# Population of Shanghai in 2050?



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> Shanghainese have an extremely low fertility rate. There are more deaths than births in Shanghai, leading to a negative natural increase.


There are talks actually in Shanghai about getting rid of the one-child policy. This is mostly due to the fear of an ageing population which would be detrimental to the Chinese economy in the long run.

The thing though is that Shanghainese are now used to the idea about having only one child, so getting rid of the law wouldn't necessarily lead to an immediate birth booming.



brisavoine said:


> Yet there are still hundreds of millions of Chinese people who haven't moved from the countryside to the cities yet, so Shanghai's population should continue to grow due to rural exodus. So I would expect the population of Shanghai to be anywhere from 30 to 40 million in 2050, if not more (but then Greater Tokyo already has 35 million people in 2009).


Indeed, this sounds as a reasonable projection to me.



brisavoine said:


> In 2050 Greater Tokyo will still have a GDP larger than Shanghai. For Shanghai to pass Tokyo, it means its GDP per capita should be almost the same as Greater Tokyo, which I can't see happening in 40 years. It'll take longer than that (look at Seoul after more than 40 years of fast economic development).


Shanghai in 2010 is a lot more developped than Seoul was in 1970...

The thing is that the yuan is severely-undervalued currently. I expect the Chinese currency to overall appreciate in the next 40 years, reducing thus the gap between Chinese GDP at PPP value and at exchange rate value.

Of course, we don't know what will happen in Tokyo, NYC or the rest of the world, but the idea that Shanghai will join this club doesn't sound irrational to me.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

CharlotteJ said:


> huh! Europeans, like they are any better! Americans and Canadians are pioneers, those lazy ones who didn't want to build a new world and contribut to it, stayed home. Where? in Europe? when? two centuries ago
> 
> A little bit of respect will be nice.hno:


^^Actually my ancestors migrated to Africa in the 1840s, but were forced to move back to Europe in 1962 when they were abandonned by their mother country. There are a million people like that in France. There is also a sizeable number of people like that in Portugal and the UK. Maybe the same will happen to the Afrikaners eventually.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Metropolitan said:


> Shanghai in 2010 is a lot more developped than Seoul was in 1970...
> 
> The thing is that the yuan is severely-undervalued currently. I expect the Chinese currency to overall appreciate in the next 40 years, reducing thus the gap between Chinese GDP at PPP value and at exchange rate value.
> 
> Of course, we don't know what will happen in Tokyo, NYC or the rest of the world, but the idea that Shanghai will join this club doesn't sound irrational to me.


China still needs to overcome the environmental barrier. There is no guarantee they will manage to do it. At the moment 90% of Chinese rivers are so polluted they can't even be used for irigation. The air in all Chinese cities is so polluted that it shortens the life expectancy of Chinese people by many years. Most Chinese food products contain chemicals above any reasonable health standards (fruits and vegetables in Beijing farmer markets for example contain a disastrous amount of chemicals). Deforestation, soil erosion, and advance of deserts is also disastrous (the vast plain lying between Beijing and Tianjin could turn into a desert within a generation). Consumption of raw materials and petroil is unsustainable (the world simply cannot provide enough raw materials and petroil for 1.3 billion people consuming the way people in large Chinese cities consume now). Chinese biodiversity is catastrophically declining. Frankly, I know only one country in a worse position than China, and that's India.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Metropolitan said:


> There are talks actually in Shanghai about getting rid of the one-child policy. This is mostly due to the fear of an ageing population which would be detrimental to the Chinese economy in the long run.
> 
> The thing though is that Shanghainese are now used to the idea about having only one child, so getting rid of the law wouldn't necessarily lead to an immediate birth booming.


In 2004, the one child policy was relaxed. You notice the uptick in birthrate in 2004? But Brisavoine is right, now the fertility-rate is estimated at 0.88. Despite that, I voted for over 60 million people. Why? Because I think that China will follow the pattern of development, that Japan and South Korea had. Even if the rural areas develop, too, like they had in Japan or South Korea, the cities will still have an advantage over the rural areas. The bigger the city, the bigger the advantage. Since a few years, the population decline in rural areas of Japan and South Korea has become very severe. Osaka stagnates, Busan shrinks by 0.8% a year. Seoul and Tokyo are growing 0.5-1% a year. 

