For years the media was obsessed with all the things that the millennial generation was supposedly killing, from fabric softener and home ownership to mayonnaise. But now their successors, Gen Z (those born between 1997 and 2012), have been handed an even graver charge: being unable to dance. In a series of videos that went viral on social media recently, incredulous observers filmed groups of young people standing completely still or glued to their screens on the dance floors of nightclubs. How is it that the so-called Tiktok generation – named for an app that owes much of its success to carefully choreographed dance challenges – is incapable of losing itself to the music?

Well, for one, outside of North Korea or a Texas rodeo, dance floors are not made for regimented routines. They’re a place to escape the lines of life and claim anonymity amid a mass of bodies and beats. But this abandon is much more difficult to attain if you’re under constant surveillance. When you grow up under the all-seeing eye of social media, you develop a fear of being filmed doing something stupid. We used to dance like no one was watching; now we dance like everyone is. In Europe, clubs are increasingly insisting on placing stickers over phone cameras so that nobody has to worry about ending up a laughing stock the next day.

Then there’s the fact that clubbing is facing an existential crisis, in part fuelled by the younger generation’s general apathy towards nightlife. In the UK alone, some 400 night clubs have closed over the past five years, about a third of the country’s total. We can blame the pandemic for a chunk of that (and we can blame consequent lockdowns for the younger generation missing out on early clubbing experiences) but there are other factors at play. A major one is that young people can’t afford to go out like they used to: Danish nightlife conglomerate Rekom Group’s research suggests that more than 77 per cent of people in the UK have cut down on late nights out due to the cost-of-living crisis. 

To read the full piece, click here. Solomon is a Monocle contributor. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today.

The Danish government recently increased the state pension age from 67 to 70 years, the highest level in Europe. I spent the first couple of days after the new law was passed wondering why none of the Danes I asked seemed that bothered. “Well, what else are you supposed to do? Retire and sit and eat and look out of the window?” shrugged a friend, 58, who works for the local council. His response was typical: 67 or 70, it wasn’t a big deal. The Danish media made a half-hearted attempt to interview working Danes who felt a bit disgruntled but claims by international media that there was an “outcry” or that the new law was “controversial” are off the mark. 

Having been told that they must delay their dotage by another three years, why were the Danes not making placards and lighting the torches for a march on parliament? After all, attempts to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 in France brought down a government. 

Meanwhile, Denmark has never been wealthier, the state treasury is constantly revising its revenue forecasts upwards (by many billions in the past year alone) and, incidentally, pension age is projected to rise to 74 by 2040. So what’s going on?

Essentially, workers trust that the state will take care of them if they aren’t able to continue working. In 2021 the government introduced something called the Arne pension (named after a brewery worker called Arne), which offers a special early retirement provision for people who have worked in more physically demanding jobs, typically since their teens. On top of that, many Danes have private pensions or are part of union-run schemes, which makes them less reliant on the DKK15,000 (€2,000) per month paid by the state. 

There’s another key factor at play here: the Danes work fewer hours per year than almost any other nation in the OECD so perhaps extending their working years doesn’t seem so onerous. They tend to be well informed about the realities of the global economy and geo-political turmoil so there is a general public acceptance that defence spending needs to increase significantly in the coming years and revenue from Ozempic won’t cover it all. 

There is one aspect of the pension story that did inspire expressions of mild resentment among the Danes who I surveyed. In a last desperate attempt to provoke them, I pointed out that their politicians – those who pushed Denmark to be at the vanguard of pension policy – voted to receive their very generous state pension from the age of 60. Now that did get a reaction. No one likes to see their politicians feathering their own nests – not even the Danes. 

Michael Booth is Monocle’s Copenhagen correspondent. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today.

There have been many calls for resistance against president Donald Trump since he returned to the White House in January – but surprisingly little action. New York, however, appears to be stepping up and taking the fight against executive overreach to the streets – literally. 

