# The future of Shanghai?



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Shanghai's future will most likely end up as the ones being displayed at the *Urban Planning Exhibition Centre*.

Here's a pic I took of the place


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Shanghai's aspirations will never be achieved without radical rethinking and re-engineering of modern China. All this talk about being a world financial capital is all speculation, and will stay that way. It's achievable of course, but will Beijing loosen capital controls and adopt a more transparent legal system any time soon? I doubt it. There is already enough resistance to move the exchange rate now.


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

Wanch, yeah that museum is absoluely great.


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

^thats not a museum XD its shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Centre in people's square


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

kix111 said:


> ^thats not a museum XD its shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Centre in people's square


And it would be really great if those displayed there will ever became a reality


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

staff said:


> Shanghai will overtake HK if the government wants it to. Simple as that. I don't see any indication to why anything should be changed however. If the natural development of the cities is upheld, then Shanghai will overtake HK eventually anyway.


I'm not so sure. Shanghai doesn't have any advantages over a dozen other ambitious mainland Chinese cities. Hong Kong has clear advantages in terms of rule of law and transparent regulation - both absolutely essential for any aspirant financial centre. Shanghai, by contrast, is corruptable and therefore unpredictable and therefore not a secure place for Goldman Sachs etc to manage their $billions. No security of contract? Opaque and corruptable courts? No business! Hong Kong can also serve as financial centre for the entire Asia-Pacific region. That's not so credible from Shanghai. Hong Kong speaks more English, has much better international connections (including a world class airline: Cathay Pacific pisses all over the lamentable China Eastern), better transport, and a large pool of experienced international financial professionals who are used to playing the big time. At the end of the day it's not the Chinese government that decides where the financial centre will be but the global investment banks - and so far their verdict has been clear.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> And it would be really great if those displayed there will ever became a reality


A lot of the stuff in that model is already a reality. Much of the big skyscrapers are already built.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> A lot of the stuff in that model is already a reality. Much of the big skyscrapers are already built.


Alot but I'm pretty sure that they update some stuff in the model like the SWFC. And also the Shanghai IFC in Lujiazui, I'm sure they'll put it in there.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> Alot but I'm pretty sure that they update some stuff in the model like the SWFC. And also the Shanghai IFC in Lujiazui, I'm sure they'll put it in there.


You didn't notice SWFC is already in the model from the picture you took?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> You didn't notice SWFC is already in the model from the picture you took?


I meant the old version with the round hole. They changed it the current one. Anyway, some of the projects there haven't been taken effect like the Shanghai Pudong for example. It's only T-1 and T-2 they haven't constructed the satellite terminal


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

democracy is pure evil. china must not succumb to western pressure on this. a shift to democracy will result in higher time preference which will increase govt spending as percent of gdp until teh economy stagnates and society is so tied down wit future liabilities taht tehre can be no growth, only pain and suffering.



Langur said:


> At the end of the day it's not the Chinese government that decides where the financial centre will be but the global investment banks - and so far their verdict has been clear.


govt sets economic policy and controls legal system. if shanghai adopted english common law legal structure (or at the very least became more transparent) and superlow tax economic policy it could quickly surpass HK as a headquarters for businesses. there are other factors that influence these decisions, of course, but govt policy is significant.


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

Langur said:


> I'm not so sure. Shanghai doesn't have any advantages over a dozen other ambitious mainland Chinese cities. Hong Kong has clear advantages in terms of rule of law and transparent regulation - both absolutely essential for any aspirant financial centre. Shanghai, by contrast, is corruptable and therefore unpredictable and therefore not a secure place for Goldman Sachs etc to manage their $billions. No security of contract? Opaque and corruptable courts? No business! Hong Kong can also serve as financial centre for the entire Asia-Pacific region. That's not so credible from Shanghai. Hong Kong speaks more English, has much better international connections (including a world class airline: Cathay Pacific pisses all over the lamentable China Eastern), better transport, and a large pool of experienced international financial professionals who are used to playing the big time. At the end of the day it's not the Chinese government that decides where the financial centre will be but the global investment banks - and so far their verdict has been clear.



you are wrong...if you want to find out why, go to shanghai. Please do not make this post an arguement.

oh btw many buildings in the exhibition center are pretty much built or under construction.

shanghai pretty much looks like taht anyway already, one or two new buildings wont change the whole looking now anyway


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

http://www.shanghaihills.com/en/highlight/topics03.html

*A shift from Hong Kong to Shanghai*

In the autumn of 2006, Mori Building Co., Ltd. conducted an Asia businessperson survey to help identify future trends about the region's leading business centers. When asked which city is the current leading business center in the Asia-Pacific region, the greatest percentage of respondents (32%) chose Hong Kong. However, when asked to predict the leading business center 5 to 10 years in the future, an overwhelming percentage (55%) chose Shanghai. With the exception of Taipei, the results by city show that businesspeople in all the subject cities named their own city as the current leading business center. Tokyo led the pack where 59% of the respondents named Tokyo as the current leading Asia-Pacific business center. However, it is worth noting that Shanghai was named as the leading business center 5 to 10 years in the future by the highest percentage of respondents in every city. These results indicate the expectations for Shanghai are indeed high.