The other cities of China will develop, too, but Peking, Shanghai and Guangzhou will always have an advantage. When China is well developed and urbanized, the three major cities will get their demand from the other cities.


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> China still needs to overcome the environmental barrier. There is no guarantee they will manage to do it. At the moment 90% of Chinese rivers are so polluted they can't even be used for irigation. The air in all Chinese cities is so polluted that it shortens the life expectancy of Chinese people by many years. Most Chinese food products contain chemicals above any reasonable health standards (fruits and vegetables in Beijing farmer markets for example contain a disastrous amount of chemicals). Deforestation, soil erosion, and advance of deserts is also disastrous (the vast plain lying between Beijing and Tianjin could turn into a desert within a generation). Consumption of raw materials and petroil is unsustainable (the world simply cannot provide enough raw materials and petroil for 1.3 billion people consuming the way people in large Chinese cities consume now). Chinese biodiversity is catastrophically declining. Frankly, I know only one country in a worse position than China, and that's India.


The whole world is such a mess already, there are some small countries that are doing it well and right, but only their efforts is not enough. I do totally agree. I wonder where this overpopulation of people who only consume and are totally not aware of the future of mother Earth will lead to?! sad... really sad.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

The future for the Earth as a whole is ok, we'll manage. But for countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, there are pretty tough times ahead. IMO, the 21st century could be marked by massive emigration from the Indian subcontinent, the like of which has never been seen before, and the rest of the world will have to put up with it.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

whizz_pat said:


> As of 2009, Shanghai had a registered population of 13.71 million.
> 
> In 2008, the population grew by 0.9%. If this trend were to continue for 41 years until 2050, they would end up with a population of 19.8 million.
> 
> Source


Those figures don't include immigrants. Including immigrants, Shanghai reached 20 million in 2003. Including unregistered ones it must be around 25 already.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/05/content_287714.htm

By 2050? Very hard to say, but I'd say no less than 30-35 million.


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> The future for the Earth as a whole is ok, we'll manage. But for countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, there are pretty tough times ahead. IMO, the 21st century could be marked by massive emigration from the Indian subcontinent, the like of which has never been seen before, and the rest of the world will have to put up with it.


And where will they all go then?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

^^Probably pretty much everywhere. I don't know how the world could manage say 100 million Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi emigrants, and that'll be just 5% of the Indian subcontinent's population in 2050.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> China still needs to overcome the environmental barrier. There is no guarantee they will manage to do it. At the moment 90% of Chinese rivers are so polluted they can't even be used for irigation. The air in all Chinese cities is so polluted that it shortens the life expectancy of Chinese people by many years. Most Chinese food products contain chemicals above any reasonable health standards (fruits and vegetables in Beijing farmer markets for example contain a disastrous amount of chemicals). Deforestation, soil erosion, and advance of deserts is also disastrous (the vast plain lying between Beijing and Tianjin could turn into a desert within a generation). Consumption of raw materials and petroil is unsustainable (the world simply cannot provide enough raw materials and petroil for 1.3 billion people consuming the way people in large Chinese cities consume now). Chinese biodiversity is catastrophically declining. Frankly, I know only one country in a worse position than China, and that's India.


Forest cover in China has increased since 1950, and there is a large tree-planting campaign; there is very little chance that the "vast" (not really that big) plain between Beijing and Tianjin will turn into a desert. Desertification has slowed and even reversed in China, probably the desert line will stay at where it is now for at least many decades.


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> ^^Probably pretty much everywhere. I don't know how the world could manage say 100 million Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi emigrants, and that'll be just 5% of the Indian subcontinent's population in 2050.


Hopefully not to Canada or USA ! they might come to Europe and set up some more fun neighbourhoods around here which is so badly needed and in demand.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> The future for the Earth as a whole is ok, we'll manage. But for countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, there are pretty tough times ahead. IMO, the 21st century could be marked by massive emigration from the Indian subcontinent, the like of which has never been seen before, and the rest of the world will have to put up with it.


Why? The economy of the subcontinent is booming. The rise of sea level will be only half a metre in the worst case until 2100. And you can't tell me that these booming economies cannot afford to rise their land by 50cm. There will be new technologies available that allows heaping up massive amounts of soil.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

CharlotteJ said:


> Hopefully not to Canada or USA ! they might come to Europe and set up some more fun neighbourhoods around here which is so badly needed and in demand.


