# Pearl River Delta region - is it becoming a single metro area?



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Kenwen said:


> My friend's father works in the hk government, he told me the government will do something big in sheung Shui about increase the size of the city, and i telling u the urban area has already link, because after u cross the border, is still urban area, so the urban area is link, by international standard, they r a single metro even with link underground,wtf, they r not the same metro, u joker


Are you sure? Sheung Shui is the last new town on the KCR line, and there is still substantial countryside before Lowu. In fact, it is a restricted zone beyond Sheung Shui.

It's quite clear in this satellite photo :









I have no idea why you think Hong Kong's urbanization reaches the Shenzhen border. Do you know that the border zone still has a wide restricted area whereby Hong Kong residents need special permits to even enter?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Kenwen said:


> Is just the matter of time, how do u know the border will never remove, u so funny, by the time china reach similar level, the border will demolish, and i will see that myself in my life time, do u want a bet, let say 1million pound


You better start collecting the cash. GDP is still substantially lower in the Pearl River Delta than Hong Kong ... many times lower in fact. Recent estimates have pointed out China may need up to a century to reach First World levels. Even the handover agreement has stipulated things won't change for 50 years at least. Taking the border away will violate that. How much do you know about how the One Country Two Systems works?


----------



## Kenwen (May 1, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> You better start collecting the cash. GDP is still substantially lower in the Pearl River Delta than Hong Kong ... many times lower in fact. Recent estimates have pointed out China may need up to a century to reach First World levels. Even the handover agreement has stipulated things won't change for 50 years at least. Taking the border away will violate that. How much do you know about how the One Country Two Systems works?


But hk is a city, big cities in china such as shanghai, guangzhou and beijing income will reach hk level in 20-30yrs, so by then hk wouldnt seen 2 be 2 rich for normal chinese citizens, so by then people wouldnt just flood into hk but other big cities as well, there is no point for the border anymore. Is like in UK, London is far more richer than the northern cities, so do they consider to build borders to enclose London? And dont under estimate economic growth, Japan was one of the poorest country in asia in 1950s, but by 1980s one of the richest country in the world. And take away the border wouldnt destroy the one country two systems, because the city can self govert, like the mulicipal cities in china, but the difference is hk citizens can vote, thats about it


----------



## Kenwen (May 1, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Are you sure? Sheung Shui is the last new town on the KCR line, and there is still substantial countryside before Lowu. In fact, it is a restricted zone beyond Sheung Shui.
> 
> It's quite clear in this satellite photo :
> 
> ...


Look at that photo, there is a valley of urban area between mountain that is link with shenzhen, and also urban area surrounding the mountains, if there arent mountain in that region the effect will be even greater. And i talking about international standard here, BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARD they r a single METRO, OK, end of the story. People in the forum please give ur opinion, do u guys think they r in a single metro, dont mention politics and economics shit, just by lookin at the build up area.......if by usa or uk standard, im sure they r a single metro, i never say they r a single city but a single metro, u cant deny this fact, even with link underground, r there any city in the world with link underground but not in a single metro, u tell me


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

Have you ever been to Hong Kong dude?

They are not one city, not even close. Yes some people from HK work in Shenzhen, just as some people in Boston work in Washington. But it's not THAT many people. A lot more just live in Shenzhen and return to HK a few times a month. Then again no one FROM Shenzhen works in HK because... they can't get inside.

There's a few kilometers of greenspace inbetween the edge of HK urbanization and Shenzhen as well. Then there's the fact that past Kowloon, there's a LOT of greenspace inbetween all the new towns of HK. It takes almost an hour by KCR to get from Kowloon out to the border and inbetween you are going by greenspace much more.

