
Welcome to Shanghai, the capital of the future - pseudolus
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-welcome-to-shanghai-the-capital-of-the-future/
======
sytelus
The next decade or so is going to be very interesting. Western democracies
have now overly partisan political system where most of the effort is spent in
just cancelling out each other. Whatever remains is typically taken away by
lobbyist that only help to further inflate shareholder value, which large
majority of population isn’t. On the other hand authoritarian governments are
able to move swiftly and decisively on issues and infrastructure. For example,
government simply can deny cars with odd numbered license plates to drive on
Mondays to reduce traffic and pollution. They are obviously rampant with
corruption and bad decisions like creating ghost towns but marginal leftover
value that remains seem to be still big enough for actual public works than in
highly polarized democracy. I am not favoring one over another but long term
consequences of this marginal efficiency could be highly compounding.

~~~
the_watcher
> that only help to further inflate shareholder value, which large majority of
> population isn’t.

This is incorrect, at least in the US. A majority of Americans are
shareholders (Somewhere between 51%[0] and 55%[1]), since if you have a 401k
or IRA, you are a shareholder.

[0]
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf)
[1] [https://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-
amo...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-
higher-income.aspx)

~~~
49531
While true that about half of Americans own stocks, 84% of all stocks owned by
Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Via the defined benefit pension promises, all taxpayers are invested in
keeping asset prices climbing otherwise they will get wrecked by even higher
taxes.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
About half of Americans are too poor to pay federal income tax.

~~~
rayiner
Except most of the pension bombs are in the state and local governments, which
rely primarily on regressive taxation (sales taxes, property taxes, fees,
etc.).

~~~
bhupy
Aren't property taxes progressive? That's one of the fundamental arguments
behind Georgism.

~~~
rayiner
At the time, only the wealthy owned land. Today in the US, 2/3 of people own
their homes. Meanwhile, rich people have less of their assets tied up in real
property. Someone worth $100,000 probably has most of that in their house.
Someone worth $10,000,000 likely will have only a fraction of that in their
house, and the rest in financial assets not subject to property taxes.

~~~
pcwalton
It's an open debate among economists as to whether property taxes are
progressive or regressive. Here's a nice article I found summarizing the
debate: [https://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/69/2/ntj-v69n02p413-434-local-
pro...](https://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/69/2/ntj-v69n02p413-434-local-property-
taxes-regressive-progressive.pdf)

~~~
rayiner
That is an interesting reference, thank you.

------
nicolas_t
Is this article a joke? Shanghai is the opposite of a well-planned city that
evolved in a positive direction.

> Shanghai has provided one of the world’s largest and most rapidly growing
> urban populations with a quality of life and a breadth of infrastructure
> unmatched by any other megalopolis. It has done so in less than three
> decades.

Quality of life is absolutely awful in Shanghai, where is the blue sky? where
is the clean air? Traffic jams happen all the time.

And apart from the subway system that is indeed extensive, having lived in
Shanghai in 2003 and then having come back in 2009, I would argue that
Shanghai was a much better place back then in term of quality of life. Less
pollution, less cars, more bicycles, more of those lane houses that encouraged
a stronger sense of community between residents. It was a lovely city back
then.

Of course, with money, things have improved, but I'd argue that Shanghai would
have been better off with much better planned development. As it is, I don't
think random thoughtless urban development would have created anything much
worse than what it is now.

~~~
jewelry
I guess everything should be put in a context and evaluated relatively. How
does it compare with other cities quadrupled in 2 or 3 decades? Yes blue sky,
yes bycicle, yes sense of community. Those are available for tiny towns
elsewhere in comparison. But how does Shanghai's planning work comparing to
New Dheli? Mexico city? Other mega-cities?

~~~
nicolas_t
Well having also lived in Tokyo which is a city that quadrupled in 2 to 3
decades, at least one city managed to retain all of those characteristics.
Seoul also worked out rather well.

------
pseudolus
More interesting than the actual article are the comments that follow it,
which appear to follow the same line that appears on Hacker News with respect
to China based articles. They're incredibly polarized which speaks to an
ongoing unease in the West with respect to China's growth. A certain large
percentage being extremely vocal of their criticism of China, some being
laudatory and very few striking a middle ground. Had the article been about
Mumbai, Lagos or Karachi I'm doubtful such reactions would have been elicited.