Survey Summary:

Survey subjects : Businesspeople working in high-rise office complexes in five key Asian cities
(Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore, and Tokyo). 
Responses : 524 
Survey conducted : October-November, 2006


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

kix111 said:


> you are wrong...if you want to find out why, go to shanghai. Please do not make this post an arguement.
> 
> oh btw many buildings in the exhibition center are pretty much built or under construction.
> 
> shanghai pretty much looks like taht anyway already, one or two new buildings wont change the whole looking now anyway


The area where I stayed at didn't look like the one in the model. I stayed near People's Square right close to the J.W. Marriott Hotel. The tower is surrounded by older low-rise structures while in the model, it's surrounded by high-rise condos.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> I meant the old version with the round hole. They changed it the current one. Anyway, some of the projects there haven't been taken effect like the Shanghai Pudong for example. It's only T-1 and T-2 they haven't constructed the satellite terminal


Don't see the point in keeping the old version when it has changed for quite a long time already. That round hole has been a huge sore point for a number of years, especially because Japanese investors are involved in this project. Anyway .. let's not open a can of explosives on that one.


----------



## unixer (Feb 10, 2007)

foadi said:


> democracy is pure evil. china must not succumb to western pressure on this. a shift to democracy will result in higher time preference which will increase govt spending as percent of gdp until teh economy stagnates and society is so tied down wit future liabilities taht tehre can be no growth, only pain and suffering.
> 
> 
> govt sets economic policy and controls legal system. if shanghai adopted english common law legal structure (or at the very least became more transparent) and superlow tax economic policy it could quickly surpass HK as a headquarters for businesses. there are other factors that influence these decisions, of course, but govt policy is significant.


you even don't know what you're talking about. bullshit! period!


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

WANCH said:


> The area where I stayed at didn't look like the one in the model. I stayed near People's Square right close to the J.W. Marriott Hotel. The tower is surrounded by older low-rise structures while in the model, it's surrounded by high-rise condos.


the actual shanghai now has a lot more lowrises than in that model, the shanghai in the model has a few more highrises and more apartments or "commieblocks"


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

unixer said:


> China will never be a great power and will not be respected in the world until it turns into a democracy.
> 
> La Chine ne deviendra jamais une puissance modial si elle reste une dictature communiste.


Bullsh*t. China will never be a great power and will not be respected in the world until it turns into a democracy? Where did you get your information that in order for a country to be a great power, it has to be democratic? Let's see the last great powers in the last few century besides the US. USSR-Communist. Great Britain-Monarchy. Germany-Totalitarian. Spain-Monarchy. And China isn't even a communist. So many of the forumers believe China is like the evil empire in the world but China doesn't totally follow communistic ideals now. And no, the human right problem isn't that extreme either. It's propaganda. People dig up the worse incidents and make it seem like it happens all the time in China. It's blown out of proportion by the media.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

^^

I disagree with parts of what you said. I feel that China will not remain a "communist dictatorship" for too long. It will eventually naturally transition to a more democratic government after its economic growth stabilizes when its GDP per capita reaches over 10,000 USD and its PPP is over 25,000 USD. I'd give that another 20 years or so. However until then, China CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES make any democratic reforms and MUST remain a dictatorship if it wants to develop at the speed it is right now. Look at South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, Greece, etc. They all naturally transitioned after its economy and HDI reaches the developed level but before that, they were all brutal dictatorships. Can we name a single country where it went from abject poverty to developed status within a single generation under a democracy?


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> ^^
> 
> I disagree with parts of what you said. I feel that China will not remain a "communist dictatorship" for too long. It will eventually naturally transition to a more democratic government after its economic growth stabilizes when its GDP per capita reaches over 10,000 USD and its PPP is over 25,000 USD. I'd give that another 20 years or so. However until then, China CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES make any democratic reforms and MUST remain a dictatorship if it wants to develop at the speed it is right now. Look at South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, Greece, etc. They all naturally transitioned after its economy and HDI reaches the developed level but before that, they were all brutal dictatorships. Can we name a single country where it went from abject poverty to developed status within a single generation under a democracy?


I think we can hardly call China as a dictatorship anymore. I've been to China before and it is not much different than any other place. The president of China doesn't force its people to do this and do that. It's much better than the Mao and Deng's years.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

^^

No, not in the sense of Mao or Deng. Very similar to Park Chung Hee or Chiang Ching-kuo


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

kix111 said:


> you are wrong...if you want to find out why, go to shanghai. Please do not make this post an arguement.


I have been to Shanghai five times already thank you. We'll see if I'm wrong.


----------



## snow is red (May 7, 2007)

Langur said:


> I have been to Shanghai five times already thank you. We'll see if I'm wrong.


Weird, this answer always pops out whenever the invitation comes up. I don't know how many times I see this kind of answer on the Internet before.


----------



## XiaoBai (Dec 10, 2002)

I love this notion that the people of China need to be saved by having a western-style "democracy" installed pronto--yet, interestingly, as a Westerner myself, I've found the Chinese aren't consumed by the perpetual state of fear and paranoia that engulfs most "free and democratic" Western societies...on the contrary, they seem to lead happier lives than most of their western counterparts.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

unixer said:


> you even don't know what you're talking about. bullshit! period!


yo don't know what yo talking about if yo tink democracy is a good thing. democracy is a horrible form of government and will only cause economic stagnation, social unrest, and runaway government spending. pro-democracy advocates are conspiring to destroy the great nation of china. china should adopt pinochet-style measures to silence tehm


----------



## XiaoBai (Dec 10, 2002)

^
Democracy isn't a "horrible" form of government in itself. Nor is it inherently good either. Like most types of government, it all depends on how it is used. Democracy can be used for evil just as much as it can for good. At this point in human evolution, there really is no perfect way to govern ourselves, so somebody is always going to be screwed no matter which system is installed.