Just weeks before Trump’s inauguration, New York introduced the most expansive congestion-pricing scheme in the nation. Under the plan, drivers travelling below 60th Street are now charged $9 (€8) during peak hours – 05.00 to 21.00 on weekdays and 09.00 to 21.00 on weekends – and $2.25 (€2) during off-peak hours for the “privilege” of driving below Midtown. Viewed as an eco-friendly, pedestrian-friendly and cyclist-friendly revenue-raiser, congestion pricing brought in a respectable $159m (€140m) in its first three months of operation, according to New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) – well on its way to reaching the $500m (€440m) goal set for its first year. The money will go towards new subway infrastructure along with closing the MTA’s projected $3bn (€2.6bn) budget deficit. 

First proposed back in 2019, congestion pricing has not been without controversy: a group of small-business owners filed a suit in February 2024 to halt its implementation over fears that it would hurt restaurant traffic. But backed by both New York’s state governor, Kathy Hochul, and New York City mayor (and avid cyclist), Eric Adams, the pricing plan commenced this year. And that’s when Trump stepped in. 

Within weeks of his inauguration, the White House pulled the federal approval for New York’s pricing plan granted by the Biden administration back in May 2023. The move was not entirely surprising – in 2019, Trump held up federal approval amid fights with then-governor Andrew Cuomo over immigration reform. New York, it seems, needs White House support for the scheme because it includes highways that receive federal funding.

Five years on, Trump has returned to Washington and congestion pricing has emerged as a high-profile power struggle between frustrated big-city progressives and a regressive (and repressive) White House. The latest flare-up played out this past week when New York ignored a third White House deadline to end congestion pricing — with little to suggest that it will pause the programme anytime soon. The White House, however, appears to have had enough, with secretary of transportation, Sean Duffy, threatening to freeze federal funding for Manhattan transport projects as early as 28 May if the scheme is not paused.  

Hochul, for her part, appears unmoved. “Congestion pricing is lawful – and it’s effective. Traffic is down, business is up and the cameras are staying on,” her spokesperson said last week. The numbers are clearly on Hochul’s side: since congestion pricing began, New York has seen two million fewer car trips per month, according to the MTA, while public transport ridership is up. Most crucially, according to Hochul’s office, rather than businesses such as restaurants and theatres seeing declines in the “congestion” zones – they have actually seen an increase in reservations and sales.

Despite the gripe with Trump, other US cities are taking note of New York’s congestion-pricing wins as they weigh up the implementation of their own traffic tolls. San Francisco, in particular, could take the plunge as it faces major budget shortfalls for its beleaguered public-transport system, which has yet to fully recover from pandemic-era declines. 

In the meantime, all eyes will be on Manhattan this coming week as it faces the first real test of its White House defiance. Without federal support, New York’s already ailing subways will fall into further decline. But this time, rather than blaming Covid, New Yorkers – who overwhelmingly support congestion pricing – will have a more tangible target for their ire: one Donald J Trump. 

Kaufman is an editor and columnist for the ‘New York Post’. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today.

Headlines in the luxury-retail sector suggest fear and uncertainty. This is particularly true in the US, where famed department-store group Saks Global is struggling to execute its turnaround plans. Yet when you step off the world’s renowned shopping avenues, quite a different story presents itself. In London, a few minutes away from the hustle and bustle of Oxford Street, a jewel box of a boutique, Koibird, has curious passersby dropping in to discover its edit of independent designers. In New York one of the best shopping addresses is now located on Brooklyn’s unassuming Atlantic Avenue, where in-the-know locals hunt for new-season items from luxury labels such as The Row and Dries Van Noten, as well as independents, including Beirut’s Super Yaya.

Running an independent boutique involves risky investments with little guarantee of turning a profit. This is why, over the past decade, we’ve seen the eclipse of the multi-brand boutique and the concept of curation itself – only to be replaced by shop-in-shops operated directly by big luxury groups. The return of the boutique highlights an urge for discovery and connection. It’s no longer about convenience above all else. In fact, retailers are discovering that a little inconvenience doesn’t hurt sales. It’s why opening shops in quaint neighbourhoods has become increasingly popular, as has the printed shopping catalogue.