~~~
netwanderer3
I spent first half of my life in Asia, and second half in the West so I am
very much under influenced by cultures on both sides. I've always tried my
best to view these issues as objectively as possible and without any biases.

China of the past has always accepted that they were inferior, but they were
always willing to learn which was why most people accused them of copying from
others. However, human knowledge and innovations have always been about
replicating what others have already done, and then adding your own tweaks to
it. Nobody could go from 50 to 100 without climbing up through every step, and
China was willing to climb those steps at all costs. They have studied Western
society extremely well over the years. China were able to extract all the best
elements from the West, removed the not-so-good ingredients, and then applied
those filtered results back to the country.

On the opposite side, it's understandable why most people are criticizing
China because psychologically it's very difficult to accept an inferior
opponent who was only considered as "copier" not long ago could now in fact be
as good, or possibly even better in the future. It's not easy considering they
have been leading by a wide margin for such a long time.

The danger here is while China has quietly concentrated all their effort to
adapt the best formulas from the West, people on the other side continue to
ignore an inevitable reality. Instead of investigating China to see why they
have done so well and to obtain some of their knowledge in return, many are
still refusing these facts and trying their best to hold onto old ideas that
just badly need updates. If not careful, we have seen this scenario played out
time and time again in business (Kodak, Myspace, Blackberry, etc...).

Despite what others may want us to believe, majority of today world are still
operating based on zero-sum game. Italy has seen its real GDP in decline and
is the first G7 country to endorse China's "Belt and Road" initiative. In
their own view, China of today no longer believes they're an inferior
opponent.

It's about time people should forget about the past and start looking more
into the future. Our world is changing very fast and failing to do that may
quickly leave people behind before they even realize it.

~~~
bsenftner
The end of my MBA program was a trip to China, with a week spent in Shanghai.
a portion of our trip was meeting with the then CEO of China IBM and he toured
us through the most ambitious project I'd ever heard: the Chinese Government
hired IBM to create a nationwide western medical infrastructure - they needed
everything from the health science courses in high school, university majors,
nursing and medical universities, and hospitals and pharmacies by the
thousand. This was a giant jaw dropping ambitious effort, and from what we
could see the entire effort was being executed with the latest organizational
and educational models known at the time from the west. I thought it was like
taking the entirety of the Harvard Review and attempting a mass implementation
of all that thinking in a real world project. After the trip was over, I
remember thinking that such forward thinking investment was going to make
China unbeatable within my lifetime. Looks like that is becoming true already,
14 years later.

~~~
hangonhn
This is the dangerous allure of an authoritarian state and China has been here
before -- many times. Replace "western medical infrastructure" with "a massive
wall to keep the barbarians to the north out" or "a massive canal to connect
the two rivers" and you'll get the same effect. Authoritarian states, which
China really basically pioneered during the Qin dynasty, can accomplish great
things when its powers are wielded correctly. The problem is that when the
people or person in charge is incompetent, crazy, and/or lazy then the whole
thing just goes to hell. The often tried and just as often unsuccessful
solution is to have good court officials and properly educating the heir-
apparent but the cycle of dynasties and the catastrophe that follow their
overthrows suggests that it is not a good long term solution. In fact, these
violent overthrows often erases many of the accomplishments of the peaceful
periods. This is sort of the problem democracy solves: accountability allows
the leader(s) to be changed in a non-violent way. The problem with democracies
is that it is almost by definition very average in progress. It is slow and
steady but the overall trend is positive. It takes a very long term view to
appreciate the steadiness of progress in democracies. The US is on track to
overtake the majority of Chinese dynasties in term of longevity.

~~~
intrasight
This is an important point. I agree. China will fail - and fail badly - in my
lifetime - again. Authoritarianism failed them badly during the Cultural
Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.

"These policies led to social and economic disaster, but these failures were
hidden by widespread exaggeration and deceitful reports. In short order, large
resources were diverted to use on expensive new industrial operations, which,
in turn, failed to produce much, and deprived the agricultural sector of
urgently needed resources. An important result was a drastic decline in food
output, which caused millions of deaths in the Great Chinese Famine."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)

Sure, they'll not make that mistake again - but they'll make others just as
egregious. It's what authoritarians do best.

