| Patrick22, I'm not sure I understand your response to my comment. The whole point of what I wrote was to support Jian Shuo in his observations that the dynamics driving Chinese cities really are very different from the US, for example, and it has everything to do with drastic historical, cultural, political and economic differences. I'm not 'blaming' any gov't at all. Describing what you think is happening is not the same as placing a moral judgement on an activity. But for better or worse, it's hard to disagree with the notion that the Chinese state at all levels has been/is still behind so much of the urban redevelopment in Chinese cities, no matter how 'western/capitalist' they might end up looking. Shanghai's resurgence was no accident- read a bit about the city's recent history in the 1990s - but rather a very deliberate state project, with a massive amount of state funding to back it up. And of course, more recently the growth of Chinese cities has been strongly driven by the collusion of real estate developers/gov't officials and their out-of-control real estate growth machine. The central gov't has recently realized the threat this sort of reckless development poses in the long-term, but I think it's a bit too late: they let loose the urban development 'mania' in the 1990s, and now every local government wants to turn its city into a Shanghai. Have you seen what is going on in Zhengzhou lately? Harbin? Huge new master-planned cities rising solely by fiat of government officials who need to puff up their records and line their pockets, rather than meeting any sort of market demand or taking care of their citizens. It's urban development barreling out of control, and it's the sort of thing that keeps central gov't officials awake at night. I think urban development in many Chinese cities, particularly second tier ones, is driven less by genuine 'westernization', 'globalization' or 'marketization' or whatever you want to call it, and more so by officials deciding "well, I want my city to look rich and modern and developed". It's also convenient that selling off all the land to real estate developers drunk on speculation makes THEM rich. In the end, image is just as important in China as substance, if not more. So having a city that LOOKS rich and prosperous is just as good as having a city that actually is rich and prosperous. And it's hard to argue that it doesn't work: you have a lot of foreigners who show up, see some shiny buildings and big highways and decide that Shanghai is "New York" or that every other Chinese city is becoming New York and China will take over the world tomorrow. The Chinese gov't's imageering is so clever because it knows exactly what to show people who don't have the time to dig under the superficiality. And it sure works: the "China Rises" hype has become its own industry in American/European media. How many times has the Lujiazui skyline appeared on a magazine cover/news story about the "New China" or "China Rising"? Countless. It's like the Chinese gov't relies on the modern intellectual laziness of the West to sell itself. But really the processes driving the rise of these cities could not have been more different. And besides, I personally don't think Shanghai looks like New York at all...it's definitely still a Chinese city, and all the better for it! :-) |
Shanghai Looks Similar to US, But...