The two cities are becoming more closely linked up for sure, but it will be a very long time before they become one city if ever. And amazingly yes... politics DO matter, because if people are physically not capable of crossing from one city to the other, how can they EVER be considered one city? That's just ridiculous.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Kenwen said:


> Look at that photo, there is a valley of urban area between mountain that is link with shenzhen, and also urban area surrounding the mountains, if there arent mountain in that region the effect will be even greater. And i talking about international standard here, BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARD they r a single METRO, OK, end of the story. People in the forum please give ur opinion, do u guys think they r in a single metro, dont mention politics and economics shit, just by lookin at the build up area.......if by usa or uk standard, im sure they r a single metro, i never say they r a single city but a single metro, u cant deny this fact, even with link underground, r there any city in the world with link underground but not in a single metro, u tell me


The valley that you speak of from Sheung Shui to Shenzhen is the rail corridor and the corresponding border crossing. It *is not* an urban area. In fact, people don't live along the railway north of Sheung Shui. Most of it is restricted area and cannot be inhabited. If you actually reside in Hong Kong, you will know that you need to register and get special papers to even enter the area (other than passing by on the railroad, but technically you are supposed to have the proper papers when you ride to Lo Wu).

Hong Kong and Shenzhen are two separate cities governed by two separate legal systems. Their metropolitan areas don't overlap due to the political boundaries set aside by the central government to keep Hong Kong autonomous. So right by that it is clear they are not part of a single metro by *international standards* or any logical consideration. 

Why would two cities be a single metro when there is no absolute free movement of goods and people between the two?


----------



## Magic Night (Mar 22, 2006)

Kenwen said:


> Look at that photo, there is a valley of urban area between mountain that is link with shenzhen, and also urban area surrounding the mountains, if there arent mountain in that region the effect will be even greater. And i talking about international standard here, BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARD they r a single METRO, OK, end of the story. People in the forum please give ur opinion, do u guys think they r in a single metro, dont mention politics and economics shit, just by lookin at the build up area.......if by usa or uk standard, im sure they r a single metro, i never say they r a single city but a single metro, u cant deny this fact, even with link underground, r there any city in the world with link underground but not in a single metro, u tell me


Grey areas are hk's urban area.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

> so such megalopolis already exist in china


did you mean this


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

jacks said:


> There are probably a few in China. Some of the 'rural' areas have very dense populations and a case could be made for joining a lot of cities into megopolises. A lot of the 'countryside' around Shanghai for example consists of a row of 3-4 story flats next to a row of fields next to a row of flats and so on. If the density of Perth (where I am now) is enough to be called urban then Shanghai is already joined to Suzhou and Wuxi and probably Hangzhou aswell, which would put it in the 30-40 million area.
> Beijing and Tianjin are pretty close and would have 25-30 million between them. A lot of the definitions we apply to Western countries just don't really make much sense in China as the whole Eastern seaboard from Dalian to Hangzhou is basically semi-rural. In Korea and Japan with similar densities there are mountains to keep the megacities clearly separated but eastern China is just one great big rice-paddy/housing estate.



umm, i think you mean to say that the yangtze and yellow river regions are one big paddy field?


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

Kenwen said:


> But hk is a city, big cities in china such as shanghai, guangzhou and beijing income will reach hk level in 20-30yrs, so by then hk wouldnt seen 2 be 2 rich for normal chinese citizens, so by then people wouldnt just flood into hk but other big cities as well, there is no point for the border anymore. Is like in UK, London is far more richer than the northern cities, so do they consider to build borders to enclose London? And dont under estimate economic growth, Japan was one of the poorest country in asia in 1950s, but by 1980s one of the richest country in the world. And take away the border wouldnt destroy the one country two systems, because the city can self govert, like the mulicipal cities in china, but the difference is hk citizens can vote, thats about it



Japan wouldn't be an appropriate example since it already had been industralized for 50 years by the time of WWII. I mean, where did the zero fighters and ships come from? 

A better example will be South korea, dirt poor, poorer than even China in the 50s.

Having been to Shanghai, i think it wouldn't take SH 20-30 years to reach HK's standards. 12-15 years is more than enough. By then, housing and living prices in central Shanghai will be high enough for the lower income ppl to move out.


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

Kenwen said:


> u r wrong, pearl river delta is the richest part of China, the GDP of guangdong is 2600billion rmb this yr about 350billion usd, yangtze delta is close but dont know will it surpass guangdong....and the gdp of guangdong will surpass taiwan in 2 yrs, u do the maths, thats a big news in china this few days, and yantze delta is combine by so afew different province and also shanghai, if consider pearl river delta has hk which is the fact, pearl river delta is still larger than yangtze delta in GDP, also guangdong has more migrants than any province in China, so i not sure about population.