They will stay. The subcontinent is developed until 2100. Also, in India there's enough space for at least double the number of people that it now has.


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

lack of democracy? health care? proper education? a lot of bureaucracy? bad policy's? turbulant politics? Analphabetism? too many people? too many cultural/traditonal issues that prohibits one of really be free let aloen develop? too many religious views? corruptions in all levels of their society? unjustice? specially towards women?

WEll, believe me, once they can solve all those, they may be OK and willing to stay right where they are. But the day that happens, there is not land left under 100 meters of salty sea water! and that due to their own conduct and lack of appreciation and awareness and respect for the world around them.


----------



## Matchut (May 2, 2008)

delete


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

:bash:


Chrissib said:


> They will stay. The subcontinent is developed until 2100. Also, in India there's enough space for at least double the number of people that it now has.


I really hope it won't dubble that much today and that they can develop something called " birth control". There is only one planet and one planet only. What do they think? to keep growing their population and that there will be enough food and energy resources for everybody?:bash:hno:


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

CharlotteJ said:


> :bash:
> 
> I really hope it won't dubble that much today and that they can develop something called " birth control". There is only one planet and one planet only. What do they think? to keep growing their population and that there will be enough food and energy resources for everybody?:bash:hno:


If they do birth control, then India's population will dwindle like that of Russia today. The fertility rate of Calcutta is at 1.4 today, Madras 1.3, Mumbai 1.7. India should make a policy that encourages people to get children.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

BarbaricManchurian said:


> Forest cover in China has increased since 1950, and there is a large tree-planting campaign; there is very little chance that the "vast" (not really that big) plain between Beijing and Tianjin will turn into a desert. Desertification has slowed and even reversed in China, probably the desert line will stay at where it is now for at least many decades.


Sand storms in Beijing are more frequent than before. So perhaps desertification has slowed in the official propaganda, but the frequency of sand storms would suggest otherwise in the real world. The situation is also very difficult in northern Shanxi and northern Shaanxi, not to mention Gansu, but then Gansu has long been used to desert environments.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Why? The economy of the subcontinent is booming. The rise of sea level will be only half a metre in the worst case until 2100. And you can't tell me that these booming economies cannot afford to rise their land by 50cm. There will be new technologies available that allows heaping up massive amounts of soil.


Look, environmental problems are already daunting enough in China (although I think they will manage to solve them in the end, albeit at the cost of a major crisis hindering their economic development for a few decades), but the environmental problems besetting the Indian subcontinent are simply insolvable given the crazy lax birth policies that they had since independence. One billion people should have been the maximum population allowed in the Indian subcontinent, but not only they have already passed one billion, they are now on course to reach 2 billion before 2050, and perhaps even more if Pakistan doesn't finally put in place some serious familly planning programs. 2 billion+ people on a space that is smaller than China and that doesn't have as much water resources as China is simply a recipe for disaster. In two or three decades you may recall what I've said here, but it will be too late.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> Sand storms in Beijing are more frequent than before. So perhaps desertification has slowed in the official propaganda, but the frequency of sand storms would suggest otherwise in the real world. The situation is also very difficult in northern Shanxi and northern Shaanxi, not to mention Gansu, but then Gansu has long been used to desert environments.





wigo said:


> Many people know that the expansion of China's economy is the fastest in the world, but few people know that the expansion of the China's forest is also the fastest in the world. In reality, China is the only place where forest is aggressively growing while in many parts of the world, from Amazonia to Southeast Asia, and to Africa, the forests are shrinking, and dying.
> 
> Forest covered 9% of China's territory in 1949. The coverage has increased to 16% now and is project to reach 20% in 2020.
> 
> ...





ratclaw said:


> Hi. I saw this thread and remembered that I found these images on the web.
> 
> Forest Growth from 1900-2000
> 
> ...


Unfortunately the Shaanxi afforestation pics have died, but they were quite eye-opening, even to me. 





Also:

Storm turns Beijing sky yellow
2009-03-17 10:29:29 GMT2009-03-17 18:29:29 (Beijing Time) China Daily 

A sandstorm, the first this year, turned the Beijing sky pale yellow on Sunday.

"The dust slightly polluted the air and reduced visibility on Sunday, but it did no harm to the crops," head of the Beijing meteorological bureau (BMB) Guo Hu told reporters Monday.