This spring, both Koibird in London and Outline in New York announced plans to shutter their e-commerce sites completely, sending physical catalogues to customers instead. You might no longer be able to make a purchase with a few clicks but you can submit your address online and receive a beautiful, printed catalogue that features the shop’s seasonal buys. Flick through all the different looks and place an order by visiting the boutique or texting the sales team. In the case of Outline, whose catalogue was shot in a modernist Brooklyn home, there’s even a section for taking notes as you peruse. This tactile focus is tied to co-founders Margaret Austin and Hannah Rieke’s refreshed vision of what it means to run a successful retail business: serving the neighbourhood with “one excellent shop” rather than updating a website on a daily basis and aiming for bigger numbers. “We’re tired of doomscrolling,” said Rieke when I visited Outline. “There’s way too much product out there, it’s almost like going grocery shopping. But it seems that the pendulum is now swinging.”
 
The return of the catalogue could easily be dismissed as a one-off marketing experiment steeped in nostalgia, not unlike the brief revival of early-2000s fashion and gadgets such as CD players. But it might also signal the return of a more mindful way to shop – and a more human-centric approach to luxury.
 
Theodosi is Monocle’s fashion director. To read more about the designers bringing slow fashion to New York’s rapid retail scene, click here. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today.

Qatar’s reported offer of a Boeing 747 to US president Donald Trump is not the first such gratuity in the history of US-Middle East relations. The same gift was presented in the opposite direction in February 1945, when US president Franklin D Roosevelt gave Saudi Arabia’s founding king, Ibn Saud, a Dakota DC-3.
     
The Dakota was a less exclusive aircraft than the Qatari 747 coveted by Trump. The military variant of the Douglas DC-3, the Dakota was a basic twin-propeller workhorse – but it was, at the time, pretty much the state of the art. After taking his first flights on it, Ibn Saud was sufficiently dazzled to purchase two more.

The history of national leaders being impressed by aircraft is almost as long as the history of powered flight. In 1910, just seven years after the Wright brothers took off from Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria became the first airborne head of state during a visit to an aerodrome in Belgium. According to a contemporary newspaper report, he was “highly enthusiastic”.
     
The feeling has been widely shared among subsequent heads of state and government, and intermittently exploited. Circa 1963, US president John F Kennedy followed Roosevelt’s lead and gave a DC-3 to loopy despot Mobutu Sese Seko, then-president of then-Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). This might have inaugurated Mobutu’s taste for aviation: he later installed a special runway near his palace at Gbadolite so that he could go shopping in Paris via Concorde.
     
The Soviet Union also sought the favour of various leaders during the Cold War by distributing airborne largesse, including an Ilyushin Il-14P to Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia, an Ilyushin Il-62 to Kim Il Sung in North Korea and a Tupolev Tu-134 to Samora Machel in Mozambique. The latter proved an extremely mixed blessing: it crashed in 1986, killing president Machel and 33 others. 
     
There are other hazards attached to accepting such gifts. As more than a few national security experts have attempted to caution Trump, there is be a fine line between an executive aircraft and Trojan horse. In 2002, China took delivery of a Boeing 767 for use as a presidential transport – built by Boeing in Seattle and fitted out by private companies in Texas. President Jiang Zemin’s staff, perplexed by a whining sound on test flights, eventually found 27 listening devices, including bugs located in the bathrooms and in the headboard of the presidential bed. 
 
Mueller is the host of ‘The Foreign Desk’ on Monocle Radio. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today.

Makis Voridis is considered the most hardline representative of the right wing within New Democracy, the centrist ruling party in Greece. This is something that he does not deny. Οn the contrary: he likes to emphasise it, believing that his country needs to redefine its relationship with conservative thought and break the “ideological dominance of the left”. His appointment to the Ministry of Migration Policy is indicative of the Greek government’s intention to adopt a stricter stance on a fundamentally European issue. Voridis spoke to Monocle in his Athens office about Greece’s expertise in asylum services, co-operation with Turkey and the “active deterrence” policy of the nation’s coast guard. 

You say that Greece has developed expertise in asylum services. Have other countries shown interest in learning from Greece?
Yes. In the past, EU member states such as Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus and the UK (before Brexit) requested bilateral assistance from Greece regarding asylum procedures. They recognised Greece’s progress in processing asylum claims quickly and effectively. Further collaboration is expected with the implementation of the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum, which is scheduled for June 2026. Member states will need to establish procedures for identification and asylum granting, and Greece can definitely play a leading role.

