# China urged to shift urban growth to supercities



## ssfan (Sep 4, 2005)

BEIJING (Reuters) - Shifting China's model of urbanization to favor huge supercities could boost per capita output, improve energy efficiency and help contain the loss of arable land, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) said on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Rapid urbanization has been a major driver of Chinese growth over the past two decades and will become more so over the next 20 years; cities will account for 95 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2025, up from 75 percent today, MGI said.

But the institute, the economics research arm of consultants McKinsey & Co, said in a report that China could reap even greater economic benefits by adopting a more concentrated pattern of urban growth.

By enforcing land acquisition rules more strictly and by tweaking incentives for local officials, national policy makers could nurture* 15 supercities with average populations of 25 million people*, the report said.

Alternatively, planners could develop 11 clusters of cities with combined populations of more than 60 million people.

China currently only has two cities of more than 10 million people, Beijing and Shanghai.

China's urbanization rate doubled between 1980 and 2005 to 44 percent and will climb to 66 percent by 2025, driven by the influx of an additional 240 million rural migrants, MGI said.

This flight from the land will impose huge strains.

Urban China will need to find double the energy and water resources they now consume. Arable land could shrink 20 percent in the worst case, and pollution, no matter what, will be severe.

But MGI said supercities would be better equipped to handle the challenges than a rash of smaller cities: energy productivity would be almost 20 percent higher; public transport would be more efficient; air and water pollution would be easier to control and farm land losses could be kept to less than 8 percent.

"China's leadership has an opportunity to shape the path that urbanization takes to maximize economic outcomes and most effectively mitigate the pressures that urbanization will create.

"We find that shifting China to a more concentrated pattern of urban expansion would achieve both objectives," said Richard Zhang, a senior partner in McKinsey's Shanghai office.

THINK BIG

What's more, concentrated urbanization would boost GDP per capita growth by as much as 20 percent above the current trendline, thanks to scale effects and productivity gains.

Big cities also lure skilled workers, which would enable China to move more rapidly up the value ladder.

Whatever the model of urban growth, construction over the next two decades will be unprecedented as the number of city dwellers rises by over 350 million -- more than the U.S. population -- to 926 million in 2025 from 572 million in 2005.

By 2025, China will have* 221 cities with more than 1 million people*, compared with 35 in Europe today.

China will need to build *between 20,000 and 50,000 new skyscrapers *-- the equivalent of up to 10 New York Cities.

China will pave up to five billion square meters of road and as many as 170 cities could meet criteria for mass-transit systems, more than twice the current number in Europe.

"This could promise to be the greatest boom in mass-transit construction in history," the report said. (Reporting by Alan Wheatley; editing by Ken Wills)


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

The articel described perfect why it is so interesting to go to China.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

> China currently only has two cities of more than 10 million people, Beijing and Shanghai.


That's not accurate unless we are talking about city proper only and excluding rural immigrants. Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing and Wuhan all have a population above 10 million if you include the metropolitan area. I've read that Nanjing, Hangzhou and Shenyang are above that figure too, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

There are already two superclusters: the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze-Delta. I think the developement will concentrate on these two clusters and maybe Peking. History has shown that only a few cities in the developed countries can attract more people. The smaller cities will start to loose population when the country is developed.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

z0rg said:


> That's not accurate unless we are talking about city proper only and excluding rural immigrants. Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing and Wuhan all have a population above 10 million if you include the metropolitan area. I've read that Nanjing, Hangzhou and Shenyang are above that figure too, but I'm not sure.



Suzhou and Shenzhen also have over 14 million if you take into account the migrants. Harbin and Chengdu over 10 million, and Chengdu and Xian just below. 

That makes 14 cities over 10 million at current figures.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

> By 2025, China will have* 221 cities with more than 1 million people*, compared with 35 in Europe today.


