51–60 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have the benefit of the rest of the developed world's experience of how to plan cities. Do they really only plan to use these large buildings for only 10 years and then rebuild? Is this normal for the rest of the world?
It's not particularly abnormal during rapid real-estate development cycles. The scale is unusual, but then again, China is the first country with more than a billion people.
The firm that behinds the building is called "Broad Group", it's world's leading absorbing chiller type of central air conditioning manufacturer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Group
Here is the latest accurate version in Chinese. Run it through Google Translate to see it. http://news.sohu.com/20120619/n346011745.shtml
I wonder how much of this will go unused. The "largest mall in the world" was build in China in 2005 and has remained 99% vacant. Having the "tallest building in the world" is an even bigger feather in their cap, but it won't be very impressive if no one actually uses it.
The Empire State Building didn't reach profitability until about two decades after its completion. Nevertheless, it has remained impressive from the time of its completion through today.
It is hard to read this story without thinking about the massive scale of "we just built this building, but we're going to tear it down because it is a deathtrap" demolitions that are happening in Beijing and the other populous cities in China that are still growing at obscene rates: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-proudly-demolishing-b...
It is hard to read this story without thinking about the massive scale of "we just built this building, but we're going to tear it down because it is a deathtrap" demolitions that are happening in Beijing and the other populous cities in China that are still growing at obscene rates: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-proudly-demolishing-b...
There is a lot of sensationalism in that article. Half the pictured buildings are over ten years old. Only one is less than three years old. That is not to deny that china has an over investment issue with their state financed industries. But still, in a country of over a billion I do not think it is out of the ordinary to have some development.
It is hard to read this story without thinking about the massive scale of "we just built this building, but we're going to tear it down because it is a deathtrap" demolitions that are happening in Beijing and the other populous cities in China that are still growing at obscene rates: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-proudly-demolishing-b...
There are lots of videos about China's ghost cities, like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbDeS_mXMnM
It is hard to read this story without thinking about the massive scale of "we just built this building, but we're going to tear it down because it is a deathtrap" demolitions that are happening in Beijing and the other populous cities in China that are still growing at obscene rates: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-proudly-demolishing-b...
We are in another age now though. I'm not sure anyone will quite reach the same levels of stupidity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of sensationalism in that article. Half the pictured buildings are over ten years old. Only one is less than three years old. That is not to deny that china has an over investment issue with their state financed industries. But still, in a country of over a billion I do not think it is out of the ordinary to have some development.
They also have the benefit of the rest of the developed world's experience of how to plan cities. Do they really only plan to use these large buildings for only 10 years and then rebuild? Is this normal for the rest of the world?
The article accuses China of paying the morning crew to dig a ditch and the evening crew to fill it up. I dislike communist in-efficiencies just as much as any other capitalist, but I do not think the situation is occurring quite to the severity implied in the parent's article.