
Why haven't China's cities learned from America's mistakes? - saeranv
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/20/why-havent-chinas-cities-learned-from-americas-mistakes
======
martythemaniak
The short, glib answer is "The same reason teenagers don't learn from their
elders' mistakes".

The longer answer is a combination of:

\- poor people want what rich people have. And if they can't afford the
substance (private country estate), they'll still get the style (McMansion).
They particularly want last generation's rich people's things, as this
generation's rich people's things are have not gained widespread popularity.

\- suburban sprawl has low up-front costs with real costs coming in decades
later, as North American suburbs are starting to experience today

\- suburbs offer a very seductive lifestyle proposition - the space and
privacy of the country and the convenience of city life. In my experience they
fail to deliver, offering the traffic and neighbours of the city, without the
convenience of dense, walkable neighbourhoods, proximity to downtown and quick
transit.

\- more privacy and space _are_ quite nice.

~~~
jlmendezbonini
>\- suburban sprawl has low up-front costs with real costs coming in decades
later, as North American suburbs are starting to experience today

Would you mind elaborating more on this? More specifically about the cost the
North American suburbs are starting to experience.

thanks

~~~
martythemaniak
I am talking primarily about property tax rates, though as siblings have said,
there are other effects, like worse health and lifestyle outcomes which are a
bit harder to quantify.

As the article mentions, suburban municipalities made money primarily by
selling land, however the price almost never accounted for the true, high cost
of servicing low-density communities. This is usually made much worse by
developer lobbying. Eventually the land runs out and the municipality has to
either stop growing and start raising property taxes to make up for lost
sales, or start densifying to keep growth going, neither of which are popular
with people who though were getting a certain deal. For a lot of suburbs
densifying is not even an option (no one wants to go there), so sometimes they
spiral downwards.

Calgary makes a good example. Prior to 2010 it had the image of "redneck
sprawlville", but it elected an urbane, muslim, gay-welcoming mayor. One of
his major issues was tax savings via ending public subsidies for suburbs.
Turns out when you did the math, each mcmansion received a hefty public
subsidy because the cost of servicing that house exceeded what developers paid
the city. Similar patters can be seen throughout North America.

~~~
waps
All these things come down to that everyone should give up most of the things
they want, and listen to "what's best".

I've yet to see someone make the point that there are solutions, such as using
electric self-driving cars as public transport, will work. Assuming of course,
the price can be made low enough.

Maybe I'm a horrible human being, but I have a family, and I want space (incl.
a garden), NOT living in a big city, and a car. I do not think this is too
much to ask. Solutions (and politics) should focus on how to make that
possible, not on how to prevent it.

~~~
snowwrestler
It's not too much to ask, but there are better and worse ways of getting it.
My mom and I live in similar sized houses on similar sized plots of land.

I live in a suburb that is constructed like a small town. The streets are a
grid, and there is a "main street" that puts the essentials within walking
distance of many of the houses--groceries, restaurants, hardware, even
elementary and middle schools--and a few smaller shop areas sprinkled on a few
other blocks.

My mom lives in a suburb that was constructed by a suburban developer in the
1970s. The streets are all curved and hierarchical (i.e. connect like branches
on a tree), and all the shopping is concentrated in a big strip mall at a
major intersection.

The result is that the traffic is far worse for my mom. Everything requires
driving, and the street layout extends travel times, while concentrating all
drivers into a smaller and smaller set of roads. They also have a worse time
in winter. They are totally dependent on plows when it snows; whereas in my
neighborhood most folks can walk to a store if they need something.

Edit to add: I can't prove it, but my subjective perception is that average
health is lower in my mom's neighborhood, with more fat people. There's no
reason to walk besides exercise (i.e. walking in circles just to walk). In my
neighborhood it is often more convenient to walk, so people do it a lot more.

------
doctorpangloss
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman-wrong-way-
nation.html?_r=0)

~~~
snogglethorpe
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)...

~~~
eloisant
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
I don't think space is really such a factor at the scale of a single city in
many cases. Although China has a lot more land should it choose to build new
cities or whatever, what matters more for existing cities is land in close
proximity to them (to the point where transportation becomes the limiting
factor).

Tokyo, for instance, has plenty of relatively empty space around it even
today; it isn't severely geographically constrained in the same way that Hong
Kong or Manhattan are.

------
reedlaw
I live in Hangzhou and they are already addressing these problems. For
example, there is a network of public bike stations. To use a bike, you make a
200 yuan deposit on a public transportation card. The first hour bike rental
is free. After that it starts at 1 yuan for the second hour and goes up from
there. The card also works for buses (a ride costs 2-4 yuan) using your
available balance. After riding a bus, the free bike period is increased to 90
minutes. It's usually easy to find a bike and they are continuing to build new
stations making it even more convenient.