Turkey is a crucial part in European migration policy through its strategic location and as host to millions of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. Dangerous smuggling networks operate within its borders. What is the current state of Greece-Turkey migration co-operation?
Collaboration between the Turkish coast guard and the Greek coast guard is generally good, which is one reason why migration flows from Turkey are relatively low. However, the readmission agreement is not functioning as it should. The agreement stipulates that migrants who come from Turkey, which is considered a safe country, should be returned if their asylum application is rejected. But Turkey is not accepting them back.

You’ve emphasised that deportations are a top priority in your agenda for the Ministry of Migration Policy. Could you explain your reasoning behind this focus and how Greece’s approach to migration is evolving? Are we witnessing a fundamental shift in policy?
I wouldn’t call it a new doctrine but rather a new phase. The actual policy shift happened during the first term of the Mitsotakis government, when the previous Syriza government’s approach – to essentially let everyone in, allow them to rest in the sun then move on to other European countries – was abandoned.

The first phase was establishing an effective system: control, identification and efficient asylum processing, a task that was successfully tackled by my predecessors. The second phase had to do with the realisation that integration of all incoming migrants was an unrealistic goal and that border control was essential. This led to the fence at Evros (almost eliminating land arrivals) and enhanced maritime border security through the coast guard. 

For context, 18 per cent of Greece’s prison population consists of migrant smugglers and roughly one smuggler is arrested per day. Now we enter the third phase: returns. Deportations are one part of that.

You mean that there are also the so-called voluntary returns.
Exactly – voluntary and forced returns. I want to increase both but especially assisted voluntary returns. We must explain to those who remain illegally that the environment will become tougher with stricter criminal penalties, which will make it pointless to stay. They can instead choose to leave in a structured and supported way.

Stay illegally, face 18 months detention

You mentioned non-co-operative countries such as Turkey. Does this only apply to forced returns?
Correct. In voluntary returns, Greece, particularly the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, works closely with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and Frontex [the EU’s border agency], offering incentives such as plane tickets and financial support for relocation. In these cases, countries of origin cannot refuse repatriation.

What happens when a migrant refuses to leave and their home country won’t take them back forcibly?
That’s where the problem lies. When forced returns cannot be executed, we implement an 18-month administrative detention. The goal is deportation and the migrants are held until their removal is carried out or it’s determined that they can’t be. If nothing can be decided after 18 months, they are released. That’s why we need more effective penal measures.

So you’ll establish a stricter legal framework to prosecute migrants who refuse to leave after their asylum claim is denied, essentially driving them to choose voluntary return over prison?
Exactly.

When do you plan to implement this new legislation?
Soon.

You brought up the operational role of the coast guard. There are allegations of pushbacks. How do you respond?
We need to clarify that active deterrence is entirely legal.

As long as it doesn’t endanger human life.
Under no circumstances should lives be endangered. It’s not the Greek coast guard putting lives at risk but the smugglers. Active deterrence is legal and legitimate but some NGOs deliberately confuse the terminology. Active deterrence means that you can’t just enter a country whenever you want – the Greek state has a duty to protect its territory. Pushbacks are another matter.

Do pushbacks occur?
Greece has never admitted to such actions.

How do you respond to claims that the coast guard has performed dangerous maneuvers at sea?
The coast guard does everything possible to save lives endangered by smugglers, including many rescues. Claims to the contrary are provocative and insulting.

At a recent court ruling in Leipzig, Germany appeared to enable mass deportations to your country. How do you respond to this development considering Greece’s push for easier deportations to Turkey while Germany contemplates returning migrants to Greece?
It’s an issue that concerns us. So far, there have been no such requests. Also, it’s a matter that raises complex legal questions.

This discussion is essentially about the Dublin Regulation. Greece has long argued that the EU unfairly distributes the migration flows. What is your approach?
Simply this: we need a common EU policy. Returns shouldn’t involve just the country of first entry, they should go to the country of origin. We must act collectively as Europe. A collaborative return mechanism is essential – that’s what the new Migration Pact promotes. Otherwise, we’re just going in circles. Discussing how many migrants Germany should return to Greece when Greece and Cyprus already have the most asylum seekers per capita is a fruitless discussion. 

What matters is that we use the EU’s leverage to reach out to countries of origin and demand they respect the return mechanism. Even if the EU doesn’t act collectively, multilateral agreements can still be pursued. Greece, Germany, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Spain could, for example, co-operate and jointly approach destination countries within the framework of a multiparty negotiation.

