China Molds a Supercity Around Beijing, Promising to Change Lives

[Eightball]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/wo...=top-news&_r=0

For decades, China's government has tried to limit the size of Beijing, the capital, through draconian residency permits. Now, the government has embarked on an ambitious plan to make Beijing the center of a new supercity of 130 million people.

The planned megalopolis, a metropolitan area that would be about six times the size of New York's, is meant to revamp northern China's economy and become a laboratory for modern urban growth...

The size of Kansas! Discuss

[Ant131531]

Really hate how Chinese cities are developing. They don't really feel urban and walkable at all...a bunch of tower in the park developments.

[ukw]

The video

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo...ayerType=embed

[mrnyc]

it's the age of the se florida waterfront made into a city, lads!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Really hate how Chinese cities are developing. They don't really feel urban and walkable at all...a bunch of tower in the park developments.

Towers in a park are the most cost-effective form of housing that still guarantees light and air to residents. The only reason we haven't built this way in the western world is because most people are aesthetically opposed to highrises on this scale. For some reason it doesn't bother the Chinese or the Koreans, so they will continue to expand their cities in this manner. "Urban and walkable" are not high on their list of priorities. They do not have Bostons and San Franciscos to be nostalgic for.

I did an urban design studio with some Chinese developers when I was in school. I managed to convince them that walkable compact townhouses with small yards could achieve the same density as the (midrise) towers in a park, in theory. Basically London-style terrace housing.

Problem is, townhouses cost so much more to build on a per-unit basis - a tower has one roof for 500 units, a townhouse development has 500 roofs for 500 units. Plus, townhouse developments demand many more miles of street per unit and more exterior wall. In the western world, on the other hand, people demand a townhouse (or detached single-family, etc) housing product because they fit our cultural expectations, and developers just pass along the additional cost to the buyers/renters.

[mhays]

Light and air? You mean windswept plazas, inadequate shade....

[giallo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

They do not have Bostons and San Franciscos to be nostalgic for.

Of course they do. Almost all large/megacities in China (save Shenzhen) are far older than any city in North America. Have you ever walked through central Shanghai, Nanjing, Xi'an, Guangzhou, Dalien, Xiamen, Chongqing, Chengdu? These cities have old bones, and a lot them still remain. While old areas of each city see the wrecking ball for too often, these tower-in-the-park development are usually built outside of the core city on farmland and low density housing. They're basically vertical suburbs. The city cores see far more urban developments with retail at the bottom.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by giallo

Of course they do. Almost all large/megacities in China (save Shenzhen) are far older than any city in North America.

I don't think that's the issue, though. Everyone knows that Chinese cities were founded a long time ago; that doesn't mean they have an older built fabric.

Generally speaking, East Asian countries don't have a concept of historic preservation, at least not analogous to the West. That's (in part) why "old" cities like Tokyo and Seoul are much "newer" than "young" cities in West. Put bluntly, people don't like old stuff, and they demolish almost everything once it gets old.

That's probably (in part) why property investments in East Asia are often depreciating, and why East Asian investors are always going for shiny new stuff in the West (so they'll invest in new neighborhoods in Irvine, CA, or in new condo towers in Manhattan, while ignoring older real estate).

[The North One]

Originally Posted by ardecila

For some reason it doesn't bother the Chinese or the Koreans, so they will continue to expand their cities in this manner.

I think it has more to do with the fact that they don't really have a choice, It's the quickest and easiest way to provide housing like you said, The government doesn't care about beauty or how walkable the urban fabric is because the citizens don't have the rights to demand it and developers are free to do whatever they please so ultimately this is the result. It seems to be the reason why most Asian cities are just plain ugly.

[llamaorama]

Problem is, townhouses cost so much more to build on a per-unit basis - a tower has one roof for 500 units, a townhouse development has 500 roofs for 500 units. Plus, townhouse developments demand many more miles of street per unit and more exterior wall. In the western world, on the other hand, people demand a townhouse (or detached single-family, etc) housing product because they fit our cultural expectations, and developers just pass along the additional cost to the buyers/renters.

That's interesting.

For some reason I would have assumed the towers would have cost more because they would have been more complicated to build and possess elevators and other mechanical fixtures.

Makes me wonder if in the US we'd see this kind of development if restrictions on it were lifted.

Towers in a park are the most cost-effective form of housing that still guarantees light and air to residents. The only reason we haven't built this way in the western world is because most people are aesthetically opposed to highrises on this scale. For some reason it doesn't bother the Chinese or the Koreans, so they will continue to expand their cities in this manner. "Urban and walkable" are not high on their list of priorities. They do not have Bostons and San Franciscos to be nostalgic for.