The sandstorm was caused by a "sudden cold front, which blew in the dust from outside the capital," he said.

The storm affected an area of about 160,000 sq km, including Beijing and its surrounding Hebei and Shandong provinces, Guo said, adding that another sandstorm may hit the capital in the next 10 days.

"But during April there are a lot of chances for sandstorms," he added.

According to BMB's forecast, the city will see "no less than six dusty days this spring, fewer than the annual average of about 10 days".

Guo said dust storms in China were divided into four levels depending on its intensity - floating dust, flying sand, sandstorm, and severe sandstorm.

*According to statistics with the BMB, in the last decades, flying sand days and sandstorms had seen a considerable decrease. On an average, there were 33 flying sand days every year before 1980, and have decreased to nine days since 2000. Sandstorms, too, are rare since 1996.*

The country's first wide-range sandstorm hit large parts of Northern China, including Gansu, Ningxia, Hebei, Henan, Shanxi, Shannxi, Shandong, Tianjin and Inner Mongolia last week, local media reported.

Chances of another sandstorm are high in Gansu, Ningxia, Inner Mongolia, the China Central Meteorological Station said.

_________________________________

Mostly if one saw these sandstorms for the first time, it's like a cloud of dust, not really a desert sandstorm in the stereotypical sense. Sandstorms are more frequent nowadays, eh? Maybe there was a slight increase in the early 2000's, which of course the Western media pounced on, saying Beijing was unfit for Olympics blah blah blah, but there's only 1 so far this year, so don't blatantly lie like that!


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

particlez said:


> ^you really need to keep your identity issues to yourself. or you can keep holding up your provincial british town as the penultimate example of urban development and aesthetic perfection... which is like saying the whole world should follow a certain fashion sense or taste in movies.


I'll try to ignore this paragraph ...



> if you wanted the absolute highest densities for PT efficiency, you'd want the asceticism of hong kong or singapore. their layouts make sense in terms of housing and transit. 'cept of course people aren't rational and would continue to long for lowrise historicist architecture or whatever they've been conditioned to see as aesthetically pleasing.


Life should be a balance between mechanical efficiency and cultural flavour. A development model centred on traditional towns and architectual styles can still ensure an acceptable level of density while preserving the historical character of the place. The City of London is a good example of this.



> the provision of bus services in the low density areas of british suburbia are more about better resources (e.g. higher incomes and a dedication to providing public transit) than density itself.
> 
> conversely even ultra high density areas of ho chi minh city (or many other developing places) have/had bad public transit. the population density is more than enough to support PT, just that the money wasn't available and/or the authorities did not focus on it.


Hmm, seems like we are merging onto the same road ...

It's also to do the land-use structure and the extent to which travel routes can be consolidated. Statiscally British cities are 'low density' only because there are large areas of parks and playing fields (well used functions incidentally) within the urban boundary. Individual settlements are usually designed so that most residents can have easy access to one single high-frequency bus route and support it. With the same overall density but American-style distribution this would not be the case.

In fact there's this excellent thread on suburbs in this board where a number of posters, including spliff, explained the differences between European and American suburbs and how raw overall density figures give very limited information.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

^here comes the B.S., powered by an overwhelming desire to conform to british norms and to be seen as superior to some other civilization. normally i wouldn't say this, but you really make a point of holding up your bucolic existence in britain as an example for everything else to follow. it's really tedious and isn't backed up with rational arguments.



> Life should be a balance between mechanical efficiency and cultural flavour. A development model centred on traditional towns and architectual styles can still ensure an acceptable level of density while preserving the historical character of the place. The City of London is a good example of this.


no one said the city of london was bad. unfortunately you held up british suburbia as something to be emulated. not that it's entirely bad. but british suburbia is certainly less convenient and more auto oriented than the urban areas of most of the developed world.

the fact that you admitted to enjoying the car, but added the caveat of enjoying auto usage through bucolic 2-lane british roads, but would hate the prospect of driving on larger freeways just betrays your lack of objectivity. driving the private car by definition compromises good urbanism. the private car is inherently inefficient and burns unnecessary gasoline. if you lived in a RURAL area, you'd have no choice but to drive. but you don't, and you're really pushing the boundaries of logic by excusing your own suburban lifestyle. by driving the car and then saying it's a good mix between driving, pedestrian-orientation, and public transit, you're spewing the same lines used by new urbanist suburban dwellers. ironically new urbanism is the most dominant 'ism' used by developers on both sides of the atlantic. and even more ironic, new urbanism's ideals aren't really translated into reality. with the exception of aesthetics, driving in suburban britain has many similarities to driving in suburban north america (and is especially similar to suburban canada and the higher density burbs of the western US). 