~~~
chillacy
I’m not so sure. Plenty of authoritarian countries have done quite well (and
even transitioned to more democratic systems peacefully) in Asia like South
Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.

~~~
intrasight
Right. I think they will fail if they don't transition to a democratic system.
What an amazing country it would become if that happens.

~~~
chillacy
I think the cause and effect are flipped: if they succeed they will want
democracy, if they fail to escape the middle income trap they will never reach
high enough on the hierarchy of needs to demand political voice.

------
dqpb
> _The Shanghai metro system, with its 12 lines, is now the most extensive in
> the world, yet its first line opened only in 1993. Four new lines are under
> construction and five existing lines are being extended._

Meanwhile, New York is letting their metro system crumble to the ground.

~~~
kingkawn
A severe economic downturn for nyc because of infrastructure weakness and a
pop in the housing market speculative investment bubble is on its way

~~~
ReptileMan
Too much dirty money from all around the world are looking for a parking spot.
Don't count on it.

~~~
kingkawn
They’re coming to nyc because of perceived economic forces that will hold the
city’s housing prices up as a high return investment. With the infrastructure
actively failing before our eyes the calculus about the city seems certain to
change as its reputation and quality of life plunges. Also the cultural forces
celebrating urban spaces that created the beliefs underlying this many decade
boom have long ago exhausted themselves, at least in relation to nyc. I have
lived here a large portion of my life and feel near certain that the
speculative winds are shifting elsewhere.

~~~
Theodores
Ye of no faith!

Faith in capitalism.

London was at the point you describe two decades ago with bottlenecks of
transport, e.g. Heathrow or Paddington, neither of which seem possible to
expand. The housing crash never came, 2008 was just fine and, even with the
Brexit pause on all possible decision making, prices just keep going upwards
for property.

Never give up faith in capitalism. Even if you would prefer socialism.

~~~
spiderjerusalem
Well I for one would prefer a crash because then I would at least consider
buying real estate. Without a crash, not happening - renting wins in most
European cities right now.

~~~
Theodores
I realise that my original comment was not popular, but capitalism defies
logic when it comes to housing markets. It no longer has anything to do with
the earning capacity of the common man, in the global cities - New York and
London being prime examples - property prices defy gravity. There is just
nowhere else for the capital of the 1% to go, so we are stuck. It should have
had a reset in 2008 but the banks were bailed out instead.

A lot of people including myself would like a grand reset of the whole
capitalist rent seeking enterprise. But our prayers are nothing compared to
_their_ capital.

The other thing is that if there is a crash then the 1% can buy even more
property and other assets at a bargain price. Whatever happens they win. Only
a popular revolution can save us.

------
ozborn
Is it just me that finds it bizarre that they call Shanghai "the capital of
the future" without any references to global warming and the vulnerability of
Shanghai to sea level rise?

Although not as at risk as Miami, Shanghai is one of the most vulnerable
cities in the world. [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/03/miami-
shangha...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/03/miami-
shanghai-3c-warming-cities-underwater)

Shanghai is already one of the most important cities of the world - today.
Predicting the future is something else, although I certainly expect Shanghai
to do better than Miami, and probably New York as well.

~~~
mikhailfranco
Be sure to click through to these graphics ...

[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-
interactive/2017/nov/0...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-
interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming)

------
basetop
Interesting article. But "London and New York, the world’s current leading
cities, share Shanghai’s foundational geographic logic. Their safe harbours
are easily accessible to the world’s trade, and their Thames and Hudson Rivers
provided a ready route into a huge hinterland."

Does Thames really lead to a "huge hinterland". Does a small island like the
UK even have a huge hinterland?

Also, the hudson doesn't lead to a "huge hinterland" either. The mississippi
and missouri rivers does though.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the yangtze river ( shanghai ) with
the hudson or thames rivers.