----------



## Bandit (Dec 6, 2006)

XiaoBai said:


> I love this notion that the people of China need to be saved by having a western-style "democracy" installed pronto--yet, interestingly, as a Westerner myself, I've found the Chinese aren't consumed by the perpetual state of fear and paranoia that engulfs most "free and democratic" Western societies...on the contrary, they seem to lead happier lives than most of their western counterparts.


Westerners have a messianic complex. Whether its religion or the environment, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, each one of them thinks they know what's best for everyone else and if you don't listen to them, there will be doom. So with democracy the number one tactic to get people on your side if through fear. The more poor and uneducated the population, the easier it is to manipulate people to follow.


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

02tonyl said:


> Weird, this answer always pops out whenever the invitation comes up. I don't know how many times I see this kind of answer on the Internet before.


Maybe there's a sinister internet conspiracy out there to respond with "been there already thank you" whenever someone is challenged to visit Shanghai/China before passing comment on it?


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

china is one of teh best run govts of teh last 30 yrs


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

DarkFenX said:


> Bullsh*t. China will never be a great power and will not be respected in the world until it turns into a democracy? Where did you get your information that in order for a country to be a great power, it has to be democratic? Let's see the last great powers in the last few century besides the US. USSR-Communist. Great Britain-Monarchy. Germany-Totalitarian. Spain-Monarchy. And China isn't even a communist. So many of the forumers believe China is like the evil empire in the world but China doesn't totally follow communistic ideals now. And no, the human right problem isn't that extreme either. It's propaganda. People dig up the worse incidents and make it seem like it happens all the time in China. It's blown out of proportion by the media.





> I think we can hardly call China as a dictatorship anymore. I've been to China before and it is not much different than any other place. The president of China doesn't force its people to do this and do that. It's much better than the Mao and Deng's years.


agreed, only people who have stayed in China can have a view like this. 

Every time I visited US and listened to the radio talking about China, I was upset and wondered how they found out all the bad incidents which me or any of my friends never encountered in our lives. I have to give credit to BBC and CNN reporters. It's really some hard work. But for people who have never had chance to visit China, they have no choices but to listen to the propaganda, so bad it happens esp. in a information era like today.

Democracy is a relative word. Of course China, as a developing country does not reach the level of democracy as US did (i.e. voting for president). But in terms of freedom and human rights, I can't see any difference between the two countries for normal 9am-5pm people like me or any of my friends.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

XiaoBai said:


> ^
> Democracy isn't a "horrible" form of government in itself. Nor is it inherently good either. Like most types of government, it all depends on how it is used. Democracy can be used for evil just as much as it can for good. At this point in human evolution, there really is no perfect way to govern ourselves, so somebody is always going to be screwed no matter which system is installed.


I agree. The problem comes when Democracy (like any other system) is perceived as ineffective and becomes a state religion sustained on ideologic dogma instead of objective efficiency and pragmatism. We are reaching this stage nowadays as Democracy has become the Western ideology _de facto_. 

Democracy is not seen as the ideal system because of its results anymore as it used to be in comparison to Communism. It used to be supposed that Demcoracy = Economic progress & Freedom. Both comparisons are passing away now. We used to expect every country to "choose" democracy instead of communism because of its benefits on freedom, etc. But now we are getting something like a demo-yihad and trying to impose it like a religion everywhere, by force. This is also an old monotheist tradition: Imposing our style to the full universe, religion, system, customes or whatever. Then we pretend to be the model of tolerance and freedom... so ironic.

On the other hand, we are witnessing more and more how democracy isn't really necessary to reach economic development, free market is the real secret (China is the best example, but there are many others). And at the same time, thanks to democracy certain trolls are taking power stopping their countries from becoming developed countries (especially in Latin America). All these things are starting to undermine the credibility of democracy imo.

Back to Shanghai, I lived there just for one month, but it was enough to check how in certain aspects individual freedom is even wider than in the West, especially about the amazing low crime rates. 

It is also awesome to see how so many Chinese express non-standard views about social and political topics, it is not what you could expect from a culture said to be rather shy in comparison to Westerns. In the West people use to be so worried about sounding politically incorrect... even those supposed to be antisystem use to have prefabricated ideas... In Shanghai I had long and interesting conversations in English with local students of my college (Donghua Daxue) almost every day. It's not the kind of alienation you would expect in an Evil Communist country.

Funniest thing is, both Chinese and Westerns that have a better opinion about China in comparison to the West use to be those who have lived both places


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

^^

We don't need to get ahead of ourselves. China is on the right track but it is nowhere near proving that dictatorship is necessary for economic growth. South Korea and Taiwan already proved that decades ago. They were poorer than China even during the Great Leap Forward and now they are one of the most developed countries in the world. 

There really is no difference in the day-to-day existence of a common Chinese citizen than a common South Korean citizen. Life in Shanghai is much the same as life in Seoul. Like South Koreans of the 70's, Chinese people today couldn't care less about "democracy" and the "right to vote or protest". They are much happier that they don't live in abject poverty anymore. In the 2020's and 30's, the Chinese citizens will remember the administrations of Deng, Jiang, and Hu Jintao much in the same high regard that Koreans view Park Chung Hee.


