needs and translate them into meaningful action. A people-centered city, in this sense, is one in which digital intelligence is ultimately measured by its capacity to make urban governance more responsive to citizens’ everyday lives.
.
.