~~~
raldi
> Also, the hudson doesn't lead to a "huge hinterland"

What in the world? The Hudson leads to the Erie Canal which leads to the Great
Lakes which lead to the largest system of navigable waters on Earth which
happens to be right on top of the largest mass of arable land on the planet.

~~~
basetop
NYC was already the largest US city before the eerie canal was completed. It
wasn't the eerie canal that made NYC, the eerie canal was created because NYC
was the most important city in the US. Whereas the article's point was that
the rivers ( like shanghai ) and its access to the hinterlands is what drove
the development of shanghai. The complete opposite is the case for NYC.

Also, do you know which river the the great lakes feed into? The mississippi
river which bisects the land with the most arable land on earth. The missouri
river also cuts through much of the continental US. The hudson river doesn't.
I've lived along the hudson river pretty much all my life, so you can take my
word on this.

If you think the thames or the hudson river is anywhere comparable to the
yangtze, mississippi or the missouri, I suggest you take another look at what
these rivers are. The hudson barely spans a few hundred miles in length. The
yangtze, missouri and mississipi span a few thousand miles deep into the
hinterlands of china and the US respectively. Compared to the mississipi or
the yantze or the missouri, the hudson river is a stream.

~~~
raldi
_In 1825, Clinton also helped break ground for the Ohio & Erie Canal, which
was viewed as an extension of the Erie Canal and joined the Hudson with the
Mississippi and New York City with New Orleans._

 _By then, other Eastern Seaboard cities had great harbors, but none had a
comparable water tributary to the expanding interior of the United States._

[...]

 _In 50 years, New York City had grown from 120,000 people to more than a
million in 1870. What historians called “a river of gold” flowing into the
city’s lap had also proved to be a triumph of a fledgling democracy and
capitalism, said James S. Kaplan, president of the Lower Manhattan Historical
Association. What was known as the Great Western Canal exported New York’s
politics and principles to the rest of the nation._

[...]

 _The canal affirmed New York’s political ascendancy over Virginia and the
rest of the South (four of the first five presidents were Virginians) and its
commercial dominance over competing ports not just on the Eastern Seaboard,
but all the way to New Orleans._

 _No wonder that in his “Wedding of the Waters: The Erie Canal and the Making
of a Great Nation” (2005), Peter L. Bernstein wrote: “A town with an imperial
name was about to witness the birth of a project that would turn New York into
an imperial state.”_

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/nyregion/history-of-
the-e...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/nyregion/history-of-the-erie-
canal.html)

~~~
basetop
I already knew all of that. Are you saying the NYC didn't exist before the
eerie canal was built? Are you saying NYC wasn't the largest and most
important city in the US before the eerie canal?

So the eerie canal joined the hudson with the mississippi. The mississippi is
2300 miles long, the hudson river is 300 miles long. So which is the more
important river?

I wish you addressed my comment rather than posting a bunch of quotes. But I
can see this won't go anywhere. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry I
could't change your mind.

~~~
raldi
The topic of this thread isn't "What's the most important river in the United
States?" Obviously the answer to that is the Mississippi.

The topic is your claim that:

> the hudson doesn't lead to a "huge hinterland"

I think it's objectively clear that for any reasonable definitions of "lead"
and "huge hinterland", it does.

~~~
basetop
The topic of this thread is "what caused major cities to exist". The argument
of the article was access to major hinterlands via rivers is why cities like
london, nyc and shanghai exist. As you proved to me, the hudson didn't grant
access to major hinterlands. It took the creation of the erie canal for access
to the great lakes and mississippi.

I'll repeat my point for your edification. NYC was already a major city before
the erie canal. As I stated, the erie canal was built because NYC was the most
important city in the US. The erie canal didn't cause NYC to become the most
important city in the US.

Yes, the hudson river with one of the world's major projects ( the erie canal
) eventually granted access to the hinterlands. But before the erie canal was
built, it did not. Yet, NYC existed before the erie canal. Meaning without
"access to the hinterlands via the artificially created erie canal", NYC would
still exist because it did exist without the erie canal.

Using your logic, NYC shouldn't have even existed before the erie canal
because it didn't have access to the "huge hinterlands". But we know NYC
existed prior to the erie canal and access to the "huge hinterlands".

~~~
raldi
You seem to deeply misunderstand my position.

New York City exists at its location because nature made it the greatest port
facility in the western hemisphere. Great cities emerge where there are
transportation breaks: Seaports, rivers, lakeside sites (Chicago), the edge of
mountain ranges (Denver). Any place goods need to be loaded and unloaded from
long-range vehicles and onto other ones. The Erie Canal gave NYC access to
America's hinterland, which floored the accelerator on the city's growth.