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

^ I don't want to get too involved in all this democracy debate. Democracy is largely irrelevent for a financial centre. China's weaknesses in terms of creating a financial centre are corruption and a lack of transparent regulation (though these are frankly fatal - no leading financial centre has these characteristics and the fact is that China simply won't have a leading financial centre until it deals with these problems comprehensively). However, your post, claiming that everything is well in China, that everyone is happy, that people are as free in Shanghai as in Seoul etc, only holds true for wealthy middle class city dwellers. Rural Chinese are quite restive. I have been to Tibet recently and, believe me, the only reason many Tibetans don't protest is fear of the state. China is free for some but a repressive police state for others. Minority rights are very limited, the CCP still won't tolerate any challenges to its authority (the South Korean or Taiwanese governments, by contrast, will) and the vast secretive prison complexes are still there. It might be a thousand times better than it was under Mao but there's still a long way to go to the Promised Land.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

^^

Well yeah Taiwan and South Korea tolerated changes AFTER they reached a certain development level and it took decades. Try protesting under the regime of Park Chung Hee or Chiang Kai-shek and see what happens. Re-education camps and prison is what was normally the result. I mean look how many times Kim Dae-Jung landed in prison and barely escaped the death penalty multiple times. The same can be very well expected of China. I'd say the "police state" will start to loosen its grip around 2020 and its not unreasonable for China to become totally "free" before 2040. China is where Taiwan and South Korea were around the 70's.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

taiwan didn't lift martial law until the nominal GDP per capita was like US$6,000 or something


----------



## davidearl (Sep 10, 2007)

materialism has replaced religion as the drug of the masses...

now that many parts of the world are rapidly developing... getting new cars, flashy jewelry...vacations... nicer homes.... they are perfectly willing to overlook that they basically still have no rights.... it's all very sad indeed...

so when 1.5 million people are forcibly moved for the Bejing Olympics... and native Emiratis have no say in what course their nation takes in development.... is that fair or even right?? Democracy is NOT perfect by any means... I have to console myself with the fact that 51% of the American populace chose supposed safety and normalcy to re-elect an idiot like Bush and allow him to start an uprovoked war and bleed our country dry into hellish debt.... but we now have to chance to correct a HUGE mistake and elect a new leader.... 

Democracy will always be the best form of government for ALL the people... not just the lucky few who were born into certain families, have good connections, were in the right place at the right time....

so to all the new weathly and middle class Chinese out there... do you really know what your government is doing to your country?? don't you ask yourself WHY you cannot breathe outside most days of the year??


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

teh govt of china is letting the country develop. i can't say the same about your country. whens the last time you guys built a nuclear reactor? an oil refinery? a desalination plant? you guys are going back in time, china is going forward.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

@ davidearl:

So you think the people would rather have the right to vote than a right to a life with decent living standards and access to amenities of international standards? At least under this dictatorship, a number of people are middle class citizens who enjoy a decently high standard of living. If it were turned into a democracy in 1989, then EVERYONE would be dirty poor and living on the fringes of society. Imagine if Park Chung Hee did not stage a coup and install himself as a ruthless dictator and Korea remained a weak democracy similar to the administration of Syngman Rhee. South Korea would be guaranteed to be a very under-developed, impoverished country on par with that of Africa instead of the highly industrialized nation it is today. All you China-haters who bash China for lack of human rights and democracy REFUSE TO LOOK AT SOUTH KOREA AND TAIWAN DURING THEIR DEVELOPING STATE DURING THE 60's - 80's. Take time to study those two countries politically during that time period when they experienced 10% GDP annual growth. Then come back and tell us China is doing a terrible job.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

davidearl said:


> materialism has replaced religion as the drug of the masses...
> 
> now that many parts of the world are rapidly developing... getting new cars, flashy jewelry...vacations... nicer homes.... they are perfectly willing to overlook that they basically still have no rights.... it's all very sad indeed...
> 
> ...


You know your opinions are sustained by ideological attitudes, not objectivity, right?


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

foadi said:


> teh govt of china is letting the country develop. i can't say the same about your country. whens the last time you guys built a nuclear reactor? an oil refinery? a desalination plant? you guys are going back in time, china is going forward.


America is going backward now? Oh FFS the US is generating far more new technologies and ideas than China. China is simply industrialising along a path already trodden by others before her. China's speed of progress has been impressive but there's little innovation. The US is still far more dynamic.


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

^^ahaha hope what you said is going to be the reality =)

i would guess to would take longer than 50+

and i would be 70+ T.T.. would i still care about how good shanghai is by then???


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

^^

I can see Shanghai starting to approach New York and become an alpha world city in the 2020's (lightyears ahead of the rest of the country with the gap reaching its peak in the 20's) and eclipse New York in 2030. In 2050, Shanghai will be the clear, undisputed greatest city in the world by a wide margin with possibly 60+ million ppl in municipality limits and 100+ million in Yangtze River Delta stretching from Nanjing to Hangzhou (the gap between this megalopolis and rest of the country becomes much smaller at this point). 

However, I feel that along with the echoes of the one-child policy and natural population decline as a side-effect of full industrialization, China's population would fall behind India real soon and economic growth will start to plateau around 2050 (Goldman Sachs predicted GDP of 72 trillion and per capita of 52,000 USD?). Unless China opens its doors completely to immigration and maintain a 1.4~1.5 billion people, it is highly probably that Mumbai or Delhi will overtake Shanghai in the late 21st and early 22nd century.