There are over 100 cities 1 million+ in europe.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^I think Reuters needs to check its stats again, and not twist them for sensationalist effect.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Not sure that those "supercities" will go really high on quality of life index or happiness of citizens ... Those plannings are communist ones, not confusionist... We will more enjoy in the future being a russian in a so large land and also powerful nation :cheers:


----------



## snow is red (May 7, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> Not sure that those "supercities" will go really high on quality of life index or happiness of citizens ... Those plannings are communists one, not confusionists... We will more enjoy in the future being a russian is so large lands and also powerful nation :cheers:


Excuse me, can you please rephrase what you just said ? I really don't understand it.


----------



## beanhead4529 (Aug 11, 2007)

i definitely agree with this aricle. even though some facts may be a bit manipulated, china can't afford to make the same mistakes that the U.S. has made with suburbanization and suburban-type developments.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

beanhead4529 said:


> i definitely agree with this aricle. even though some facts may be a bit manipulated, china can't afford to make the same mistakes that the U.S. has made with suburbanization and suburban-type developments.



Not quite. In Eastern, Northern, and Central China where there is a heavy concentration of people, China must rely on supercities that have very high density and reliant on public transportation ie: metros.

On the other hand, in Western China like Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang, I can see the rise of massive sprawling American/Australian/Canadian style cities with a very small downtown core surrounded by endless suburban houses. This will work in those provinces because there is abundant land and low density, thereby making car and freeway reliant cities feasible. 

Imagine how neat that would be. Half of China (geographically) has high density, megacity lifestyle akin to the rest of East Asia and the other half has low density, suburban car dependant lifestyle like that of Australia/United States/Canada. I hope China develops along these lines


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

The thing with China, the whole economy relies on going green, with public transport, carbon emmissions etc cutting down. The govt is finally taking the ecological lobby of the Party seriously, the fastest growing and most profitable arm of the law at the moment.

Basically what it boils down to is that the 1.3 billion Chinese cannot commit to the expenses of the Americans, not even the Europeans. In order for the country (and the world) to have an economic future the govt must cut down on its per capita carbon emmissions- although much lower than in the West it adds up cumulatively to the second highest in the world, after of course, the States (with less than 1/4 the Chinese population). Even at current stats, if all the newly built buildings in China had been built out of traditional designs the country would have long ago run out of its brick, sand, stone and mortar resources. 

The argument is, both sides in the East and West point the finger at each other for being the guilty party. The Western media accuses China of dooming the world with current growth rates showing a China already the no 1 user of the worlds steel, iron, concrete, and projected to be the same for oil, gas, biofuels etc conceivably within a decade, and as the workshop of the world, crowded with thousands and thousands of factories, 

...whilst Chinese media points back and says look at yourselves, you already have doomed the world! Our per capita carbon output would be a paragon of virtue in the West, and we're already cutting down on it! What gives you the moral superiority to continue using up the worlds resources and not allow us a piece of 'your' pie? And btw those products we make are being commissioned and bought by YOU. 

...But then the West says, look, ok but there wont be a pie if you have a piece of it ,(whilst continuing to buy up the worlds cars and petrol etc and increasing carbon emmissions). And China says but we're already trying to cut down, (whilst also buying up the worlds cars and petrol etc and opening new coal fired power stations - alot less polluting than of old, but still coal fired nonetheless). As are we say the West...

..oh no you're not!

...neither are you! At least we signed Kyoto... blah blah blah

...at least we're not breaking Kyoto!...blah blah blah

You can see pretty much where this is heading - detente.


Anyway, at the moment the strictest ecological laws are being planned, with employment laws to go with it. The future envisages a wind turbine/ sun power on every roof, carbon emmissions halved, vertical farming and currently the worlds largest and most successful reforrestation programs etc. All eyes are currently on *Dongtan* (remember that name), the worlds first carbon zero eco-city slated for a population of 1/2 a million by 2020, and being designed by the worlds bigshot architects and city planners outside Shanghai (although dare I say it, a leetle late with Shanghai predicted to rise in population from 20 million to 40-60 million by 2020). If successful it will be the blueprint for all cities across China, and some say, the world.