But don't take my word for it; here's a foreword written by perhaps the most
respected authority on the history of the city of New York:

[https://books.google.com/books?id=lVWSpqwqX8AC&lpg=PR15&ots=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=lVWSpqwqX8AC&lpg=PR15&ots=y68e-uRG4N&dq=%22New%20York%20City%20owes%20its%20location%2C%20its%20growth%2C%20its%20prosperity%2C%20and%20even%20its%20very%20existence%2C%20to%20its%20port%22&pg=PR15#v=onepage&q=%22New%20York%20City%20owes%20its%20location,%20its%20growth,%20its%20prosperity,%20and%20even%20its%20very%20existence,%20to%20its%20port%22&f=false)

------
mstaoru
This Reddit thread might be of interest:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/shanghai/comments/bhk4gc/shanghai_n...](https://www.reddit.com/r/shanghai/comments/bhk4gc/shanghai_night_markets_or_other_cool_stuff_at/)

> [...] welcome to Shanghai 2019. It’s not totally dead though but it has been
> sanitized.

> Shanghai in the last 4 years has really made a push to be the city where you
> "come for business, stay at a nice hotel, eat at a few nice restaurants,
> then go back to wherever [...] you came from".

> Welcome to Shanghai! It’s like the Dallas of China. Honestly, I think that
> to a westerner, Shanghai is one of the most disappointing cities a person
> can visit.

I live in Shanghai for 4+ years now, and I agree with the Reddit sub. It's not
the "capital of the future" by any standard besides the length of the subway.

------
jshaqaw
When I was in Shanghai some years ago it felt as if it was being given to cars
versus public transport which was a huge missed opportunity. I don’t claim
however to have seen the whole city only being there for 4 or 5 days as a
tourist (and as a native NYC resident I know how misleading this can be). Was
this impression correct?

~~~
hrydgard
Did you even try the subway network? That's how most people get around in
Shanghai and it's top notch and definitely not a missed opportunity. Every
large city will need a road network as well as a public transit, the
difference is the percentage of people taking each.

~~~
jshaqaw
I did. You can get around nicely on it. But I did find that walkability within
neighborhoods was strained by superhighways crisscrossing everywhere.

------
bpicolo
The Shanghai metro is nothing short of amazing. No delays, extremely clean,
cheap to ride, very extensive, and they built it fast.

------
zwaps
Its super hilarious to me that nowhere could they find a picture where the
background isn't completely grey from smog & pollution. If you know how cities
feel that look like that, you'll know that you don't want to live there for a
second!

All this daily propaganda about city X,Y or Z in China being the next NYC or
Paris, and yet, almost nobody who is not Chinese seriously wants to move
there. Not for pollution, and not for the dictatorship/fascism of the PRC. At
the same time, Chinese with enough money are basically full-on fleeing the
country, to the tune of buying passports, capital and housing everywhere that
isn't China like we have never seen before.

~~~
verst
I'm from Germany, live in the US and have lived in Shanghai for several months
in 2015 and have returned every year since. Definitely had some blue skies.

I would consider living / working in Shanghai. Ever since I spent my 3 months
there I have called it New York 2.0.

~~~
bduerst
Yep. I worked in Shanghai for four months, and I tell everyone now that it's
"New New York".

I would definitely consider working there again if the opportunity came up.
The density is crazy but the subway is great and it's a fantastic city.

------
baybal2
I have a lot to say about that, but first is that this follows an almost
cliche popular misconception.

People in the West saying that "Chinese model is the future" irk me. What I
say to them is that Chinese model is "their future."

It is the West that was much apart from "average world countries" for the most
20th century than any other country being something special.

If Western countries will ever see a "system change" in near future, it is
more likely them becoming much more like the rest of the world, not
specifically China.

~~~
roboys
The West spent much of the 19-20th century coasting in the vacuum created by
the military takedown of the 2 greatest economic powers in human history,
China & India.

Stories about this region of Asia producing "future cities" will increase in
frequency as we move through this century and they recover from past
invasions.

------
lame88
Counterpoint: technology advances are devaluing co-location. The need for
dense metropolises may decline noticeably in the next century. There's a lot
of 21st century promises around this that have failed to deliver as quickly as
expected, but the long-term trajectory is probably still there.

------
5trokerac3
Imagine this article being written in the 1930s and you know exactly the city
they'd be writing about. You should be equally disgusted by the assertion that
this totalitarian regime's city is the "city of the future".