dude, those low densities in suburban britain aren't some urban legend (no pun intended). the funny thing is, you've held up shanghai and suburban america as something similar, and similarly bad, yet you don't see how suburban britain is 'suburban', with all the attendant traits.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

particlez said:


> ^here comes the B.S., powered by an overwhelming desire to conform to british norms and to be seen as superior to some other civilization. normally i wouldn't say this, but you really make a point of holding up your bucolic existence in britain as an example for everything else to follow. it's really tedious and isn't backed up with rational arguments.
> 
> no one said the city of london was bad. unfortunately you held up british suburbia as something to be emulated. not that it's entirely bad. but british suburbia is certainly less convenient and more auto oriented than the urban areas of most of the developed world.


Relax will you. When I cite examples of London you jump to the conclusion that I believe London is all good and everything should be exactly like London.



> the fact that you admitted to enjoying the car, but added the caveat of enjoying auto usage through bucolic 2-lane british roads, but would hate the prospect of driving on larger freeways just betrays your lack of objectivity.


And I also mentioned I walk, cycle or use public transport as much as I can and only use the car in off-peak hours or when I occasionally carry suitcases. There are also times when you really need the flexibility.



> driving the private car by definition compromises good urbanism. the private car is inherently inefficient and burns unnecessary gasoline. if you lived in a RURAL area, you'd have no choice but to drive. but you don't, and you're really pushing the boundaries of logic by excusing your own suburban lifestyle. by driving the car and then saying it's a good mix between driving, pedestrian-orientation, and public transit, you're spewing the same lines used by new urbanist suburban dwellers. ironically new urbanism is the most dominant 'ism' used by developers on both sides of the atlantic. and even more ironic, new urbanism's ideals aren't really translated into reality. with the exception of aesthetics, driving in suburban britain has many similarities to driving in suburban north america (and is especially similar to suburban canada and the higher density burbs of the western US).


It's this kind of militant anti-car attitude that give public transport supporters a bad name. There's no point in stamping out the human out of humans. You can reduce car use of negligible levels but there's no point in trying to stamp it out.

And how funny is it you never acknowledge Shanghai's car use level of unacceptably high given the very high density that would sure render cars totally uneccesary by your logic.



> dude, those low densities in suburban britain aren't some urban legend (no pun intended). the funny thing is, you've held up shanghai and suburban america as something similar, and similarly bad, yet you don't see how suburban britain is 'suburban', with all the attendant traits.


It's you concentrating on the aesthetics.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

^it's your utter lack of objectivity and constant cheerleading for suburban nottingham which makes your posts so humorous. really now, get a hobby, cheer for your local football team or something.

if i had never been to nottingham and took you seriously, i'd believe that you lived in a magical place with lowrise, front lawns, low density (albeit with similar 35X110 lots as canada and the western US) mock tudors. unfortunately i've been there, and your description of it really doesn't mesh with the low density suburban city. 

no one wants to hear about nottingham... especially in a post about shanghai. 

everyone knows shanghai's development could be improved. but a provincial english city that's a small fraction of the population, has a per capita gasoline usage that's many times higher, has a different climate, etc. sure as hell shouldn't be put forth as something to emulate.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

are you going to talk about how you enjoy driving?

yet driving on 2-lane british roads is okay, yet driving on 4-lane freeways is bad.

2 legs good, four legs bad? 

cool it with the 'nottingham is what the world should follow' posts. it's as if you've seen the formerly rural outskirts of shanghai, suburban nottingham, and nothing else.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Why let issues about high levels of car use and dangerously growing housing quantities (sizes significantly bigger than HK or Singapore dwelling, multiple housing ownership far too common) get into the way of making yourself stupid eh.