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

you are talking about 2300!!!! 0.o


----------



## Adams3 (Mar 2, 2007)

I think so too. The one-child policy combined with the continued lower and lower birth rates as a result of urbanization will mean that by 2050 the number of Chinese would have declined by between 300-400 million from its 1.4 billion peak and the decline will just continue for many decades even after 2050 as there would be almost no Chinese in child-bearing age compared to people in their 70s and 80s so there would be alot more deaths than births and even those few who are in child-bearing age probably won't bother giving birth anyway just like people in South Korea and Taiwan. In the 2040s, Shanghai's population will only be able to keep a stable population through massive immigration from the rest of the country, while the country as a whole will lose about 8-9 million people annually. By the end of the century, China's population will be more than halved from its 1.4 billion peak, overtaken by the US by then, while India's population will be about 3 times the size of China.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> ^^
> 
> I can see Shanghai starting to approach New York and become an alpha world city in the 2020's (lightyears ahead of the rest of the country with the gap reaching its peak in the 20's) and eclipse New York in 2030. In 2050, Shanghai will be the clear, undisputed greatest city in the world by a wide margin with possibly 60+ million ppl in municipality limits and 100+ million in Yangtze River Delta stretching from Nanjing to Hangzhou (the gap between this megalopolis and rest of the country becomes much smaller at this point).
> 
> However, I feel that along with the echoes of the one-child policy and natural population decline as a side-effect of full industrialization, China's population would fall behind India real soon and economic growth will start to plateau around 2050 (Goldman Sachs predicted GDP of 72 trillion and per capita of 52,000 USD?). Unless China opens its doors completely to immigration and maintain a 1.4~1.5 billion people, it is highly probably that Mumbai or Delhi will overtake Shanghai in the late 21st and early 22nd century.


I would imagine that but it's 50/50 whether its gonna happen or not. But one thing NY has that Shanghai doesn't is *diversity*


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't buy the argument that diversity helps enhance a city. There are too many examples of diversity causing more problems than the benefits (Bosnia, Rwanda, India, etc.)

As to Shanghai's future, China's size is a huge factor that will greatly enhance the likelihood of success. However, we also see examples of the contrary. Japan is the world's 2nd largest economy, yet Tokyo is clearly not the international financial capital of Asia.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Adams3*



> I think so too. The one-child policy combined with the continued lower and lower birth rates as a result of urbanization will mean that by 2050 the number of Chinese would have declined by between 300-400 million from its 1.4 billion peak and the decline will just continue for many decades even after 2050 as there would be almost no Chinese in child-bearing age compared to people in their 70s and 80s so there would be alot more deaths than births and even those few who are in child-bearing age probably won't bother giving birth anyway just like people in South Korea and Taiwan. In the 2040s, Shanghai's population will only be able to keep a stable population through massive immigration from the rest of the country, while the country as a whole will lose about 8-9 million people annually. By the end of the century, China's population will be more than halved from its 1.4 billion peak, *overtaken by the US by then, while India's population will be about 3 times the size of China*.


^^ I honestly believe that an India with 2.1 billion people (3 times 700 million--half of 1.4 billion) won't be realistically possible given that India's population growth has also started to slow since the 1980s. Soon, India's population will also plateau. And, this will happen before it reaches the 2.1 billion-people mark. *Furthermore, if India's population does reach the 2.1 billion mark, the resource-strain would be so great that India would single-handedly consume the amount of the world's resources deemed sustainable over the long-term.* Moreover, India is nearly a-third smaller in geographical size than China or the United States. If it would have that many people, India would have a very difficult time feeding its people. I see India's population peaking at 1.6 billion-people.

As for the U.S., its population could very well reach 750-800 million-people by the year 2100. But it would, probably, never touch the billion-people mark because immigration-into-the-United States will have slowed, by then, since global wealth has already been fairly spread among the United States, China, India, Europe, Japan, South Korea, South-East Asia, Mexico, Russia, and Brazil. And, the multi-polarity of world power/influence among the three future superpowers of India, China, and the United States will result in a more 'spread-out' immigration flow.

China would, AGAIN, have to surrender its economic superiority (which it would, most probably, achieve/acquire by 2030) to a more populous United States. IMHO, India will never pass China's economy unless it would invade other territories and make it their own (i.e, invade parts of Siberia and/or Tibet).


----------



## Mercutio (Oct 15, 2004)

> However, I feel that along with the echoes of the one-child policy and natural population decline as a side-effect of full industrialization, China's population would fall behind India real soon and economic growth will start to plateau around 2050 (Goldman Sachs predicted GDP of 72 trillion and per capita of 52,000 USD?). Unless China opens its doors completely to immigration and maintain a 1.4~1.5 billion people, it is highly probably that Mumbai or Delhi will overtake Shanghai in the late 21st and early 22nd century.
> 
> 
> I think so too. The one-child policy combined with the continued lower and lower birth rates as a result of urbanization will mean that by 2050 the number of Chinese would have declined by between 300-400 million from its 1.4 billion peak and the decline will just continue for many decades even after 2050 as there would be almost no Chinese in child-bearing age compared to people in their 70s and 80s so there would be alot more deaths than births and even those few who are in child-bearing age probably won't bother giving birth anyway just like people in South Korea and Taiwan. In the 2040s, Shanghai's population will only be able to keep a stable population through massive immigration from the rest of the country, while the country as a whole will lose about 8-9 million people annually. By the end of the century, China's population will be more than halved from its 1.4 billion peak, overtaken by the US by then, while India's population will be about 3 times the size of China.