Of course the biggest threat to this is the other 'lobby'- the economic minded (or not minded if truth be told, as theres no sustainability) capitalist get-rich-quick American inspired arm of govt, with great sidelines in corruption. This is the bit where the many coal fired power stations are being built despite the water, wind and sun power from the dams (just as controversial), wind turbines etc also being built across the country.


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> The thing with China, the whole economy relies on going green, with public transport, carbon emmissions etc cutting down. The govt is finally taking the ecological lobby of the Party seriously, the fastest growing and most profitable arm of the law at the moment.
> 
> Basically what it boils down to is that the 1.3 billion Chinese cannot commit to the expenses of the Americans, not even the Europeans. In order for the country (and the world) to have an economic future the govt must cut down on its per capita carbon emmissions- although much lower than in the West it adds up cumulatively to the second highest in the world, after of course, the States (with less than 1/4 the Chinese population). Even at current stats, if all the newly built buildings in China had been built out of traditional designs the country would have long ago run out of its brick, sand, stone and mortar resources.
> 
> ...


I afraid it is USA who must cut down emissions. Why they can afford and China can't? While othere development countries signed Kioto Protocol yankees still prefer to be extremely proud and egoistic even after New Orleans destroyed and all those storms. Hmm, it is not that fair while 5% of worlds population emit 40% of CO2.


----------



## Khanrak (Jun 28, 2006)

Alexriga said:


> I afraid it is USA who must cut down emissions. Why they can afford and China can't? While othere development countries signed Kioto Protocol yankees still prefer to be extremely proud and egoistic even after New Orleans destroyed and all those storms. Hmm, it is not that fair while 5% of worlds population emit 40% of CO2.


While other countries have signed the protocol, have other countries really done anything? You can be a typical European and continue to collectively blame Americans for being so "egoistic/ignorant/proud" etc etc, but unless your country has actually adhered to the Kyoto protocol's guidelines of CO2 reduction, then it doesn't matter that you've signed it while we haven't, because nothing has changed except that some trees were cut down for the paper that was signed.

And honestly, the one storm that ravaged New Orleans was predicted to occur for about 50 years. Just because Katrina occurred in '05 instead of '55 isn't convincing enough to suggest that its destruction was due largely in part because of global warming. America is hit by a lot of hurricanes, with really severe ones about every decade or two, and while it seems they're increasing, hurricanes go in large decade long patterns of intensifying and moderation. I think that global warming is an issue, but New Orleans was in harms way since it was first built, not since temperatures began to rise.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

02tonyl said:


> Excuse me, can you please rephrase what you just said ? I really don't understand it.


One out of ten, that's not my business.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> Not quite. In Eastern, Northern, and Central China where there is a heavy concentration of people, China must rely on supercities that have very high density and reliant on public transportation ie: metros.
> 
> On the other hand, in Western China like Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang, I can see the rise of massive sprawling American/Australian/Canadian style cities with a very small downtown core surrounded by endless suburban houses. This will work in those provinces because there is abundant land and low density, thereby making car and freeway reliant cities feasible.
> 
> Imagine how neat that would be. Half of China (geographically) has high density, megacity lifestyle akin to the rest of East Asia and the other half has low density, suburban car dependant lifestyle like that of Australia/United States/Canada. I hope China develops along these lines


Holland and the Utrecht Province have the same densities as eastern China. Even with densities at ~800/km², suburban developements are no problem. They are even less a problem in China, where the population will start to fall very quickly.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> Holland and the Utrecht Province have the same densities as eastern China. Even with densities at ~800/km², suburban developements are no problem. They are even less a problem in China, where the population will start to fall very quickly.


But its still inefficient though. And from the looks of it, China rather would use Hong Kong/European suburban patterns ie: massive rows of commieblocks than sprawling detached single family houses. Personally, I like sprawling North American/Australian suburbs better because the quality of life is much nicer when you have your own house, garage, yard where you can chill and bbq, and install your own pool


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

WOAH :uh:


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> But its still inefficient though. And from the looks of it, China rather would use Hong Kong/European suburban patterns ie: massive rows of commieblocks than sprawling detached single family houses. Personally, I like sprawling North American/Australian suburbs better because the quality of life is much nicer when you have your own house, garage, yard where you can chill and bbq, and install your own pool


Although when I see the sprawl e.g. in Phoenix, then I see there is not very much space left for a pool and a garden. When they got a pool, then they only have a few square meters left for a garden. Why not install rooftop gardens?


