Indonesia is to relocate its sinking capital from Jakarta at a cost of $33bn. It says the measure is necessary, but such moves are rarely just practical. Can moving capitals work, or is it just a money pit for vain politicians?

Also on rt.com Abandon ship! Indonesia plans to move capital city as it is slowly sinking underwater

The history of new capitals is as long as that of organized government, from Alexander the Great’s plans to place his in Babylon, in the middle of newly-conquered lands, to Constantine the Great founding Constantinople away from Roman intrigue and geographic vulnerability, to Peter the Great symbolically moving Russia to Europe with St. Petersburg.

The trend has accelerated in the past century, and while politicians no longer acquire the cognomen “the Great” or get to name it after themselves – with the exception of Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbaev – the moves still seem to be dominated by an abstract desire for a clean slate and a place in history.

The archetype of the modern purpose-built capital remains Brasilia, constructed in less than four years prior to 1960. Supposedly a better representation for the country than coastal Rio de Janeiro, on a map it looks as if it is right in the heart of Brazil. In reality, it is in the middle of nowhere, thousands of kilometers from all the major economic and social centers. Similarly, its grand plan in the shape of an airplane is more reflective of a sci-fi writer’s sketch of a futuristic city than how actual places for millions of people work as a day-to-day experience.

And that’s one of the few new capitals that tourists visit willingly.

Astana, renamed Nur-Sultan after its creator in March, is expensive-looking and modern but unwalkable and windy. Naypyidaw, Myanmar’s new capital, equidistant from its two existing largest cities, is no longer quite the ghost city of media lore, but still most remarkable for its 20-lane highway to parliament that cannot be filled under any plausible circumstances.

There is nothing to suggest that Egypt’s proposed new seat of government outside Cairo, or equatorial Guinea’s Ciudad de la Paz will be any different, despite promises to combine intimacy with the fresh building site feel. That’s if they ever get finished (hello, fantasy main city of Sudan, Ramciel).

They would struggle to justify the expense to their voters, but it is perhaps developed countries with overburdened primate cities that could actually benefit from such a move. Architects and experts from across the political spectrum have long suggested that London should give up its government functions to a more representative city, most likely Manchester, to relieve overcrowding, pressure on housing prices, and unequal economic growth through the country. Yet the difficulty of transferring even a sub-division of the BBC to state-of-the-art facilities up north shows just how reluctant the country’s big names are to abandon the nexus of power and connections.

And while it may sound like heresy to American ears – after all it is already a purpose-built capital – would a new city from Washington, DC’s entanglement of lobbyists, special interests and think tanks produce a more streamlined and transparent government? Or would they just move to shiny offices, laughing to themselves at the naivete of it all?

to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.