Could we stop talking about the fucking layout and talk about the article?
China's culture, people, and most of all economy is opaque to most outsiders and I think it's fascinating. They built an entire city from nothing in just a few years, just... on a whim. Because the leaders thought that would be best for the country as a whole. It's fascinating and scary and amazing, and I can't think of another place that works even similar to this.
Yet it seems that us westerners largely ignore China except in terms of imports and exports. Why? Is it the language? The lack of widespread cultural exports? I mean most people know very little about China as a country compared to how important they are on the world's stage. In fact you could pick almost any other country with a respectable GDP and I could tell you a whole lot more about it.
Well, it was probably also built because massive construction projects are an easy way to boost the GDP of administrative sub-regions and the career prospects of the CCP officials in charge of those administrative units depend upon whether or not they can show that they boosted GDP.
The motivations and dynamics at play are not really all that alien.
Its great when you actually need to get shit done (see San Francisco), but rather terrible in the case you don't (see multiple empty million unit cities in China). In the very best case, this sort of spending is merely wasteful. I'm reminded of the crazy incentives in the Soviet Union.
EG, from SSC [1]
> A tire factory had been assigned a tire-making machine that could make 100,000 tires a year, but the government had gotten confused and assigned them a production quota of 150,000 tires a year. The factory leaders were stuck, because if they tried to correct the government they would look like they were challenging their superiors and get in trouble, but if they failed to meet the impossible quota, they would all get demoted and their careers would come to an end. They learned that the tire-making-machine-making company had recently invented a new model that really could make 150,000 tires a year. In the spirit of Chen Sheng, they decided that since the penalty for missing their quota was something terrible and the penalty for sabotage was also something terrible, they might as well take their chances and destroy their own machinery in the hopes the government sent them the new improved machine as a replacement. To their delight, the government believed their story about an “accident” and allotted them a new tire-making machine. However, the tire-making-machine-making company had decided to cancel production of their new model. You see, the new model, although more powerful, weighed less than the old machine, and the government was measuring their production by kilogram of machine. So it was easier for them to just continue making the old less powerful machine. The tire factory was allocated another machine that could only make 100,000 tires a year and was back in the same quandary they’d started with.
By the way, the cities are empty because they built them to be used later, and many are not empty anymore.
The Chinese government is slowly moving people from some places, to already built cities (while building other cities).
For now they can keep what they are doing, but I believe they will have to someday stop (otherwise they will build faster than the population increase), then is a matter of seeing how they will handle that stoppage.
But for now they have plenty of people to move, For example example the article here has a graph showing that in 2015 only 51% of the population is urban compare that to Brazil, Brazil is a country with a economy that relies on rural exports much more than china does, industry in Brazil is very weak, yet Brazil has 85% of the population being urban according to the World Bank, in some naive calculation, assuming China wants to match Brazil urbanization, this means they still have 462 million people to move... Projects like the one in the target aim to house 200.000 people, this mean they can do 2310 of such projects without wasting money on unused capacity.
EDIT: Running those numbers made me realize how China is mind-boggling huge and populated. China population that they intend to move, is bigger than Brazil + Russia summed population...
I did not mean to imply a motive to building a brand new, mostly empty city. Just that it's incredibly foreign, yet fascinating, and I can't imagine another country doing anything like that.
Regarding that last sentence, given that most such countries would be European countries, or one of the US or the Canada, it is clearly normal what is the reason you would have more words about it, it is simply a familiar culture. China's culture is fascinating because it is opaque, or rather, because it was opaque, but by now less so. By time, as westerners get to know it more and more, it will be less relevant and/or fascinating, and contemporaneously rot. As westerner tourists are fascinated by some places, these places quickly become fake, they become parodies of themselves and ultimately tourist traps. Eminönü, Venice, Napoli, others, southeast asia, in these places there has been left nothing authentic. The fascination and interest of westerner tourists is such a plague that it has killed some of the most characteristic and beautiful parts of the world. So I'd rather be happier if china went undiscovered, than it be discovered and used up.
It's funny you say that. I just spent about a month in China, particularly Beijing. Because Beijing is probably the center of tourism from overseas in China, you might think it's very touristy, and it is. But the domestic tourist market is so much larger than the foreign one that it's already, as you say, "discovered and used up." Other tourist sites in China are similar, though less so.
China is big enough that foreign tourists are but a blip on the radar, despite frequent and cheap flights (I once flew Singapore-Beijing for SGD 17 return on Air Asia). You're talking about a place where even second rate "countryside" cities have the population of London or Paris.