Also, so Lujiazui should be replaced with semis imported from Nottingham, that's my position n'est-ce pas? Genius, you should consider a career in planning, seriously. :lol:


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

^sizes larger than hong kong? yes. dwelling sizes in singapore are quite a bit larger than those of shanghai. the larger dwelling sizes of singapore are roundly seen as a good development, as its government was more militant in regulating and reining in the profit motive of its developers (as compared to hong kong and shanghai). and at any rate, it's more about the population density, not the size of the dwellings themselves... funny you didn't mention nottingham in this. you think the average dwelling size in nottingham is larger than in shanghai, hong kong, singapore?

now if you talk about the stock of housing, sure there's a bubble. but why should you care? and you're saying this from the perspective of a mature economy with stagnant city populations. developing world cities DO need all the housing they can build. 

yeah, making someone look stupid. says the guy who needs to be a cheerleader for some town halfway around the world. 

no more talks about the glory of nottingham. you're like the rudyard kipling of suburban mock tudor dwellers. but then you'll come back as you always do.... cause the glories of nottingham's mock tudors are some kind of cult with you. shut up about your damn life in nottingham. 

really now, i actually do work in the industry. and sadly you're here 24/7 spewing the biggest idiocies of the development industry. you actually believe the suburban development patterns of the anglo-american-canadian realm are something that should be emulated.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

^or are you going to drive along a bucolic 2-lane roadway, comfortable in suburban splendor, yet you won't hesitate to criticize those inherently anti-urbanist types who drive on freeways? 

that's the epitome of irony. you don't see how suburban your lifestyle really is.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

particlez said:


> ^sizes larger than hong kong? yes. dwelling sizes in singapore are quite a bit larger than those of shanghai. the larger dwelling sizes of singapore are roundly seen as a good development, as its government was more militant in regulating and reining in the profit motive of its developers (as compared to hong kong and shanghai). and at any rate, it's more about the population density, not the size of the dwellings themselves... funny you didn't mention nottingham in this. you think the average dwelling size in nottingham is larger than in shanghai, hong kong, singapore?
> 
> now if you talk about the stock of housing, sure there's a bubble. but why should you care? and you're saying this from the perspective of a mature economy with stagnant city populations. developing world cities DO need all the housing they can build.
> 
> ...


You really are getting quite deranged.



> *really now, i actually do work in the industry.* and sadly you're here 24/7 spewing the biggest idiocies of the development industry. you actually believe the suburban development patterns of the anglo-american-canadian realm are something that should be emulated.


I was well aware of that, hence the tongue-in-cheek remark.

=====================================

Anyway I accept responsibility for partially derailing this topic. I was having a good discussion with spliff and the Exultor on urban vs rural, in the course of which I allowed myself to have become a little sentimental, not knowing particlez would suddenly come out of hibernation and launch into a thunderstorm of hysterics. I guess I should be sorry for the latter too.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

^deranged? you're the genius who has to interject the glories of nottingham into every possible thread. really now?

identity issues?


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

particlez said:


> ^deranged? you're the genius who has to interject the glories of nottingham into every possible thread.


 really now?



> identity issues?


Ah what did I say about taking things too literally...

====================

Back to topic please ...


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

^see, you're constantly bringing up the glories of your life in nottingham, and contrasting this with the (supposedly) bad planning of shanghai. 

'cept of course, your perspectives don't make sense as one place is many times the size of the other, is in a different stage of economic development, has a different climate, etc. 

even if you could compare the two places using whatever little objective criteria available, shanghai would NOT be inferior in many respects. 

which brings up the point of why you're here and why you say these things. 

you could sincerely be wholly unaware of the developer-driven model of nottingham and ____ city in britain or north america. hell, you don't realize britain and north america have very similar ideological justifications for their post-industrial new urbanist development patterns. 

or you could simply be yearning for acceptance into british culture, and you do it by waving the union jack and denigrating the out-group. why else would you write the following in a thread about shanghai's population?





NCT said:


> [severe loyalty crisis]
> 
> Yet I absolute hate those rural houses with horribly clashing styles and colours - the worst examples of shallowness - all about showing off your wealth, all on the surface. The houses don't actually need to be that big and spread out especially as the young are actually moving into urban areas. The brickwork is pretty shoddy incidentally. Much prefer the little chocolate boxes of rural Britain.
> 
> ...


[severe loyalty crisis]

hey, don't get angry at me for saying this.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

particlez said:


> ^see, you're constantly bringing up the glories of your life in nottingham, and contrasting this with the (supposedly) bad planning of shanghai.


