5 ms·

I think what this signals is not that there is something particularly backwards about China. Chinese suburban sprawl shows that no matter the style of governan

I think what this signals is not that there is something particularly backwards about China. Chinese suburban sprawl shows that no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning practices. Or, you could interpret the similar mistakes as proof that real estate in America is dealt with in a way that's far from free. Texas, the heart of the mainstream right, is where much of the sprawl is. In the greatest irony, the strongly-left economist Paul Krugman is saying Texas has economically positive liberal housing laws.[1] Does the liberalization of housing law lead to sprawl? How could a place with top down bureaucracy like China produce the same outcome as right Texas with left-approved policy? It's all a big mess. Nobody has figured out modern living in an efficient way, I think. I don't think Paul Krugman, Rick Perry, San Francisco housing reform activists, San Francisco status-quo activists, AirBnb, etc. have the answers. The natural experiment in China shows radically different laws and market practices still lead to problems. No one has figured out an optimal idea for land ownership and housing. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman-wrong-way-nation.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman-wrong...

towski 12y ago
I agree, and I would argue that this type of development is more economic. People want cars because they will take you everywhere. Why are the futurists arguing for an outmoded dense city life, just so they can stare at their iPhones on the bus? Just look at the price of land or housing in dense areas and how they inevitably become centers for the wealthy.
bluthru 12y ago
>How could a place with top down bureaucracy like China produce the same outcome as right Texas with left-approved policy? Because they're both the product of private developers working on isolated blocks of land. Their concern is fast ROI, which doesn't coincide with what's good for quality of life or the long term.
sampo 12y ago
> Chinese suburban sprawl shows that no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning practices. If China and America follow this route, that's only 2 examples, not a universal trend. In Europe the cities are much more walkable.
snogglethorpe 12y ago
If you look at Japan, which generally has much looser zoning practices, it's managed to do much, much, better. It has sprawl and excess road construction too, but the sprawl is much more transit-oriented, and Japan has generally done a far better job avoiding the worst stupidities of U.S. post-war development. I'm sure there are many interacting reason for this, e.g. Japan's poverty in the decades after the war meant that cars weren't even a possibility for most people, and the sheer population of cities like Tokyo meant that mass car usage wouldn't be remotely practical even if everybody could afford a car. But surely China has many huge cities as well, and the average citizen still isn't very rich... My guess is that in Japan, developers just followed the money and did what's practical, and that meant building transit and transit-oriented housing. In China, on the other hand, with its strong centralized control, developers are probably more likely to be influenced by what the fat cats in the party hierarchy want—which is more roads for their Mercedes, and more "western-like" development which they associate with wealth and privilege—even if that isn't so sensible according to the situation on the ground (and isn't so good for the average citizen, or for the future)...
- new299 12y ago
  I guess it helps that one of the major transit operators in Tokyo is also a land developer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation
- kryptiskt 12y ago
  Japan may have handled the tactics well, but their strategy sucks. Namely the "centralize ALL the things to Tokyo" idea. Like such a metropolis actually needs policy help to keep ahead of Kansai.
- eloisant 12y ago
  It may also be because in Japan space is very constrained, while China is a huge country with a lot available space - just like US.
  - snogglethorpe 12y ago
WildUtah 12y ago
no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning Actually, the USA is known for its soviet style command and control urban planning. China is known for direct state control as well. In either country you can expect to be told what you can build, how big it can be, setbacks, parking, street access, and lot sizes. USA cities are laid out with some of the worst urban planning practices in the world and markets have nothing to do with the rules and regulations imposed. So recent bad Chinese practice and the USA are two examples of the same model. Neither is liberalized. Does the liberalization of housing law lead to sprawl? Actually, market oriented building doesn't lead to much sprawl anywhere. Sprawl must be imposed by law or central direction of development or it isn't economically viable. Nobody has figured out modern living in an efficient way, I think. Of the world's eight big (10MM+) first world cities, half of them are famous for housing and transportation that is affordable to the middle class. And each of them has found its own way to achieve that happy situation, so there are a lot of models for efficient modern living, even under the stress of a large population. All of them have medium density (150/hectare or 40k/mi^2), more than SF but less than Brooklyn, big subway systems, high rates of home ownership and low rates of personal car driving, but the differences are substantial. Seoul has lots of apartments and high rises mixed into its tightly packed single family homes with a variety of street widths. Tokyo has very narrow streets and small blocks with mostly new single family homes on small lots. Mexico City is more European with low rise flats and apartments and mews townhouses mixed with small lot single family tiny homes in the suburbs that are expanded with new floors and extensions on the lot as the family grows. Osaka has a mix of those. Each of those cities is nice and and reasonably low stress place to buy a home and get around the city. The other four large first world cities are driving out their middle class. London and New York are famously unaffordable, possibly with prices driven by sprawl and water or a greenbelt. Los Angeles is choked with sprawl and traffic. I don't know what's going on in Paris but I hear it's expensive. So some places have figured it out. And some haven't.
- winter_blue 12y ago
  This is very enlightening indeed. Do you have sources to back them up?