----------



## Alex Pox (Jan 9, 2005)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> But its still inefficient though. And from the looks of it, China rather would use Hong Kong/European suburban patterns ie: massive rows of commieblocks than sprawling detached single family houses. Personally, I like sprawling North American/Australian suburbs better because the quality of life is much nicer when you have your own house, garage, yard where you can chill and bbq, and install your own pool


It depends on what you consider as good quality of life. 
Living in suburbs yes you have a lot of space to do whatever you want but you probably might have less convenience as everything's sort of far away from you suburban home. You need to drive a lot in that kind of environment and it's damaging the environment, let alone traffic congestion and rising petrol prices.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

^^ I agree. Life in a suburb is hell to me, there is no quality of life there I can appreciate. It is something very personal. What do most people in China Mainland prefer?


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> But its still inefficient though. And from the looks of it, China rather would use Hong Kong/European suburban patterns ie: massive rows of commieblocks than sprawling detached single family houses. Personally, I like sprawling North American/Australian suburbs better because the quality of life is much nicer when you have your own house, garage, yard where you can chill and bbq, and install your own pool


There is something between massive commiblock rows and sprawling suburbia. How about a typical urban neighborhood with mid density residential and integrated shops and services. I don't mind to live in a condo with shared pool and garden. 

The typical sprawling suburbia is only suitable for low density countries like Australia or America. Just too much land is used.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ [anyone/everyone]*

^^ Yeah.

I'd, definitely, choose high-rise apartment/condominium-living than suburban/exurban-living.

While suburban/exurban housing gives you the liberty to own a yard where you can set-up a small garden and/or build a pool, there's nothing like being close to where you work or shop.

Furthermore, having an entire house (complete with a garage, a pool, and a garden) is much more difficult to maintain than an apartment. I can only imagine the headache of cleaning the pool every now and then.

Having a decent apartment in a decent neighborhood with excellent connectivity with the CBD/Downtown via public transport services is as close to a utopian-lifestyle as can possibly be.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ goschio*



> There is something between massive commiblock rows and sprawling suburbia. How about a typical urban neighborhood with mid density residential and integrated shops and services. I don't mind to live in a condo with shared pool and garden.


^^ You mean like a neighborhood of townhouses.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ You mean like a neighborhood of townhouses.


something like this:


----------



## lindow (Apr 1, 2008)

An Indian city may be the greatest in the world.



> The World's Wealthiest Urban Agglomerations
> 1. Greater Tokyo Area US$ 1.191 trillion
> 2. New York Tri-State Area US$ 1.133 trillion
> 3. 'Southland' (Los Angeles) US$ 639 billion
> ...


Statistics of the United Nations are incorrect. 
Update of a definition of an urban area is late.
In addition, PPP and both who are nominal are necessary.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Is that possible that rich will love to live in those ugly cities in the future ? Melbourne does it right, let's built a good size city for super-rich people of the future ! :cheers:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ lindow*



> Statistics of the United Nations are incorrect.
> Update of a definition of an urban area is late.
> In addition, PPP and both who are nominal are necessary.


^^ I really don't get why you're quoting my signature.

My signature has nothing to do with this thread.

BTW, those are PriceWaterhouseCooper's figures, and not the UN's. Also, the UN's definition of urban areas isn't perfect but it's the most comprehensive, by far.



> An Indian city may be the greatest in the world.


^^ Huh? What's your point in posting this? :?


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

goschio said:


> There is something between massive commiblock rows and sprawling suburbia. How about a typical urban neighborhood with mid density residential and integrated shops and services. I don't mind to live in a condo with shared pool and garden.
> 
> The typical sprawling suburbia is only suitable for low density countries like Australia or America. Just too much land is used.


