Jakarta is now the biggest city in the world
90 points
13 hours ago
| 7 comments
| axios.com
| HN
decimalenough
40 minutes ago
[-]
I used to spend a lot of time in Jakarta for work, and it's an underrated city. Yes, it's hot, congested, polluted and largely poor, but so is Bangkok.

Public transport remains not great, but it's improved a lot with the airport link, the metro, LRT, Transjakarta BRT. SE Asia's only legit high speed train now connects to Bandung in minutes. Grab/Gojek (Uber equivalents) make getting around cheap and bypass the language barrier. Hotels are incredible value, you can get top tier branded five stars for $100. Shopping for locally produced clothes etc is stupidly cheap. Indonesian food is amazing, there's so much more to it than nasi goreng, and you can find great Japanese, Italian, etc too; these are comparatively expensive but lunch at the Italian place in the Ritz-Carlton was under $10. The nightlife scene is wild, although you need to make local friends to really get into it. And it's reasonably safe, violent crime is basically unknown and I never had problems with pickpockets (although they do exist) or scammers.

I think Jakarta's biggest problems are lack of marketing and top tier obvious attractions. Bangkok has royal palaces and temples galore plus a wild reputation for go-go bars etc, Jakarta does not, so nobody even considers it as a vacation destination.

reply
skx001
8 hours ago
[-]
Alternative Link: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/jakarta-world-s-most-p...

Key Facts: Number of megacities, urban areas with 10 million or more inhabitants has quadrupled from 8 in 1975 to 33 in 2025.

Jakarta is now the world’s most populous city, with nearly 42 million residents. The current population of Indonesia is 286 million.

In 2019, Indonesia said it will be moving its capital to Nusantara, a new city which is under construction.

reply
awongh
24 minutes ago
[-]
To add some more detail regarding the new capital, Jakarta has some structural governance problems in the sense that it's very hard to improve infrastructure improve / stop the sinking of the city (mostly caused from over reliance on ground water pumping and permitting corruption / bad river management). Those problems might never be solved.

And separate of it's economic power it remains a center of power where the city mayor/governor always becomes a major national political figure.

Indonesia is actually a plurality of distinct island cultures, but with Jakarta, Java and Javanese culture sits at the top of the national political hierarchy. (Not to mention a sort of internal Javanese colonialism similar to the USSR).

The new capital could be part of dismantling some of the legacy internal Javanese power structures.

(To add a further detail re. Java vs. Indonesia, because of the mercator projection it's hard to see how big Indonesia is. It would stretch from Maine, past California almost to Anchorage).

reply
ghaff
1 hour ago
[-]
I also imagine a lot of people who are admiring these megacities have never been to one. Jakarta has oceans of scooters and, when I was there to visit some customers with our country manager, she had a driver. With some exceptions like Singapore, SE Asian cities are horrible to get around.
reply
ecshafer
54 minutes ago
[-]
Other than Singapore. I am not sure why SE Asian cities aren't going as all in on mass transit like China. Jakarta has a single subway line for 42 million people. They have some light rail line and buses. If you compare this with Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing its really night and day.
reply
ghaff
37 minutes ago
[-]
Probably a combination of overall wealth and government policies/stability/priorities. I'd probably add Hong Kong to the list of cities with pretty good public transit but, overall, it's pretty bad in that area of the world relative to cities that you'd generally consider to be "good."
reply
filloooo
39 minutes ago
[-]
Democratic governments are weak on deficit spending, especially poor ones, the debt from their tiny stretch of high speed rail almost became a scandal.
reply
Sharlin
33 minutes ago
[-]
> In 2019, Indonesia said it will be moving its capital to Nusantara, a new city which is under construction.

Because Jakarta is literally sinking into the ocean. It also has a terrible flood problem which is only going to get worse. Doesn’t bode well for the population.

reply
superconduct123
57 minutes ago
[-]
I'm always surprised how big the population of Indonesia is yet it seems culturally underrepresented in the world compared to a lot of smaller countries
reply
Froztnova
25 minutes ago
[-]
I also did a double take when I learned that they were Muslim-majority too. It flies in the face of a lot of assumptions.
reply
pat_erichsen
35 minutes ago
[-]
If anyone is looking for a good movie to get a sense of what Jakarta is like, highly recommend "The Year of Living Dangerously" with Mel Gibson/Sigourney Weaver

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086617/

reply
ghaff
21 minutes ago
[-]
Can't speak for the accuracy at the time but great film!
reply
netsharc
10 hours ago
[-]
Article is a paywalled summary of the UN press release: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2025/11/press...

And the full report as PDF: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...

reply
doener
57 minutes ago
[-]
reply
bookofjoe
13 minutes ago
[-]
Who submitted that?
reply
metalman
8 hours ago
[-]
Canada has less people, even with a 10% increase in the last 4 years through imigration, some of which is from Indonesea presumably including a significant number from Jakarta, where the civil infrastructure must be epic
reply
skx001
8 hours ago
[-]
The West just refuses to build anything. Whereas in Asia its not uncommon to build entire cites from scratch.
reply
Sohcahtoa82
37 minutes ago
[-]
Why spend billions building when you can just keep raising rents on existing infrastructure?
reply
bryanlarsen
1 hour ago
[-]
Canada has been building housing at a much higher rate than the US in the last 2 decades. Not enough, but more.
reply
daedrdev
23 minutes ago
[-]
They have been underbuilding compared to their population trends as we see their prices continue to skyrocket
reply
bryanlarsen
15 minutes ago
[-]
Down substantially from the peak in 2022. And that's nominal prices. Adjusting for inflation will show that real prices are lower now than they were in 2017.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/average-house-prices

reply
jeffbee
1 hour ago
[-]
Hrmm. What data source can I see to demonstrate this? I looked at a chart I have referenced before that shows nationwide USA housing starts over the last 20 years ranging from 2 to 8 per 1000 people. Then I searched for one for Canada and found one suggesting 1-2 per 1000 since 2005. And, evidently, the situation in Canada as developed/deteriorated to the extent there's a whole subreddit for the canadian housing crisis?
reply
bryanlarsen
47 minutes ago
[-]
Looks to be averaging around 250,000 per year over the last decade. That'd be over 12 per 1000. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/housing-starts
reply
jeffbee
42 minutes ago
[-]
Yes so it looks like the Reddit people are committing major chart-crimes, showing quarterly data as such, rather than annualized rates, and not mentioning it. It looks like this is a source of truth: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=341001...
reply
mh-
33 minutes ago
[-]
I have watched reddit become useless for any kind of nuanced debate over the last 5 years. It's rather sad to me, because once upon a time I learned a lot about others views - especially ones I disagree with.

Even HN is much less welcoming of the "I think I agree with you, but walk me through your thinking" replies than it used to be.

I presume this is reflective of a few broader societal trends, and it's.. not good.

reply
bbarnett
7 hours ago
[-]
Yes, it's easy to build entire cities from scratch in a centrally managed society, such as a dictatorship or communist nations.

It's also easy to have cities grow fast, if you're primarily a rural/agrarian nation, and suddenly have a transition to become urban. This was (for example) Canada in the 1900s. Mostly rural, yet now it's mostly urban.

Canada saw fast growth of cities back then.

It's maintaining large cities once the fast growth is over, that is a different story. How will, for example, China look in 50+ years? 100+ years? When all its newly built mega-city projects are crumbling.

reply
gucci-on-fleek
7 hours ago
[-]
> Canada saw fast growth of cities back then.

It still does—Vancouver and Calgary have both almost doubled in population over the past 30 years [0] [1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Vancouver#Demographics

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Calgary#Civic_...

reply