I strongly object to these population-decline doomsday scenarios (they are increasingly brought up against China). It is amazing how the popular discourse on ‘population’ has radically changed from one extreme to another within the last two decades. In the 1980s and early 1990s strong population growth and large populations in general were perceived by many scholars as something essentially bad. It was argued that fast growing populations (especially in poor countries) will eat up gains in infrastructure, education and job creation. Further, it was assessed that strong population growth usually occurs among the poor and disadvantaged members of society, thus the number of poor will just skyrocket and instability will increase. Last but not least, predictions were made that a fast growing world population will empty the world too quick of her resources (water, oil, gas, etc…). Basically, large populations were seen as the ultimate menace to humanity, maybe to a similar extent as global warming nowadays. 

Twenty years later, the discourse goes as follows…. stagnant population and in particular declining population growth will lead eventually to economic collapse. First, all the social systems (health care, pension, welfare, etc…) will go bankrupt. Second, demand for all kinds of goods and services will decline to disastrous levels. Consequently, this vicious circle will drive out most companies out of business (especially the local businesses which can’t earn abroad). And last, societies will basically disintegrate due to the huge number of senile and helpless oldies. On the other hand, massive population growth even in highly impoverished countries is now seen as the ultimate competitive advantage. Five 500 million more people in 40 years simply equate to 500 million more consumers and potentially 500 million new Einsteins. A young population will guarantee that the respective country remains hyper ‘innovative’, ‘dynamic’, ‘risk-seeking, ‘entrepreneurial’, [_fill in whatever euphemism is currently en vogue_]. 

I think this completely implausible change of discourse can be explained by the fact that the ‘West’ (mainly the US, Western Europe and Japan) still determines the dominant discourse worldwide. In the 1980 and early 1990s the ‘demographic crisis’ was a none- or minor-issue. Now, the ‘aging society’ poses a real threat to many western countries. Health care, pensions and welfare systems are running into financial trouble. Moreover, the domestic demand is indeed near exhaustion in many areas. Then, of course there is also the immigration issue… in particular many Europeans are afraid that they might soon become minorities in their own countries. However, I don’t believe that these problems have been all unavoidable and even more, I don’t think these problems can be projected on all other countries. First, many Western social security systems were constructed along unrealistic population projections. Basically, it was assumed that population growth, which was much higher in the 50ies and 60ies, will remain constant. Second, politicians in the West have ignored the problem of an aging society for too long and many governments continue to ignore the problem. In many cases no serious reforms were undertaken, neither to reform the social systems nor to reform stagnant economies as a whole.

For comparison, China does not have any social security systems which resemble those in the West (especially in terms of nationwide coverage). Only a fraction of the population enjoys comparable services for health, pension or welfare right now. Although, China will attempt to build up social security systems in the upcoming years, the privately financed component will be very significant right from the start. Therefore, the Chinese state will probably never face the same heavy financial burdens as some countries in the West. Moreover, the huge domestic market will remain huge even when the population will eventually start to decline. Hence, local companies will continue to have plenty of opportunities. The UN has estimated that China’s population will decline by 100 million in the _worst case_ scenario by 2050 --> http://esa.un.org/unpp/. Their medium scenario estimates that the population will actually increase slightly (by Chinese standards) to 1.4 billion by 2050. The ongoing process of globalization will further ensure that companies can make profits even if domestic demand exhausts. Overall, by the time China’s population will start to ‘grey’ significantly, it will be a world-wide phenomenon. I am confident that the countries which face the problem already _right now_ (Japan, Western Europe) will find ways to deal with their aging populations and avoid both collapse or internal decline. 

It is interesting to note, that Central/Eastern European countries are among the developing countries which have made the strongest progress in raising living standards in the last two decades. All these countries have one thing in common…they had stagnating or declining populations right from the start when they emerged from Communist misrule.


----------



## snow is red (May 7, 2007)

The problem for China here is not "who will outdo who" but to bring prosperity to the entire China. Can you people just stop the comparison, and stop bringing another country (India) into your quarrel please ?


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

WANCH said:


> I would imagine that but it's 50/50 whether its gonna happen or not. But one thing NY has that Shanghai doesn't is *diversity*


"Diversity". The so-called diverstiy (ie. cosmopolitism) is killing the true diversity. Nowadays, most Western capitals look the same as they are missing their local identity to the detriment of a Western global culture. 50 years ago, Paris, Berlin, Rome, London were all full of themselves. Now they are full of diversity. What happens if you have 20 colors and you mix them all? You wont get diverstiy, you'll get one single greyish and boring color... Give me an open, tolerant city where foreigners feel good, that's very important. But keep me away from what politically correct newspeak calls "diversity".

Tokyo has nothing of the so called diversity, it is full of itself. That's one of the things I like the most about that city.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

what youre talking about is melting pot theory^ when all races are 'melted' into one and the same, as opposed to multiculturalism where the communities are distinct. Both have their downsides, but one place that manages to buck both divisive alongside watering down melting pot trends is famously, London. That doesnt mean it doesnt have its problems, but its definitely neither of the two examples.

Imo its only a matter of time before China opens its doors to immigration too I may add. Btw the Chinese native minorities number 180 million and are growing 6x faster than the Han Chinese, being exempt from the one child policy. I also see the relaxation of the one child policy, something thats already in the works.

the 'ideal' population acc. to the Party is 700 million (revised from 500 million before), but the population is still growing by 10 million a year, with unoffcial stats putting it at 14 million. Also China uses up resources and food for 1.5 billion people, some say these 200 million extras were simply never counted through a cover up of births and inaccuracy of count.


