Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

citymetric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#31

Post by Merrill »

>The new urbanisation guidelines encourage mixed-use development and recommend that all residents should have improved access to a diverse range of public and commercial amenities – schools, supermarkets, retirement centers, hospitals, parks, and cultural centers – within range of where they live. There is a special emphasis on green space: the guidelines decree that all city dwellers should have access to public parks, gardens, and other open areas.

This portrays the city as only a residential entity with residential amenities. Where are the productive uses of land, such as factories, refineries, shipyards, office buildings, warehouses, food markets, etc. that are needed for a thriving economy. "Mixed use" should account for placing places of employment in proximity to residential areas so that transportation costs and time consumed by commuting are reduced.

Or are cities to be exclusively centers of consumption?

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#32

Post by baybal2 »

dirtyid wrote: post #28

A few interesting claims by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director of China: In the last few years, CPC aims to equalize urbanization growth and have set internal migration to limit tier1 cities growth. However in reality, major Chinese cities are less dense than comparable tier1 cities elsewhere. Major urban centres density in particular have decreased 20% in the last 10 years. I believe this accounts for the subst…

Indeed, he restates a common notion: Chinese cities are not dense and big enough. Chinese policymaking is a very strong echo chamber even among the few nominally independent technocrats.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#33

Post by bobthepanda »

Merrill wrote: post #31

>The new urbanisation guidelines encourage mixed-use development and recommend that all residents should have improved access to a diverse range of public and commercial amenities – schools, supermarkets, retirement centers, hospitals, parks, and cultural centers – within range of where they live. There is a special emphasis on green space: the guidelines decree that all city dwellers should have access to public par…

Mixed use employment areas don‘t really reduce commuting time, especially if you have a multiple income household where people work in different areas. Tokyo is extremely mixed use and still has long commute times.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#34

Post by bobthepanda »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #12
barry-cotter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what the article is talking about. Not tower blocks, think more like Xuhui or Changning in Shanghai where you have tons of eight story or ten story apartment blocks with the first or first two floors of street facing buildings being small retail, and instead of super blocks that take twenty minutes to walk around, like in Pudong, ones more like in Paris or New York, much smaller. A perfect dense city looks…

> A perfect dense city looks like Brooklyn, Harlem or Paris, not like Pudong. That's your opinion. These places are short of green spaces.

Short of green spaces, or short of useful green spaces?

In general dividing green space into small segmented areas per tower is not useful for most activities for humans or wildlife.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#35

Post by bobthepanda »

baybal2 wrote: post #32
dirtyid wrote: post #28

A few interesting claims by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director of China: In the last few years, CPC aims to equalize urbanization growth and have set internal migration to limit tier1 cities growth. However in reality, major Chinese cities are less dense than comparable tier1 cities elsewhere. Major urban centres density in particular have decreased 20% in the last 10 years. I believe this accounts for the subst…

Indeed, he restates a common notion: Chinese cities are not dense and big enough. Chinese policymaking is a very strong echo chamber even among the few nominally independent technocrats.

That’s not current policy though; Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen are trying to cap their populations.

Current policy is to urbanize the western regions to reduce regional imbalances.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#36

Post by bobthepanda »

barry-cotter wrote: post #9
xvilka wrote: post #3

I guess we will see more skyscrapers then since more density is required.

Chinese residential city blocks aren’t any denser than American ones, they do have more green space though. Paris is one of the densest cities in the world and it doesn’t really get taller than eight stories high.

Aren’t Parisian apartments also really small? I’m in a 90 sq m two-bedroom in Seattle and I shudder to think what I’d have to pay in central Paris for that.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#37

Post by baybal2 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #35
baybal2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, he restates a common notion: Chinese cities are not dense and big enough. Chinese policymaking is a very strong echo chamber even among the few nominally independent technocrats.

That’s not current policy though; Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen are trying to cap their populations. Current policy is to urbanize the western regions to reduce regional imbalances.

I meant exactly this. A common saying among the establishment is that Chinese cities "got too big," when in reality the issue is the opposite.

At least in Shenzhen, the officials are split in 2 camps. One is all about importing more workers to keep the industry going, another is for turning Shenzhen more into a Dubai for rich kids.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#38

Post by thaumasiotes »

baybal2 wrote: post #15
yorwba wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few people people can afford giant mansion apartments, but that doesn't mean they all stay vacant. With a lot of improvised plumbing and wiring plus drywall each of the original giant rooms can be turned into a much tinier apartment that can be rented out individually. I have lived in such a converted apartment and while it was pretty obvious that the original floorplan wasn't made for so many small units, I got used…

Yes, this is what is happening. People who run airbnbs or ziroom apartments like them. Rents in China are still super cheap in comparison to the property and land price.

They always will be. The Chinese place much more value on owning (as opposed to renting) than other people do.

That is why the rhetorical enemy of communism in China was "landlords". It's why a fundamental platform of the current CCP is that landownership is illegal. ("the land belongs to the country", 土地是国家的)

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#39

Post by bobthepanda »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #38
baybal2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is what is happening. People who run airbnbs or ziroom apartments like them. Rents in China are still super cheap in comparison to the property and land price.

They always will be. The Chinese place much more value on owning (as opposed to renting) than other people do. That is why the rhetorical enemy of communism in China was "landlords". It's why a fundamental platform of the current CCP is that landownership is illegal. ("the land belongs to the country", 土地是国家的)

It's also because there aren't really alternative investment forms. Investing abroad is heavily restricted. Local investment markets are not mature enough for there to be Chinese equivalents of 401ks. And local pensions aren't great.

Housing is pretty much the only thing in China that has generated positive return on investment.

Re: Recommendations from the first meeting of China’s urban policy unit in 38 years

#40

Post by thaumasiotes »

bobthepanda wrote: post #39
thaumasiotes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They always will be. The Chinese place much more value on owning (as opposed to renting) than other people do. That is why the rhetorical enemy of communism in China was "landlords". It's why a fundamental platform of the current CCP is that landownership is illegal. ("the land belongs to the country", 土地是国家的)

It's also because there aren't really alternative investment forms. Investing abroad is heavily restricted. Local investment markets are not mature enough for there to be Chinese equivalents of 401ks. And local pensions aren't great. Housing is pretty much the only thing in China that has generated positive return on investment.

That may be so, but you can watch the price of owning relative to renting spike in any area that experiences an influx of Chinese.
Post reply on HN