Cars are a problem because of the amount of traffic around the city center. To
address that, the goverment mandated that private cars could only drive in the
city once a week during weekday rush hour. New drivers can only get a license
if they pay a hefty tax or win a lottery (only about 2% who enter win). These
restrictions don't apply to electric vehicles. There is also a network of
public electric cars that can be rented for personal use. They are about the
size of Smart cars.

The article points at the suburban sprawl starting to spread around cities
like Shanghai. But what it doesn't mention is that most of these homes are
super expensive or so far away as to require a lifestyle which most Chinese
couldn't afford. Those who could afford these houses are likely to also be
able to afford an even better lifestyle overseas. The middle-class can
scarcely afford to buy a small apartment in China's top-tier cities. So I'm
not too worried about Western-style sprawl taking over all of China.

~~~
gurkendoktor
> I live in Hangzhou and they are already addressing these problems. For
> example, there is a network of public bike stations.

Do people use these in your experience? I've noticed them pop up all over
Germany and then Taiwan too, but I found it hard to spot anyone but tourists
riding public bikes. I always wonder if these are simply prestige projects to
impress green-minded citizens (like myself).

~~~
skrebbel
In the Netherlands, most train stations have a bike station like that, and it
seems to be quite a success. 4 years ago, seeing someone on such an "OV-fiets"
(public transit bike) was an oddity, now it's very common. Doing the last mile
by bike beats buses and trams big time, IMO. No waiting, no sitting next to
sweaty people, no thinking, planning - just go.

It probably helps that biking is already a strong element of Dutch culture,
but if I'm not mistaken the Chinese bike a lot too so I guess it could work
just as well.

------
wesleyy
I don't think saying China didn't see and learn from the failing aspects of
American city planning is fair or useful, especially when it comes to road
planning. The Chinese and American culture on road use is completely
different: (power/gas) scooters and (regular) bikes are extremely popular in
Beijing, and Chinese drivers are generally much more aggressive. Because of
this, most road users, including bikers, are capable of driving defensively
against other road users. Most bikers/scooter-ers are already comfortable with
weaving between cars on their commute. Would a segregated lane make commuting
on smaller vehicles safer? Undoubtedly. Would it be necessary to incentivize
biking over driving larger vehicles? Probably not.

This, along with other problems, like an exponentially expanding middle class
population that can suddenly afford vehicles, is only one of the many
different challenges most western governments have not experienced, which
China currently faces. It may be unfair to quickly jump to conclusions and
simply say the Chinese have not learned from the history of urban planning by
western countries, when there are very few references from which the Chinese
government can draw on, for the unique problems that they are facing.

TL;DR: Chinese urban centers have problems that cities in Western countries
have not faced.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Gas scooters are illegal within the 5th ring road, the police just haven't
cracked down recently so many people are getting daring again (it's a cycle).

Beijing bikes don't go very fast, probably because the lanes are all choked by
cars, though it was like this in the late 90s also when Beijing still had
segregated bike lanes.

Chinese urban planners are just uneducated people who got their jobs via
guanxi, especially in a corrupt city like Beijing (Shanghai, Guangzhou are
much better, of course).

------
nichtich
I've heard about failed city planning a lot, and I wonder is there a good
example somewhere? like a booming city with more than 5 million population
that have "good" city plan? which city is best in this regard?

~~~
sampo
> I've heard about failed city planning a lot, and I wonder is there a good
> example somewhere?

Cities with functional public transport and walkable neighborhoods: Tokyo,
Seoul, London, New York City, Paris, Berlin.

Maybe also Madrid and Singapore, but I don't know much about them. Edit: Maybe
Osaka and Nagoya, too (I don't know much about them either).

All these have over 5 million population.

~~~
eloisant
Paris is a bad example of functional public transport. You have intramuros
Paris, which is walkable and have good transportation (metro), and you can add
maybe the "petite couronne", but it's much too small to accommodate the
population that revolves around the Greater Paris.

As soon as you get go outside, you have suburbs with no life and poor
transportation. RER and SNCF trains are late when they're not in strike (1).

As a result, everyone wants to live in Paris or very close, so the prices of
housing are very high. And even if you can afford an appartement, it's very
hard to actually sign a lease because there are so many potential tenants
wanting to rent it.

Add to that the fact that there are very few tall buildings in Paris because
they want to keep it some kind of museum city stuck in the 19th century with
Haussmanian buildings, the housing problem is not going to fix itself.

(1) In Paris suburbs, most child care provider refuse kids whose both parents
use the RER. Because they will have no control on the time they'll be back to
pick up their kids. Not exactly what we call "functional public transport".