----------



## Adams3 (Mar 2, 2007)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ I honestly believe that an India with 2.1 billion people (3 times 700 million--half of 1.4 billion) won't be realistically possible given that India's population growth has also started to slow since the 1980s. Soon, India's population will also plateau. And, this will happen before it reaches the 2.1 billion-people mark. *Furthermore, if India's population does reach the 2.1 billion mark, the resource-strain would be so great that India would single-handedly consume the amount of the world's resources deemed sustainable over the long-term.* Moreover, India is nearly a-third smaller in geographical size than China or the United States. If it would have that many people, India would have a very difficult time feeding its people. I see India's population peaking at 1.6 billion-people.
> 
> As for the U.S., its population could very well reach 750-800 million-people by the year 2100. But it would, probably, never touch the billion-people mark because immigration-into-the-United States will have slowed by then since global wealth has already been fairly spread because of the multi-polarity of world power/influence among the three superpowers: India, China, and the United States.
> 
> China would most probably have to surrender its economic superiority (achieved/acquired, most probably, by 2030) to a more populous United States. IMHO, India will never pass China's economy unless it would invade other territories and make it their own (i.e, invade parts of Siberia and/or Tibet).


I said that it would be more than halved by the end of the century from its 1.4 billion peak, so somewhere around 600 million people. India's population will be about 3 times the size of China's by then is my prediction.


----------



## IMPEKABLE (Nov 22, 2007)

China's main weakness is pollution. The fantastic growth rate lays on environment-waste, 'quality' land-waste and population health waste. These goods are now 'free' for industries and land-lords but will become 'priceless' when they become scarce. Then China will realize how badly mismanaged were these assets.

Shanghai and other cities in China are outrageous examples of how authorities are destroying chinese traditional neighbourhoods and replacing for 'Disney-type' impersonal districts. This urban development model is now being discarded in western cities that 'invented' them. It is funny: one of most efficient transport means ever invented - bycicle - is being abandoned by chinese people as soon as they can afford a car. Cities are increasingly chaotic and polluted... and public authorities make more and more urban highways that allow people to drive faster from a bottleneck to another one.
Western cities just do the opposite: demolish these highways. Penalize use of private motorized vehicles. Create car-free urban areas and incentivate pedestrians and bike-riders to 'invade' public space. People wandering, sitting and chatting in streets and squares. Children playing in these spaces with no traffic risks... There are even public bycicle transport systems. Massive and successfull (Paris, Barcelona...) with hundrereds of thousands of users.

Is it strictly necessary to make all same mistakes to develop? Isn't possible to skip any?


----------



## Adams3 (Mar 2, 2007)

Mercutio said:


> I strongly object to these population-decline doomsday scenarios (they are increasingly brought up against China). It is amazing how the popular discourse on ‘population’ has radically changed from one extreme to another within the last two decades. In the 1980s and early 1990s strong population growth and large populations in general were perceived by many scholars as something essentially bad. It was argued that fast growing populations (especially in poor countries) will eat up gains in infrastructure, education and job creation. Further, it was assessed that strong population growth usually occurs among the poor and disadvantaged members of society, thus the number of poor will just skyrocket and instability will increase. Last but not least, predictions were made that a fast growing world population will empty the world too quick of her resources (water, oil, gas, etc…). Basically, large populations were seen as the ultimate menace to humanity, maybe to a similar extent as global warming nowadays.
> 
> Twenty years later, the discourse goes as follows…. stagnant population and in particular declining population growth will lead eventually to economic collapse. First, all the social systems (health care, pension, welfare, etc…) will go bankrupt. Second, demand for all kinds of goods and services will decline to disastrous levels. Consequently, this vicious circle will drive out most companies out of business (especially the local businesses which can’t earn abroad). And last, societies will basically disintegrate due to the huge number of senile and helpless oldies. On the other hand, massive population growth even in highly impoverished countries is now seen as the ultimate competitive advantage. Five 500 million more people in 40 years simply equate to 500 million more consumers and potentially 500 million new Einsteins. A young population will guarantee that the respective country remains hyper ‘innovative’, ‘dynamic’, ‘risk-seeking, ‘entrepreneurial’, [_fill in whatever euphemism is currently en vogue_].
> 
> ...


The publicly funded health care system is a good point, it is very important that China hasn't promised for future generations like Western European countries have. But regarding population, what makes you think that the mainland won't reach the ultra-low fertility rates that Taiwan and South Korea have reached now after their rapid GDP growth spurts? I haven't seen any credible arguments disputing that. The low-case scenario from the UN has not taken such a scenario into account. I haven't said it will make China collapse in any way, I'm just predicting the population scenario. What will be the consequences of this scenario is another issue, but more than half of the population and an even bigger share of the labor force gone is quite a change for a society and economy in every aspect.