The Leipzig court ruling revealed that Germany had previously avoided returning migrants to Greece due to concerns about living conditions. The court has now determined that migrants in Greece will have access to “bread, a bed and soap.” How do you respond to these characterisations of migrant reception conditions in Greece?
Both the specific decision of the German court and another related decision by the European Commission essentially acknowledge the significant progress that Greece has made on a number of issues concerning the management of migration. Claiming that a migrant sent to Greece would die of hunger is certainly not flattering for the country, so in that sense this is a positive development, even if it is not convenient in terms of migration policy.

Regardless of your approach or ideological stance on migration, there is an objective reality. That is Europe’s demographic crisis, with Greece being among the countries facing the most severe problems. How do you approach this issue and how do you perceive the role of migrants in the Greek economy?
First of all, I reject the notion that Europe will solve its demographic problem by importing migrants. The answer to the issue is to look at what incentives we can offer to increase European populations. In other words, we must look at how Greeks and Europeans can be encouraged to have more children. This is a matter of family and demographic policy. There is no other solution. 

Regarding the labour issue, the problem is exactly that European migration policy must aim at two levels: controlling illegal immigration and organising legal immigration. Legal migration must be linked to the needs of our production and supported by a mechanism through which people come here by our selection under strict and rational criteria. They will be paid, insured, work for a specific period and then return to their homelands and families. If needed, they will return again. 

Recently, both in Greece and elsewhere in Europe, migration policy has become stricter. One reason is the mass migration flows of previous years, which have put pressure on local communities. Has the rise of anti-European parties also played a role?
In reality political results are produced by the citizens’ vote, which might be shifting in the direction that you describe. But why? Because leftist and social-democratic political forces were not listening to them. These parties reached the point of trying to paint the voters as crazy. 

If I go to a working-class neighbourhood and my constituents tell me that living conditions are difficult and that they cannot let their children play in the public square because it has been taken over by illegal migrants who behave offensively toward their daughters and I respond “you are a racist,” then it is inevitable that a political shift will occur. Whereas I should have addressed the problem faced by our citizens. Isn’t that the very dialectic of democracy? 

Elective government is a wonderful thing because it is built on a dialectical relationship with the public. The difference between Greece and other European countries is that it had the necessary political reflexes to avoid this risk.

How would you describe migration policy in Greece today in a single phrase?
Strict but fair.

Bom dia from Zürich, where the sun is shining, the white port is flowing and our HQ on Dufourstrasse is bustling with visitors from across town, Switzerland and around the world. Off the back of our Portuguese market in London, some of the country’s most interesting craftspeople and brands have set up their stalls to not only dispense olive oil, woven rugs, ceramics, jewellery and garments but also to tell the contemporary story of “Made in Portugal”.

To kick things off on Friday eve we were joined by Portugal’s ambassadors to Switzerland and the UN mission in Geneva, along with the Swiss director for Visit Portugal. After a brief discussion about the Iberian nation’s role in the world, its manufacturing dynamism and a few travel tips, the conversation shifted, as it often does, to why a country that makes everything from cars to ships and drones to sweatshirts has not yet managed to produce a global retail powerhouse or fashion brand? How could it be that a country that manufactures so many implements for the Swiss-watch industry (not to mention the provision of manpower to staff factories up and down the Jura) has not managed to produce its own homegrown watch brand? Unsurprisingly, the answers were varied. So too the solutions for getting Portuguese brands on more shelves and spinning in showrooms across the globe. 

“We’re makers, not marketers,” suggested a Portuguese Monocle subscriber based in Zürich. “That’s the problem. We’re solid Catholics but we never inherited any of the brand flair of the Vatican.” After a few more glasses of white from the Algarve I overheard a small group of Portuguese from Geneva suggesting that bureaucracy and taxes stifle entrepreneurship, while a diplomat said that there’s too much focus on the making and not enough on the power and margins that come with intellectual property.