I must have an evil twin on these forums of whom I'm totally unaware...



> 'cept of course, your perspectives don't make sense as one place is many times the size of the other, is in a different stage of economic development, has a different climate, etc.
> 
> even if you could compare the two places using whatever little objective criteria available, shanghai would NOT be inferior in many respects.


Oh ffs I'll try to take you seriously...

Shanghai has the previlige of already having a high density, and this potential can be much better utilised if we didn't have the complacency. Nottingham has the legacy it has now and you can't demolish the whole place and rebuild it from scratch. There are ways to promote public transport and increasing densities in new developments which is exactly what Nottingham is doing. 



> which brings up the point of why you're here and why you say these things.


What exactly is your point? Britain has the legacy problems so it's alright for Shanghai to have similar if not worse problems when a lot of the problems are actually in newly built 



> you could sincerely be wholly unaware of the developer-driven model of nottingham and ____ city in britain or north america.


Let's see ... the vast majority of Nottingham's houses are Victorian town houses and 50s-70s council houses. The 'developer' concept didn't even exist back then. New development must conform to stringent environmental standards - greenfield development is almost non-existent, even when the national population is actually predicted to increase due to factors such as immigration.

The real point is China wouldn't have its population stress now if people weren't encouraged to f*ck all the time 40 years ago. The people are walking and talking, so the only way is create the best environment humanly possible, but I don't know what that is in your book, but it's clear in mine.



> hell, you don't realize britain and north america have very similar ideological justifications for their post-industrial new urbanist development patterns.


You really must grow up and come out of your well ...



> or you could simply be yearning for acceptance into british culture, and you do it by waving the union jack and denigrating the out-group. why else would you write the following in a thread about shanghai's population?
> 
> [severe loyalty crisis]
> 
> hey, don't get angry at me for saying this.


I won't even bother explaining the term hyperbole ...


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

thus.. we have it. nottingham is the example everyone else needs to follow.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

particlez said:


> thus.. we have it. nottingham is the example everyone else needs to follow.


Just bare in mind you are the first person to say that.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

CharlotteJ said:


> even if China's aging population will be gone today, we should still consider China a very young nation though and they will have enough human power to keep it all up & running.
> 
> + India
> 
> we should worry about the aging population of Europe and *NA*.


Huh? It won't be nearly as bad as here as in every other developed country, including one day China. Don't be that naive.


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

Onn said:


> Huh? It won't be nearly as bad as here as in every other developed country, including one day China. Don't be that naive.


why?

China has a 1 billion inhabitants while EU doesn't get any closer and there are more aging Europeans than Chinese I suppose.

Are you sure of that? then explain pls.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

CharlotteJ said:


> why?
> 
> China has a 1 billion inhabitants while EU doesn't get any closer and there are more aging Europeans than Chinese I suppose.
> 
> Are you sure of that? then explain pls.


It's not like an EU with 500 millions people is "small", nore that it will not turn bigger, or maybe you got a crystal ball to say us that Turkey and Ukraine and other european countries will not join ??

You suppose bad, chineses are ageing very fast, if they removed the one child policy, it's because pensions for old people will be hard to finance.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

CharlotteJ said:


> why?
> 
> China has a 1 billion inhabitants while EU doesn't get any closer and there are more aging Europeans than Chinese I suppose.
> 
> Are you sure of that? then explain pls.


EUs birthrates are rising and China's are sinking, so in 30 years the EU will have a good natural growth and China will need immigration to fill it's emptying 15-64 age range.


----------



## MissyC (Aug 19, 2009)

Mekky II said:


> It's not like an EU with 500 millions people is "small", nore that it will not turn bigger, or maybe you got a crystal ball to say us that Turkey and Ukraine and other european countries will not join ??
> 
> You suppose bad, chineses are ageing very fast, if they removed the one child policy, it's because pensions for old people will be hard to finance.


hahaha, I dare to bet that Turkey, Ukraine and the rest WILL never ever get a chance to join the EU.

Don't you follow the news at all? PIGIS are in deep trouble that were supposed to be OK. We don't think that Brussels and off course the people will ever accept and vote for more misery of countries with bad economy and huge debts to join the EU if EU work at all and is proven to be good at all.

The future will tell, but we don't think that ever will happen.


----------