----------



## Trances (May 19, 2003)

Sorry I dont belive NY is anything outside the USA


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> *Furthermore, if India's population does reach the 2.1 billion mark, the resource-strain would be so great that India would single-handedly consume the amount of the world's resources deemed sustainable over the long-term.*


neo-malthusian nonsense. humans will never run out of resources. access to resources has expanded along with demand throughout humans history. new technologies will continue to create new resources. a growing population cannot result in overpopulation, only a halt in technological advancement can do that.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

IMPEKABLE said:


> China's main weakness is pollution. The fantastic growth rate lays on environment-waste, 'quality' land-waste and population health waste. These goods are now 'free' for industries and land-lords but will become 'priceless' when they become scarce. Then China will realize how badly mismanaged were these assets.
> 
> Shanghai and other cities in China are outrageous examples of how authorities are destroying chinese traditional neighbourhoods and replacing for 'Disney-type' impersonal districts. This urban development model is now being discarded in western cities that 'invented' them. It is funny: one of most efficient transport means ever invented - bycicle - is being abandoned by chinese people as soon as they can afford a car. Cities are increasingly chaotic and polluted... and public authorities make more and more urban highways that allow people to drive faster from a bottleneck to another one.
> Western cities just do the opposite: demolish these highways. Penalize use of private motorized vehicles. Create car-free urban areas and incentivate pedestrians and bike-riders to 'invade' public space. People wandering, sitting and chatting in streets and squares. Children playing in these spaces with no traffic risks... There are even public bycicle transport systems. Massive and successfull (Paris, Barcelona...) with hundrereds of thousands of users.
> ...



I think youre underestimating the vast amounts of money and construction being poured into public transport and infrastructure, the biggest current projects in the world (Shanghai is currently building the worlds biggest underground in one go) and in every major city. Its a crying shame the bicycle has been replaced but the future is one that has replaced it with underground networks and trains if things go to plan. The future just isnt workeable for 140 million people in an urban agglomeration to be using the US system. Its notable to see which cities are successful - Shanghai much more so than Beijing which is seeing 1200 cars joining the streets ever day. Its interesting to see Beijings extensions to it underground is massive, but much less so than Shanghai's which doesnt suffer the same problems.

Also the burgeoning growth isnt stored in carcentric Disney-esque estates, but massive highrise, high density ones centred around a public transport line in one form or another, akin to the Hong Kong model. Impersonal it is, but practically so. To release pressure on the growth satellite cities of a million are being built, with longer term plans for the cities to be carbon friendly and the worlds strictest environmental controls being put into legislation, with businesses expected to cut current emmissions by over 50 percent (despite being already lower than the Western per capita). 

The environmental lobby is currently the fastest growing and most profitable branch of government, part of the Green Wall campaign. If China (and the world) wants an economic future the govt knows it has no choice but to go green otherwise the country will run out of resources. This economic sustainability plan envisages windmilsl on eevry building and highrise vertical farms - check out Dongtan, the worlds first eco - city, a satellite city currently under construction outside Shanghai that the world is watching, employing the worlds best city planners, architects and economists to create a viable carbon zero city of a million. It remains to be seen whether the eco friendly lobbies in Chinese govt will be able to pull it off successfully, if so it will be a blueprint for cities all across China, and some say the world.

Of course the biggest threat is the get-rich-quick-think-about-consequences-later model that is standard business practice globally, of which the corruption in local govt easily accommodates...


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ I honestly believe that an India with 2.1 billion people (3 times 700 million--half of 1.4 billion) won't be realistically possible given that India's population growth has also started to slow since the 1980s. Soon, India's population will also plateau. And, this will happen before it reaches the 2.1 billion-people mark. *Furthermore, if India's population does reach the 2.1 billion mark, the resource-strain would be so great that India would single-handedly consume the amount of the world's resources deemed sustainable over the long-term.* Moreover, India is nearly a-third smaller in geographical size than China or the United States. If it would have that many people, India would have a very difficult time feeding its people. I see India's population peaking at 1.6 billion-people.
> 
> As for the U.S., its population could very well reach 750-800 million-people by the year 2100. But it would, probably, never touch the billion-people mark because immigration-into-the-United States will have slowed, by then, since global wealth has already been fairly spread among the United States, China, India, Europe, Japan, South Korea, South-East Asia, Mexico, Russia, and Brazil. And, the multi-polarity of world power/influence among the three future superpowers of India, China, and the United States will result in a more 'spread-out' immigration flow.
> 
> China would, AGAIN, have to surrender its economic superiority (which it would, most probably, achieve/acquire by 2030) to a more populous United States. IMHO, India will never pass China's economy unless it would invade other territories and make it their own (i.e, invade parts of Siberia and/or Tibet).


:yes:
This is EXACTLY how is see things happening.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

@ the spliff fairy:

I agree with you completely in that because of the population density facing Shanghai, Beijing, and other coastal and central cities, the U.S. model of car-reliance is a recipe for disaster. Coastal cities need extensive public transport, most notably subways and commuter rails, following the Hong Kong and NYC model, which Shanghai has been pulling off very successfully (although hours of service has much to be desired). 

However, I can see places like Hohhot, Xining, Lanzhou, Baotou and other cities in the Western China or Qinghai building massive 12 lane freeways the way they have in Atlanta or L.A. in the future when their development level reaches that of coastal cities today. These cities have low population density and huge amounts of space to comfortably sustain a city with 90+ percent reliance on automobiles.

Given these circumstances, I can see that in the following decades, there will be a split in the way of life into two halves (geographically, not demographically). The coast and central China will have high-density, public transportation-reliant cities with lifestyles similar to that of Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, or NYC. Then you have the Western part including but not limited to Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Gansu, Shaanxi (except Xi'an), etc. whose cities are very similar to that of the average American, Canadian, or Australian city where there is a small downtown area surrounded by enormous suburbs, connected by a massive network of freeways.


----------