~~~
drewmate
I think that's the point. All the things that made early 20th-century New York
great are happening in Shanghai now and at a much larger scale. That it's
happening in a country under a totalitarian regime is not in line with Western
sensibilities, but the assertion itself is reasonable and pretty objective if
you've visited Shanghai recently.

It's an amazing city that (in startup terms) still has a growth mindset. New
York, London, San Francisco and other Western cities behave like they've grown
about as much as they want to.

~~~
lnreddy
Pretty sure OP is referring to 1930's Nazi Germany and not NYC.

~~~
drewmate
I hadn’t considered that. It certainly changes my perspective on the comment,
but I think my response is still germane; we used to have the political will
to build cities (even in liberal democracies) but now we are pretty much in
maintenance mode, at least as far as great cities are concerned.

------
tabtab
Re: _There has never been urbanization of this scale in the history of the
world. All of the world’s great cities are struggling to cope with growth..._

Do we really want to stuff most of the population into tiny geographic specks?
Work on remote-work infrastructure instead: cheaper high-speed internet and
better collaboration tools. Wiki's and discussion groups can be better than
meetings if participants follow certain conventions. It's greener too than
physically moving people for commutes.

It's also better security. If most commerce is concentrated, then enemies and
nut-cases can shut it down easily.

------
cirenehc
> Below, another group of migrant workers drink bear in their dormitory after
> their shift in 2013.

They really need to proof read their articles.

~~~
loblollyboy
you've never tried bear blood?

------
keiferski
Is there a name for this type of pseudo-sponsored overly-positive
“journalism”? Monocle Magazine seemed to pioneer it about a decade ago and
sadly it seems to be one solution to the failing journalism business model.

~~~
sytelus
I have been to Shanghai and it’s seriously good, clean and pleasant city. I
had say more cleaner than NYC and almost similarly impressive skyline. They
had pictures of city taken every 5 year or so somewhere and the speed that
this city has evolved is awe-inspiring.

~~~
saberience
I can add my own anecdote here. I've also been to Shanghai (my company has a
major office here). The pollution was absolutely terrible, being outside for
longer than 30 minutes gave me a slight cough and made my heart noticeably
beat faster. We never saw a clear sky the whole time (two weeks) we were
there. When you meet long term residents you note that they all have bad skin
and are much shorter than average heights in Western Countries (I'm guessing
due to pollution and diet). Local Chinese residents also seem to be constantly
spitting or smoking (!!!) as they walk around the streets.

I stayed in a 5* hotel (Westin Bund) and some of my Chinese co-workers warned
me to not drink any water from the top in my hotel! (Because they couldn't be
sure of its cleanliness!). I was also warned to not shower for too long
because I mind end up getting a rash!

Getting around the city involves using the terrible cab system. None of the
cabs had AC and just opened their windows, letting in huge amounts of polluted
and exhaust-fume filled air, along with the cab driver usually smoking! Also
(and this is somewhat expected) the cab drivers never could speak English and
so we just had to show them a map/address to get where we wanted.

Central Shanghai is massively congested and overpopulated and I would never in
a million years consider having a family there. In fact, our office there has
lost numerous people over the years due to health fears for their children.
They have ended up moving to perceived cleaner cities like Singapore and
Taipei.

So for sure, Shanghai IS big and has stuff to do, but so do plenty of cities.
Shanghai has major, major negatives in terms of quality of life and especially
if you don't speak Chinese (because almost no one there speaks English). To
even consider living there I'd have to be paid 10X and even then I'd probably
only stay a year or too. I found being there oppressive and depressing.

~~~
fiblye
>and are much shorter than average heights in Western Countries

Not to dismiss the other stuff you said, but this probably isn't relevant to
the pollution. Up until recently, China was pretty poor and even now a large
number of people moving to cities come from impoverished rural regions. A lot
of it probably comes down to insufficient childhood nutrition. Look at the
height difference between 20-something Koreans and the 40+ crowd. There's a
huge disparity in height.

Also, Asians in general tend to be a bit shorter than Europeans.

>Shanghai has major, major negatives in terms of quality of life and
especially if you don't speak Chinese (because almost no one there speaks
English).