If you pick up the June issue of Monocle, you’ll encounter a new Portuguese player who just might be on the runway (literally) to becoming a global brand in the defence-and-security space. While Tekever didn’t take a stand at our market (wouldn’t have been a bad idea as we had enough military types in attendance), they are fast making a name as the drone supplier of choice to forces around the world – while proving that ingenuity mixed with some PR clout can not only raise a brand’s profile but also create a beacon to inspire other upstarts across Portugal. Should you not be in the market for high-altitude surveillance over the Atlantic, then you might want to check out a few of the following brands for your larder, beach tote, wardrobe or dining table. There’ll be much more from Portugal over the coming weeks and months as new issues land on newsstands, stories hit screens and interviews go out on Monocle Radio. Obrigado.

Here’s what happens. We send the magazine to press on a Monday and then, about a week later, we get to see the first copies in our various offices. Next, they start dropping on subscribers’ doormats before finally nudging their way onto news-kiosk shelves around the globe. It takes roughly two weeks to get to this point – two weeks in which anything can happen. Two weeks during which history, life and twisting news cycles can connive to derail the considered reporting that you committed to print.

And “derail” was the perfect word when, several years ago, we ran a story previewing the launch of the epic London engineering project, the Elizabeth line, only for its inauguration to be cancelled. It was another two years before the story came good. Our enthusiasm for brand Germany and belief in the prowess of German engineering also left us in a similar predicament when we produced a guide to the supposedly about-to-open Berlin Brandenburg Airport.

The new June issue of Monocle is just completing its journey to newsstands and once again fate – events – have intervened.

A few weeks ago, I was talking with Alexis Self, our foreign editor, about whether “soft power” had had its day. In such a brutal news landscape, were diplomats, governments and institutions really going to care about using culture, for example, to make friends and gain influence? Soft power was a term made famous by Joseph S Nye, who worked to promote the concept at the heart of US government and, latterly, at Harvard University. So Lex contacted Nye, who happily took on the commission, delivering, on time, a defence of soft power, as well as a clarification about what it actually is.

But in those two weeks of waiting for the magazine to make it to the newsstand, Nye died. He was 88. What to do? This is where digital news can help in some ways – we immediately published his wise words on monocle.com. When I saw his writing in the magazine, it seemed to have taken on even more power, to be even more pertinent. Soft power has been a key theme at Monocle and so I am proud that some of Nye’s final thoughts on the topic are in the issue, in ink. I hope that you read his story.

Timing has also had an effect on our lead report in the June issue, written by our executive editor Christopher Lord. Formerly our editor in the US, Chris recently returned to San Francisco to meet Jony Ive, the man who designed many of Apple’s most successful products before setting up his own studio. In recent years, Ive has also been involved in a project to revive a key part of downtown San Francisco and was keen to show Chris what he’s been up to. Chris delivered a great story about both urban renewal and Ive’s character. And then? This week a $6.4bn (€5.6bn) deal was announced that will see Sam Altman, founder of OpenAI, purchase Ive’s hardware start-up. It couldn’t be a better moment for us to have had this access to Ive, who is suddenly the man of the moment.

Today, when we need to run with a fast-changing news agenda, we have Monocle Radio, The Monocle Minute and our new, improved monocle.com to ensure that you stay informed. Yet when I see the issue, turn its pages, I know that print is not static; it’s not trying to stop time. It’s live. Across its pages in every issue, Monocle offers up an ever-changing world; unpacks places and people with commitment – and that comes with some risks but that’s OK.

Visiting a beach in Rio de Janeiro might never be the same again. A 16-point decree by Rio’s mayor, Eduardo Paes, will impose strict rules on the use of public space along the city’s famous coastline. Some of its points are well thought through; I do feel deeply aggrieved when I go to the beach and someone beside me is playing bad music on a loud speaker. Likewise, e-scooters are due a curtailing and restrictions on streetside performances using animals are long overdue. 

But many of these rulings go too far and are ridding Rio of its laid-back charm. To restrict live music from beachside kiosks is just perverse. What would Rio be without impromptu samba sessions by the sea?

Yet there are still more baffling prohibitions. Paes proposes a ban on selling drinks in glass bottles. We Brazilians know the value of an ice-cold beer – and glass is a key ingredient. If you want tepid lager in plastic cups or aluminium cans, go to Cornwall and leave our chopp (a draught beer served in frozen glasses) alone. A similarly joyless new rule is that beach kiosks will no longer be allowed to have their own independent names. That means no more catchy shop signs: “Paraiso Tropical” will be henceforth known, solemnly, as “Stall 46”.