------
nkoren
A very simplistic and skewed article. As per its usual modus operandi, China
is pursuing all options simultaneously. Which means that in addition to
building hideous sprawling automotive-dependent suburbs, they're building the
largest and most sophisticated urban and regional rail system in the world,
and pursuing initiatives such as the Chengdu car-free city
([http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/11/car-free-city-china-
builds...](http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/11/car-free-city-china-builds-dense-
metropolis-from-scratch/)) which are vastly more progressive than anything the
rest of the world has attempted.

Portland is a great city by American standards, but its public transit mode-
share for all trips in the metropolitan region still hovers around 4% -- with
an additional ~2% coming from cycles -- making Portland ~94% dependent on
private cars. (Note: you'll see statistics claiming a much higher mode share
for Portland; this is done by excluding the other municipalities which account
for >70% of the population in the metropolitan region, as well as by excluding
the >60% of trips that are non-commuting trips). China is already doing _much_
better than that, so it would be a shame if Portland were its target.

------
jrapdx3
Interesting subject. If the question is "to sprawl or not to sprawl" (that is,
urban sprawl), like most truly serious questions, there's no good solution.

I live in Oregon, where we have strict urban grown boundaries. Here in
Portland, light rail has been developing since the 1970's and still expanding.
Bicycling is pushed by city leaders. "In-fill" housing is going up in most
every part of town.

Utopia? Not everyone thinks so. Sure "urban sprawl" is mostly avoided, and
farmland is preserved. But road traffic is a nightmare, and the toll of
increasing population density is palpable.

Now there's talk of the undesirable effects of "vertical sprawl", a reaction
to the ever-increasing height of new condo buildings and the like. There's a
growing murmur of objection to the "canyon-like" landscape that many feel has
a negative impact on urban quality of life.

So here we are again, there are always trade-offs, which is less corrosive,
suburban or vertical sprawl? Maybe it just goes to show, we can overdo any
good thing.

~~~
claudius
I think the key here would be to limit both – no buildings higher than ~6
stories (~30m) and a limit on urban boundaries, either enforced by land
planning or economics.

Standard mansion blocks of six stories still have a much higher population
density than suburban sprawling single-family homes while avoiding some/all of
the issues with too high a population density – two-lane roads are usually
quite sufficient and the sun does reach the ground from time to time.

See e.g. Berlin and Munich for (IMHO) decent examples of this.

~~~
Herbert2
I'm all for less sprawl but artificial limits like the ones you're describe
would IMO only needlessly accelerate gentrification. For instance, it's very
difficult to get a spot at a daycare in Munich, not because there isn't space
in the system but because the city can't afford to hire staff that can afford
to live in Munich.

------
thorin
The main problem I have here in the UK is that I live in a suburban area but
have excellent train, bus, tram, road links into our nearest city and several
other local cities.

Every job I've expressed an interest in recently has an office outside of the
main centre, normally near a major road junction. This makes the office
inaccessible by public transport and much easier to get to by car. These are
IT jobs in different industry sectors: retail, defence, finance, utilities
etc.

I suppose this is due to the price of land and availability of office space
out of town. There is no incentive for most of these companies to be in a city
centre.

This is the major reason I'm likely to continue to drive to work. At the right
time of day it takes 20 mins to drive, proabably over 1.5 hours by public
transport - a mixture of train, bus, walk and much more expensive. How
dissappointing!

Of course this isn't an issue in London, I'm talking about provincial towns
and cities.

------
jpatokal
There's one aspect where China has well and truly learned from America's
mistakes: public transport. Every Chinese city of any importance has a metro
system that's shiny new and heavily used. In 1993, the Shanghai Metro did not
exist; today it's the world's longest, and by some measures the busiest.

[http://www.urbanrail.net/as/asia.htm](http://www.urbanrail.net/as/asia.htm)
[http://www.urbanrail.net/as/cn/shan/shanghai.htm](http://www.urbanrail.net/as/cn/shan/shanghai.htm)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
But if you live in the suburbs and are just a car-less diaosi, you have your
parents get up at 4am just to reserve a place for you in the bus line so you
can make it to work by 8am (this is actually true for many places in Beijing,
and some places in SH).

------
coldcode
To quote poet Carl Sandberg - "The fog comes on little cat feet. It sits
looking over harbor and city on silent haunches and then moves on." The
problem is that screwing up the environment can happen so slowly that by the
time you start to realize how bad it is to may be too late.

------
chiph
I think it's because of Hollywood. They see the American TV shows and movies,
and (slasher films aside) they show a happy suburban existence. And don't show
hour-long commutes, the high cost of car ownership, etc.