No, u r wrong... see this article, *Yangtze delta is the richest area in China in total GDP*...



> 2005年双三角地区生产总值（GDP）达到52022亿元，占全国国内生产总值（183085亿元）的28.4%，比上年的27.8%提高了0.6个百分点。其中，长三角地区生产总值突破30000亿元大关，达到33963亿元，继2003年突破20000亿元后，再迈上新的台阶。珠三角地区生产总值18059亿元，比上年增加2730亿元。


http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjfx/fxbg/t20061025_402360163.htm

This is just the data of 2005, however then yangtze delta is far more than pearl delta!! Even add HK, Macao, still less than yangtze delta!

However HK is not that fast growing as other area of CHina, so no possible, pearl area could ever surpass yangtze delta... :cheers:

Here's the total GDP of two deltas... blue one is yangtze delta...


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

Let's compare the FDI again...



> 2005年双三角外商直接投资额为378亿美元，比上年增加35亿美元；占全国的59.3%，比上年的53.6%提高5.7个百分点。其中长三角占全国的41.3%，比上年提高3.5个百分点；珠三角占全国的17.9%，比上年提高2.1个百分点。双三角地区仍是我国吸引外资最多的地区。


See the difference? Yangtze delta is more than twice of pearl delta... 

The Cebuano Exultor is right, in fact, pearl delta is the one who can't beat yangtze delta... 

BTW, I have no preference to any delta... I like them both...


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

Oh, that's another economic ring, called Around Bohai sea economic ring... 环渤海经济圈... including Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Shenyang, Qingdao, Yantai... That's why these days, CHina keeps developing Tianjin, to catch up with another two delta...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Total GDP numbers are meaningless if population is not considered. China has a huge GDP, larger than many Western countries, but per capita incomes are still lower.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

per capita incomes is meaningless if population is considered,it's much easiler for 10 people get rich but definitely not for 1000


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> Total GDP numbers are meaningless if population is not considered. China has a huge GDP, larger than many Western countries, but per capita incomes are still lower.


Hey, dude, make sure we are talking about first. All the times, we are talking about total GDP. You are not thinking I was comparing mainland norminal GDP per capital with HK? :lol: :lol:


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

null said:


> per capita incomes is meaningless if population is considered,it's much easiler for 10 people get rich but definitely not for 1000


Yes, indeed, CHina is rich of many resources... So if China has only 300 million people like US, Chinese will be much more rich per capital than now... However CHina reached that level more than 200 years ago... hno:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

feverwin said:


> Hey, dude, make sure we are talking about first. All the times, we are talking about total GDP. You are not thinking I was comparing mainland norminal GDP per capital with HK? :lol: :lol:


You posted statistics then added Hong Kong and Macau to the analysis.



feverwin said:


> This is just the data of 2005, however then yangtze delta is far more than pearl delta!! Even add HK, Macao, still less than yangtze delta!


Regardless, total GDP is meaningless without considering population. Hence, a proper analysis should include per capita numbers for both deltas. If you want to add Hong Kong and Macau to the comparison, then you should find per capita figures as well.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

null said:


> per capita incomes is meaningless if population is considered,it's much easiler for 10 people get rich but definitely not for 1000


That's skew. The economic wealth distribution is normal, but skewed whereby most of the wealth is held by few according to capitalism. However, that does not render per capita numbers useless, since supposedly there are social programs in place to reduce that skew, such as employment insurance. While such items may not exist in China or well-developed compared to the West, per capita incomes are still useful to understand how wealthy a country is based on productivity measures. A per capita GDP measures how much output each person produces on average. A very low figure may mean there is more potential for development, while a very high figure may mean significant wealth from a very productive workforce. *Then* add a skew analysis to determine where the wealth is held.

GDP has two computations - income and output. Two perspectives ...


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Maybe the Pearl River Delta will be like the strip from Washington DC, to Boston. The Delta seems denser from what I've seen in pictures.


----------