I wouldn't mind living in a tower in the park ONLY if there was a change in paradigm in how it was designed and managed. High rise living in the USA is design, built, geared, tailored to, young or retired single adult professionals. And investors. To be compatible with mainstream homebuyers and especially families developers would have to come up with new ideas.


I would fear losing my investment or being hit with increased condo association fees due to things outside my control

I'd fear that if I ever had kids they would be banned from playing or even being able to come and go from the building without adult supervision. It only takes one pissy yuppie or old geezer to complain.

I don't want neighbors turning my floor into a hotel full of strangers because they do Airbnb.

[mrnyc]

if anybody wants to read about a specific example of what we are talking about here, i would suggest the first thing that came to my mind, the state of kyoto traditional machiya housing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiya

[muppet]

the tower in the park idea isn't that horrific when it's in the suburbs, and you have to bear in mind some cities are contending with 3000 newcomers a day that need to be
housed (with peaks at 10,000). And they work as a community, with the old folk and children gathering together in communal areas below the highrises, a ubiquitous scene
in modern China these days. Plus alot more care and landscaping than the windswept, postwar embarrassments that for so long gave them a bad name the world over. By
Chinese law implemented in 2003 x amount of people must now live within y vicinity of z amount of green space.

This is the newer half of Shanghai's inner city suburbs (what was once paddy fields in the 1990s - the other half is still in the super dense form of rowhomes, tenements and
skyscrapers). Also the interesting thing is from the outside there is no differentiation between upper, middle and lower class new builds.

[Leo the Dog]

Those towers aren't going to age well. Hopefully China will be able to redevelopment this in 50 years.

[chris08876]

I kinda like the Tower in the Park theme. The way the Chinese make it work doesn't scream dystopian. It looks futuristic. I'd that this over spaghetti roads with 2 story houses that sprawls for miles. At least with towers blended within a forest, you get this constant urban feeling along with a touch of nature; even if its miles away from the core.

[jigglysquishy]

Ya I'd definitely take dense 4-7 storey rowhouses over towers in the park. Lower crime, better relationship with the street, don't need to take the elevator, better urban feel.

You'd have a comparable density with a lower cost too. More stuff within walking distance as well.

There's a reason all the prominent urban planners argue for short (4-7 storey) buildings on narrow streets).

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Ya I'd definitely take dense 4-7 storey rowhouses over towers in the park. Lower crime, better relationship with the street, don't need to take the elevator, better urban feel.

You'd have a comparable density with a lower cost too. More stuff within walking distance as well.

There's a reason all the prominent urban planners argue for short (4-7 storey) buildings on narrow streets).

Maybe with a very high transit use neighbourhood, but far flung suburbs are going to be dominated by car drivers, and with 4-7 storey rowhouses getting all that parking underground it expensive. Also it means a lot less green space, and the air quality in China needs all the plants it can get.

[jigglysquishy]

You can still have high transit use in the suburbs (i.e. Paris, Brooklyn) and a ton of green space. You just need to reduce the space for cars and invest in public transit.

4-7 storey rowhouses with lots of green space and skinny streets can get a density of 15,000-22,000 people/km^2. That's more than dense enough to support high-end dense rapid transit throughout the city.

Towers in the park are never the ideal. They'll be looked back in 50 years the same way we look at suburbs now.

[The Chemist]

I'm a fan of the way Chinese apartment complexes are built. I've lived in a few, and it's really nice to have all the green space right at your door - and the green spaces are VERY well used, always full of people. Plus the amenities are not far away either - you go out the gate of the apartment complex and there's plenty of restaurants and shopping right outside the gate on the main street.

[Gordo]

I highly doubt that 4-7 story rowhouses have lower cost than an equivalent number of units or square meters of space in ~20 story towers. There's a reason that almost all developing world cities have loads of ~20 story towers - that's the sweet spot for cost efficient mass produced housing.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

You can still have high transit use in the suburbs (i.e. Paris, Brooklyn) and a ton of green space. You just need to reduce the space for cars and invest in public transit.

4-7 storey rowhouses with lots of green space and skinny streets can get a density of 15,000-22,000 people/km^2. That's more than dense enough to support high-end dense rapid transit throughout the city.

Towers in the park are never the ideal. They'll be looked back in 50 years the same way we look at suburbs now.

You can have the density for transit, but at a certain distance the choices in destinations result in too complex a web of transfers for people.

4-7 floor skinny rowhousing has to devote so much more space to stairs/elevators per unit of living space it's clearly not very efficient.

Towers in the park can work if done properly. Just as dense 4-7 floor rowhousing can fail if done badly. Stick shops on every block (probably in every tower) and you've got all the amenities needed. Podium level grocery stores and whatnot make it all very efficient. Then you also have a half decent sized green space to enjoy.