Venice and other so called "traditional" cities have failed not because of the rush of tourists, but because they have attempted to freeze their prosperity in time. The Venetian Republic once was a world leader in trade, culture and prosperity, and today's historical monuments were yesterday's cutting edge skyscrapers. "Authenticity" merely represents a people's local solutions to the problems of survival and population growth, the cultures that have survived hundreds of years of competition; "foreign" habits are rapidly adapted if they are superior to the local option, which is why you don't see many ox carts left in Bali.
That Straits "kopi", the thick, overroasted, sweetened brew you have with kaya toast? It's like this because extremely poor Chinese immigrants bought low quality beans, the only ones they could afford, and roasted them with butter and sweetened them with sugar to try and mellow the bad taste. Nobody does it anymore as the region grew economically and coffee beans got comparatively cheaper vs, say, labour costs and real estate. In Vietnam, bicycles have been replaced by mopeds. In Mumbai, motorised autorickshaws have completely replaced the people-drawn ones (which I'm told still exist in places like Chennai). Does that make both cities less "authentic"?
Paris is my favorite example of a city that is so stuck in its past it refuses to acknowledge its own philosophy. Haussmann's razing and rebuilding of the entire city had purely modern ambitions: clean up the sewers that most of the badly built streets had become, reduce fire risk, accomodate higher population density, encourage trade via better transport infrastructure, and so on. But Parisians have arbitrarily decided that Hausmannian architecture - which was motivated by practical considerations - is "pretty" and refuse to approve anything that would help make Paris a more modern city (at least outside the Defense, and the Tour Montparnasse), forcing real estate prices through the roof and Parisians to endure hour-long commutes. One side effect is that the city is popular with tourists who can travel in time, of course. But would you rather be a Venetian or a New Yorker?
What makes China (and, to be honest, modern Southeast Asia outside the American party towns like Phuket) so fascinating is that it is rapidly opening to the world and attempting to pull several hundred million people into the middle class by any means possible. This, not the pretty grey hutongs or "characteristic" street meat sticks is what makes it an interesting place to see and do business in. In my humble ang moh opinion.
Could we stop talking about the fucking layout and talk about the article?
But what if people here found the technology more interesting than the contents of the article. I understand your frustration, but it comes off as being impolite. If people are interested in talking about the font or the scroll than what gives you the right to tell them what to write about.
Now that being said, it does seem that Westerners know very little about China. That is due to many reasons I believe: 1) most people are not interested in learning about their own history, economy, geography, so it is hard to expect them to want to learn about another country. 2) the lack of role models or ambassadors; growing up in Africa we all knew a lot about the US mainly because of its economic strength, its history, but perhaps more importantly its ambassadors: pop stars, Michael Jordan and other NBA players, etc... I do not know many Chinese actors. I love Asian movies, I just re-watched IP Man I and II yesterday, but I am not even sure those actors are Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc... China could do more to further promote its Arts and Culture. I suspect many people think most Asians to be Chinese, similarly to how most people will never know the difference between a Liberian and a Nigerian and a Senegalese. 3) Distance: China seems (mentally) just far from everywhere; far from Africa, far from Europe, far from America. I know it is not that far, but it just seems so. 4,5,6...n
Edit: 4) Honestly Asian seems un-approachable, or at least not very approachable. I could strike conversations with a European, a Southern American, an American, an Indian, a Turkish, but most Asians seem to not want to talk to you. Now this entirely something I was either fed to believe, or it is my own false assumptions. I just have this belief, but I know its enirely wrong because I can count at least 4 to 5 truly awesome Chinese, Korean, I have known in the past 5 years. Heck I even lived with a Chinese family in the US. Lovely family, but from the outside had you told me this I would have laughed at you. I hope I can truly undo this, and I fear many people are not engaging Chinese and learning more about them because of they have this entirely false belief.
China's culture, people, and most of all economy is opaque to most outsiders and I think it's fascinating. They built an entire city from nothing in just a few years, just... on a whim. Because the leaders thought that would be best for the country as a whole. It's fascinating and scary and amazing, and I can't think of another place that works even similar to this.
Yet it seems that us westerners largely ignore China except in terms of imports and exports. Why? Is it the language? The lack of widespread cultural exports? I mean most people know very little about China as a country compared to how important they are on the world's stage. In fact you could pick almost any other country with a respectable GDP and I could tell you a whole lot more about it.