towski 12y ago

I agree, and I would argue that this type of development is more economic. People want cars because they will take you everywhere. Why are the futurists arguing for an outmoded dense city life, just so they can stare at their iPhones on the bus? Just look at the price of land or housing in dense areas and how they inevitably become centers for the wealthy.

bluthru 12y ago

>How could a place with top down bureaucracy like China produce the same outcome as right Texas with left-approved policy? Because they're both the product of private developers working on isolated blocks of land. Their concern is fast ROI, which doesn't coincide with what's good for quality of life or the long term.

sampo 12y ago

> Chinese suburban sprawl shows that no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning practices. If China and America follow this route, that's only 2 examples, not a universal trend. In Europe the cities are much more walkable.

snogglethorpe 12y ago

If you look at Japan, which generally has much looser zoning practices, it's managed to do much, much, better. It has sprawl and excess road construction too, but the sprawl is much more transit-oriented, and Japan has generally done a far better job avoiding the worst stupidities of U.S. post-war development. I'm sure there are many interacting reason for this, e.g. Japan's poverty in the decades after the war meant that cars weren't even a possibility for most people, and the sheer population of cities like Tokyo meant that mass car usage wouldn't be remotely practical even if everybody could afford a car. But surely China has many huge cities as well, and the average citizen still isn't very rich... My guess is that in Japan, developers just followed the money and did what's practical, and that meant building transit and transit-oriented housing. In China, on the other hand, with its strong centralized control, developers are probably more likely to be influenced by what the fat cats in the party hierarchy want—which is more roads for their Mercedes, and more "western-like" development which they associate with wealth and privilege—even if that isn't so sensible according to the situation on the ground (and isn't so good for the average citizen, or for the future)...

new299 12y ago
I guess it helps that one of the major transit operators in Tokyo is also a land developer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation
kryptiskt 12y ago
Japan may have handled the tactics well, but their strategy sucks. Namely the "centralize ALL the things to Tokyo" idea. Like such a metropolis actually needs policy help to keep ahead of Kansai.
eloisant 12y ago
It may also be because in Japan space is very constrained, while China is a huge country with a lot available space - just like US.
- snogglethorpe 12y ago

WildUtah 12y ago

no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning Actually, the USA is known for its soviet style command and control urban planning. China is known for direct state control as well. In either country you can expect to be told what you can build, how big it can be, setbacks, parking, street access, and lot sizes. USA cities are laid out with some of the worst urban planning practices in the world and markets have nothing to do with the rules and regulations imposed. So recent bad Chinese practice and the USA are two examples of the same model. Neither is liberalized. Does the liberalization of housing law lead to sprawl? Actually, market oriented building doesn't lead to much sprawl anywhere. Sprawl must be imposed by law or central direction of development or it isn't economically viable. Nobody has figured out modern living in an efficient way, I think. Of the world's eight big (10MM+) first world cities, half of them are famous for housing and transportation that is affordable to the middle class. And each of them has found its own way to achieve that happy situation, so there are a lot of models for efficient modern living, even under the stress of a large population. All of them have medium density (150/hectare or 40k/mi^2), more than SF but less than Brooklyn, big subway systems, high rates of home ownership and low rates of personal car driving, but the differences are substantial. Seoul has lots of apartments and high rises mixed into its tightly packed single family homes with a variety of street widths. Tokyo has very narrow streets and small blocks with mostly new single family homes on small lots. Mexico City is more European with low rise flats and apartments and mews townhouses mixed with small lot single family tiny homes in the suburbs that are expanded with new floors and extensions on the lot as the family grows. Osaka has a mix of those. Each of those cities is nice and and reasonably low stress place to buy a home and get around the city. The other four large first world cities are driving out their middle class. London and New York are famously unaffordable, possibly with prices driven by sprawl and water or a greenbelt. Los Angeles is choked with sprawl and traffic. I don't know what's going on in Paris but I hear it's expensive. So some places have figured it out. And some haven't.

winter_blue 12y ago
This is very enlightening indeed. Do you have sources to back them up?