And this is always a weird thing to me. It's like saying living in Germany
sucks because almost nobody speaks Chinese. It's true, yeah, but that burden
is on you, not them. :)

~~~
LeonidasXIV
> And this is always a weird thing to me. It's like saying living in Germany
> sucks because almost nobody speaks Chinese. It's true, yeah, but that burden
> is on you, not them.

It is not about complaining that people in X don't speak Y, but rather English
which, for better or worse has become a de-facto universal second language for
people to communicate with. In Germany maybe a bit less but the only people
not speaking English in Scandinavia are younger kids. For many Scandinavians
it is easier to communicate across borders in English than in their respective
languages (which are pretty similar already).

For comparison in Asia, in Taipei it is possible to communicate somewhat
passably with many people in English.

~~~
Kurtz79
You can't really compare Scandinavian countries with less than 10 Millions
people with one with 1.4 Billions.

Most people there have no real reason to learn English: their customers are
mostly all Chinese, their business partners are mostly all Chinese, they don't
travel outside of China, every possible type of content you could want exists
in local language...

Even in Western countries like France, Spain or Italy, English is not so
widely spoken, even if there is a much larger influx of people from other
countries.

------
afpx
Photos of Shanghai that show up in western media never seem to show much
traffic. Are they staged, or is there really very little traffic there? If so,
how does a city of 25 million not have traffic?

~~~
corodra
Isn't Shanghai the city where there are food delivery services to traffic jams
because they take so long? Or is that some myth that I'm spreading?

~~~
Gene_Parmesan
My Chinese coworker has told me that this usually only occurs during the
massive traffic jams around the spring festival. He said that many Chinese
people who live in cities own cars but almost never drive them -- they wanted
the car more for status than anything. So when spring festival comes around
and the whole country is traveling, many families see it as their chance to
finally actually use the car. Additionally, apparently the major highways --
their version of interstates -- are toll roads, but are made free during that
week.

So both of these factors, combined simply with the massive volume, is what
leads to these apocalyptic traffic jams we've all seen pictures of.

------
Nux
Nobody seems to be taking into consideration rising sea levels etc. It can't
be the capital of the future if it's submerged, can it? Same for London and
New York.

~~~
sirkneeland
Ironically enough, the name “Shanghai” (上海) literally means above ("Shang"
上）the sea ("Hai" 海).

------
seanlinmt
Isn't Shanghai sinking,
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/05/from-
lon...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/05/from-london-to-
shanghai-worlds-sinking-cities-face-devastating-floods)?

Or has that been solved?

~~~
mhandley
From the article: _In the centre, at Lujiazui, the city has given up on the
street level entirely and created a huge, circular, above-grade walkway
accessible by escalator and connecting to all surrounding buildings._

But that's probably not what you meant by "solved".

------
smaili
Caltrain and Bart - please take note!

------
wazoox
As a side note, people like to talk about how capitalism has slashed
inequality and lifted people out of poverty. However this is misleading.
_China alone lifted 700 millions people out of poverty_.

Between 1960 and 2010, global Gini coefficient for the world goes _down_ if
you remove China from the numbers (i.e. everything the IMF and World Bank did
only made things worse across the "developing countries").

~~~
jzymbaluk
>As a side note, people like to talk about how capitalism has slashed
inequality and lifted people out of poverty. However this is misleading. China
alone lifted 700 millions people out of poverty.

Those aren't really contradictory statements though. China lifted 700 million
people out of poverty after the government opened up its centrally planned
economy in 1978 and started trading with the free market. China calls
themselves communist, but they act like a capitalist country in a lot of ways

------
sadness2
My propaganda spidey-sense was tingling pretty quickly with this one.

~~~
passive
Yeah, I think the topic is very interesting, and I'm generally in favour of
celebrating successful urban planning, but this slathered on the positive
adjectives so thick that I'm surprised Xi Jinping isn't on the byline.

Which is a shame, because I do want to know more about this, but it's hard to
trust the article.

------
manishsharan
So for a shiny future, we are supposed to trade away all our rights ? Forget
about injustices as long as trains are clean ? We are just all supposed to be
productive organic machines working for the glory of our leaders.

Fuck this future.

~~~
SRTP
Clean trains? China?

I've lived in Shanghai for 5 years, a few years ago. Had a great time and
learned a lot. I wouldn't necessarily describe the place as 'clean' though.

------
unnouinceput
Welcome to Shanghai, the capital of the future - where we give you free lung
cancer. There I fix it for you