I would totally agree with you actually. I'm just saying that the Chinese prefer Hong Kong style commieblocks seeing as how they don't stop building massive monotonous rows of them year after year. I think the perfect balance would be Japanese cities. I mean goddamn motherfucking Chinese city planners. Why do they insist on building hideous commieblocks instead of following the Japanese who obviously built far superior cities? Just because a building isn't a luxury condo doesn't mean that it then must be a commieblock! That seems to be the mentality of Chinese architects and urban planners. I mean what's so hard about learning from the Japanese who are world renowned as some of the best architects and city planners in the world? How sweet would it be if Xi'an started to look like Kyoto? (not identically of course, but similar civil planning)


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ drunkenmunkey888*

^^ Yeah. Japanese cities have excellent density. 

Furthermore, mobility around them is far superior to any American, Australian, Chinese, and Canadian city and to almost all European cities (thanks, largely, to its superb urban railway network).

The Chinese model of urban development is derived from the amalgamation of the urban planning styles of America [i.e., wide roads/highways within the downtown area and/or the CBD] and South Korean cities or Hong Kong [i.e., row-upon-row of commie block-type of high-rise developments].

IMHO, Chongqing is, by far, the most well-planned city in the Mainland. If its urban planning strategy continues, it would just be as good as Hong Kong's. Beijing, on the other hand, is...meh!

But...yeah, Japanese cities are the most well-planned and most aesthetically-pleasing cities in Asia.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ [anyone/everyone]*

Hmmmm....

Is it possible for Chengdu and Chongqing to merge into one 'Supercity'? :?

I mean, Sichuan Province and Chongqing Municipality are fairly densely populated areas of China.


----------



## PD (Jun 11, 2007)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Furthermore, mobility around them is far superior to any American, Australian, Chinese, and Canadian city and to almost all European cities (thanks, largely, to its superb urban railway network).


Could you pls clarify this statement.

Could you pls explain how it easier to get around Tokyo (largest population on this planet) than it is to get around Perth (population 1.7million)?


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> I would totally agree with you actually. I'm just saying that the Chinese prefer Hong Kong style commieblocks seeing as how they don't stop building massive monotonous rows of them year after year. I think the perfect balance would be Japanese cities. I mean goddamn motherfucking Chinese city planners. Why do they insist on building hideous commieblocks instead of following the Japanese who obviously built far superior cities? Just because a building isn't a luxury condo doesn't mean that it then must be a commieblock! That seems to be the mentality of Chinese architects and urban planners. I mean what's so hard about learning from the Japanese who are world renowned as some of the best architects and city planners in the world? How sweet would it be if Xi'an started to look like Kyoto? (not identically of course, but similar civil planning)


1) Japan has huge problems of it's own with it's society, high suicide rate and endless throngs of people. Just walking in Tokyo you get a sense of the sheer amount of people there are... it's by no means a planning paradise, it's just... different. The heights are limited by earthquakes, but you can bet that if it weren't they'd have a lot more high-rises like Hong Kong as well considering many new developments are high rise mega-projects.

2) Japan has a LOT more money than china.. it costs a lot to build a Roppongi Hills, and China can't afford it.

3) China IS communist, and part of the mandate is to build enough housing for everyone, especially with cities expanding at a breakneck speed (much faster than even Japan in the golden years).. the cheapest way is commie blocks.

4) There's nothing wrong with Hong Kong. It's one of the most vibrant cities in the world on par with Tokyo in many ways. What's wrong with HK?

5) Kyoto is based on Xi'an (a much older city), maybe if you visited both you'd realize just how similar the planning is.

6) I agree that some projects are pretty oppressive in China. The endlessly wide roads seperated by multiple rows of barriers, and huge monolithic buildings are a bit oppressive, but then hey it's a communist country I guess.

(Personally I think neither Japan or China is very 'comfortable' to live in... I much prefer my open spaces in Canada, but that said neither is perfect, and each has it's good and bad points)


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

PD said:


> Could you pls clarify this statement.
> 
> Could you pls explain how it easier to get around Tokyo (largest population on this planet) than it is to get around Perth (population 1.7million)?