Despite some of these petty decrees, Paes is still a big Rio enthusiast. The mayor garnered international attention after working hard to welcome big-name stars for free gigs on Copacabana Beach (Madonna in 2024 and Lady Gaga this year), attracting more than three million people. He’s clearly not opposed to fun, which is essential when you’re mayor of this town. “But I would prefer to lose a vote than be an incompetent mayor and have a messed-up city,” he said. Gaga might garner a bigger crowd but Rio is defined by the rhythms of its spontaneous local talents. 

In a city where beach and urban life are deeply entwined, striking a balance is important. Tweaks to the rules can be made with community involvement. Rio is a place where the beach’s unspoken customs and conventions create a welcoming environment for all, a great leveller in this vast city. Tinkering with that should, therefore, be done delicately. And, while it’s hard to complain when sitting in a deck chair with some iced maté from one of the beach vendors, especially if it’s named Ooh Lala, more restrictions and less independence will erode Rio’s personality and force its beaches to resemble their identikit Australian and American cousins. What next? Will they forbid drinking by the beach too? Meu Deus!

Pacheco is Monocle Radio’s senior correspondent and host of ‘The Stack’. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today. Or, if you fancy a dive into a Brazilian town that’s doing things right, read our feature on how Balneário Camboriú became the country’s mini-Dubai here.

There are some words that, like a virile invasive plant, spring up in the most annoying of places. Often, just as you are busy removing an outbreak from one sentence, it will appear in another paragraph, out of place, an irksome addition to an otherwise fine clause. One of these words is “curate”. For me, the nadir came when someone sent us an email about a shop that offered a “curated collection of socks”. I recently read in another magazine about a cake shop where the buns and fondants had been “carefully curated” (these two words rarely make an appearance in text unless they can arrive arm-in-arm). In this issue of the magazine, however, which includes our annual art special, they are allowed free rein. This is its natural and proper home.

How you collect and show works of art in a new and meaningful manner, or offer fresh ways to respond to cultural artefacts, is always fascinating. But in this issue we have access to a remarkable project where the curation is next level, even if this is not the sole reason for the endeavour. 

Monocle’s Sophie Monaghan-Coombs recently spent several days with the team at the V&A East Storehouse as they readied this epic project for launch. In what was the press centre for the 2012 Olympics in east London, the esteemed institution has created a vast new storage facility for tens of thousands of pieces held in its collections, from tiles and paintings to sculptures and an entire ceiling of a Spanish church. The building is open to the public and objects long hidden from view are now proudly on display. There is a also a system where anyone, not just academics, can become curators, choosing pieces that they’d like to see from the collections. Head over to our Expo to see the scale of the ambition.

The V&A project is also part of a bigger story: an attempt to shift some of the city’s – the nation’s – most important cultural institutions into places where they can connect with people who might think such spaces were too aloof or precious for them. Sadler’s Wells Theatre has also opened an outpost here as part of the East Bank scheme. Together they’re responding to some big questions. How can culture, for example, reshape our cities as better places to live in? And how can you revive neighbourhoods and create hope?

This theme of remaking cities is picked up in our business pages, where our executive editor, Christopher Lord, reports on what Jony Ive is up to in San Francisco. The UK-born industrial designer created many of Apple’s most important products, including the iPhone, before leaving the company in 2019. He is now an advocate for the remaking of the town from where he runs his new business, LoveFrom, with Marc Newson. Ive has been buying up property around Jackson Square, an area badly hit by post-pandemic office vacancies, to the tune of an estimated $100m (€88m). He aims to bring jobs and vitality back to the streets. It’s a great interview that reminds you how just one or two people can ignite the fuse of change.

This issue also includes an interview with New Zealand’s prime minister, a tour of a remarkable house in the mountains outside Palma de Mallorca by Ohlab and a report on Indonesian beauty player Paragon. It’s what some would call “nicely curated”.

On a different note, we now have a new website that looks handsome on laptop and mobile, where we offer a full digital version of our magazine stories, plus access to unique content, including a series of insider city guides written by our correspondents. Please, take a tour of this new world. As always, please send me any ideas, reflections or suggestions – you can write to me at at@monocle.com. Have a good month.