He probably means using public transit. In Tokyo you can live anywhere, and within a 5 minute walk can take transit to anywhere else you want to be within a 5 minute walk from where you get off transit.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

> 3) China IS communist, and part of the mandate is to build enough housing for everyone, especially with cities expanding at a breakneck speed (much faster than even Japan in the golden years).. the cheapest way is commie blocks.


China is more capitalist than most countries in many aspects. Public housing for poors? Singapore does that too, being the freest economy in the world. So what??


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

Epi said:


> 2) Japan has a LOT more money than china.. it costs a lot to build a Roppongi Hills, and China can't afford it.
> 
> 3) China IS communist, and part of the mandate is to build enough housing for everyone, especially with cities expanding at a breakneck speed (much faster than even Japan in the golden years).. the cheapest way is commie blocks.
> 
> ...


What you said about Roppongi Hills is exactly what is wrong with China. Like I said before, just because a building is not a luxury condo doesn't mean it then must be a commieblock. What about developments like midrise townhouses or apartment flats places like Bronx Brooklyn or Queens have? (not projects obviously, apart from being red, they're essentially commieblocks) Those cost at most as much as commieblocks but are much more aesthetically pleasing. Or what about Taipei? I feel like Taiwanese cities have a much more organic, less oppressive feeling. 

As for Xi'an, true Kyoto was based on Xi'an but you don't see massive rows of monotonous commieblocks in Kyoto right in the middle of the city do you? Just go onto google earth to see the difference. Chinese cities look like awful monotonous barracks on google earth.


----------



## snow is red (May 7, 2007)

z0rg said:


> China is more capitalist than most countries in many aspects. Public housing for poors? Singapore does that too, being the freest economy in the world. So what??


so ? communist is communist, i see nothing wrong with that, if people still say China is communist then so be it, no need to waste your time arguing about it.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

I mean honestly, buildings like this definitely DON'T cost more than commieblocks but are still really nice and is the happy medium between massive commieblocks and suburban sprawl that goschio was talking about:










This is Jackson Heights, Queens. In my opinion, New York City is by far the best arranged city in the world (slightly better than Japanese cities). It is a megacity that the Chinese should look to as a model for their largest cities, especially Shanghai since the it shares many architectural similarities with NYC. How magnificent would it be if Shanghai looked like this picture in Baoshan or Minhang?


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> I mean honestly, buildings like this definitely DON'T cost more than commieblocks but are still really nice and is the happy medium between massive commieblocks and suburban sprawl that goschio was talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually this building would very much likely be much more expensive than China-style blocks. Look at the brickwork, and most likely the lack of density (remember land in a country with 5x the population of the USA is an important asset). As well, by building massive developments from one plan, all they need to do is design one building pretty good, and then repeat 30 times. Surely this is the most efficient way of producing housing for millions of people who move to the cities every year. Would you rather they just build every building different, take a LOT more time and resources, and have millions living in slums surrounding the city like in many other developing and rapidly modernizing countries?

Shanghai has been growing by hundreds of thousands a year, New York in contrast has been growing by much less from a much more well developed base. Japan meanwhile has it's share of very ugly developments (ignoring the fact that the average Japanese is 10x as wealthy as the average Chinese) everywhere. Any visitor to Osaka and Yokohama would easily see Japan isn't exactly Vancouver.


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

z0rg said:


> China is more capitalist than most countries in many aspects. Public housing for poors? Singapore does that too, being the freest economy in the world. So what??


Yes lots of cities have public housing for the poor... and in lots of cities, this housing looks pretty shabby. China's housing is not necessarily for the 'poor' it is for regular people (as most of the country IS POOR), and in many instances for people who were kicked off their land for large expensive development projects where they government gave guaranteed housing for these people. 

If you have ever been to China you'd see that these developments aren't exactly as ugly as the projects in the USA, the large satellite cities where they had the riots in Paris, or large commie block cheap housing found in Toronto. In fact they more or less look like housing in Hong Kong, but a bit cheaper which is understandable.


----------

