Shenzhen: China’s ‘skyscraper capital’
bbc.comThe most striking thing about visiting the southern industrial cities for me was how (especially towards the outskirts) they tend to build the exact same residential skyscraper several times next to each other. You just don't really see that in Western cities so much.
These are part of the same apartment complexes, which are like gated planned communities in the states, except with apartment buildings rather than houses. In Beijing, most housing outside of the 3rd ring is like that...heck, even inside the 3rd ring, you'll see a lot of communities, just with lower height buildings because they were built much earlier.
Not just beijing, but other big northern cities as well. Hell even "small" cities. River fronts along songhua on all the cities around there have >>30 story apartment complexes with like 5-20 identical buildings each. One of them uses giant lights to make a sort of pixelated movie screen at night, which only passably works cus the buildings are all the same and run by the same complex.
Very much not just a southern thing.
Ya, I should have mentioned that this happens throughout china, and probably much of Asia as well.
I've seen it in Korea, and occasionally in Singapore. Though usually each building is painted a different pastel shade to tell them apart.
Repeated, cheap residential housing is common everywhere, it's just a matter of height. In the US, we have cookie cutter suburbia. In England, you have row houses. In Spain, depending on the city, you go from 5 stories to 12 or so, depending on the city: For example, do an image search on Malaga around the bullfighting ring. China is just building taller.
Does anybody else find it hilarious that not one, but two comments present suburbia as the eminent example of cheap rubber-stamp housing in the US?
Honest question, why is that hilarious?
There is a huge amount of cheap, cookie-cutter housing in American suburbia. In fact, I suspect a large majority of single family suburban houses built in the last 50 years are rubber stamp clones from homebuilder planbooks.
It's funny because they're duplicate mentions of the same idea, in a discussion of duplicated housing.
See the very old song "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds, also famously covered by folk singer Pete Seeger. I loved it back in 1960, when I was a kid revolted by the sameness of the suburbs.
The blueprint was Corbusier's "Radiant City" proposal [0]. It took hold in the US in the form of lower-income housing projects. It turns out that it combines the worst of city life (anonymous neighbors, no personal outdoor space) with the worst of suburban life (unused common areas, lots of wasted space).
[0]: http://www.archdaily.com/604056/north-america-s-radiant-city...
I don't understand these criticisms. As an American, I think our cities would be vastly improved if we copied this form of housing for lots of people, instead of just low-income housing. (In my city, the low-income-only housing is usually the highest quality housing across the city, and is far nicer than anything a mid-income person is allowed to purchase).
The current alternative that US prefers is far worse, in my opinion -- these micro-unit apod-ment things, with no personal space, no outdoor space, grossly overburdened personal-areas-forced-into-common-areas, and general dorm-room-for-life lifestyle.
The research on this tells a pretty dismal story. They seem like they should be better, but people almost universally report preferring the slums that were torn down to build them.
Communities that grow organically look messy and gross. And there's a certain personality type that wants to come in and fix the mess.
But it just doesn't turn out to work that way.
I wonder if the apartment-dwellers around central park are similarly despondent about their worst-of-all-worlds habitat.
Different for three reasons:
-Central Park is a desirable place to spend time, unlike the artificial, pseudopublic spaces that separate highrise complexes.
-Population density is _much_ higher in those neighborhoods than you get with multi-building highrise complexes.
-There are shops nearby that, along with the park, provide a reason for people to spend time there throughout the day. People don't like spending time in deserted plazas.
> Central Park is a desirable place to spend time, unlike the artificial, pseudopublic spaces that separate highrise complexes.
Have you ever lived in a high-rise surrounded by open space? A lot of people, myself included, really like it.
You're stating your own personal preference as if it were some universal fact.
You also seem to have a limited understanding of housing design. For example, lots of Corbusier-inspired high-rise developments have shops and restaurants mixed in among the parks and buildings.
I suspect the bulk of the complaints people have with high-rise housing projects for low-income residents in the US are driven more by the policies and operations of low-income housing - lack of maintenance, poor security, etc. The design model has worked out quite well for higher income residents in plenty of places - even in the US, for example, near south Florida beaches.
You're right; I'm commenting the negative examples that constitute developments I've seen. I'm sure that it's possible to enjoy them. After all, people love cruise ships.
What Corbusier-inspired developments around Central Park are you referring to? Surely you don't just mean that they are apartments near a big park?
In China, common spaces are actually utilized.
To an incredible degree. We moved apartment complexes in Beijing because one had a better central area than the other (both were used, but the latter one was used much more).
China has about 5x the population.
So in America where you have the same McMansion replicated 10-20 times in CHcina you have the same condo tower since it has to house more densely.
> You just don't really see that in Western cities so much.
You should visit the projects in the NY area or chicago. There are rows and rows of same red apartment complexes. But those seem to be falling out of favor now as they are being torn down.
If interested about Shenzhen, I'd highly recommend watching this mesmerizing feature on Wired UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY
"...internet access and freedom is curtailed: popular sites like Google, Facebook and YouTube are not accessible."
That line caught my attention for two things.
One, it intimates internet access is related to freedom, which I think has merit.
And second, Google, Facebook, and YouTube are obviously not essential, cause those millions get by just fine without them.
> And second, Google, Facebook, and YouTube are obviously not essential, cause those millions get by just fine without them.
What's more, in parts of China where these websites aren't blocked (Hong Kong, Taiwan if we call it a part of China), they become very popular again and the mainland Chinese alternatives fall off the map.
The network lockin effect is very strong, sadly.
This is why such sites without real alternatives should be controlled by society, and not by companies where two people hold the majority of voting rights.
I disagree. I trust Larry and Sergei more than I trust Xi and Li.
The question is if the power is actually with Larry and Sergei, or if someone more powerful could easily seize power from them, or pressure them into doing something they want.
If Larry or Sergei die, do you trust all their inheritors? Do you trust all people who can threaten Larry or Sergei?
I don't.
Do you true the next secretly chosen and annointed royal red family president after Xi? That's if Xi actually decides to leave after his term is up, of course.
That's exactly the question, and the issue.
And that's why you should trust the chinese government, Google, private internet access, etc all equally much.
The third world and first world version of these problems are similar in form but completely different in magnitudes.
Those places are different cultures and sifferent social groups.
I can also give the example of Japan and Korea in which Facebook is not very popular.
Facebook is medium popular in Japan, lots of Japanese have Facebook accounts, no idea about Korea. Nobody is really using wechat outside of china unless they have a strong connection to china.
They have them but I rarely encountered any that actively used it, although Instagram was quite popular.
"Google, Facebook, and YouTube are obviously not essential, cause those millions get by just fine without them."
Most of foreigners traveling in China would certainly disagree with you. No Facebook, no Gmail, no Youtube == "no Internet" for most casual western users.
I was in Shenzhen two weeks ago. You just buy a cheap VPN access like everybody in the tech scene there and you go on with your life. It's not hard to do, even from inside the country.
I think they have their chinese counterparts like Baidu, WeChat and the like.
> Shenzen
*Shenzhen
yeah the zh in zhen is the 'j' in jewel
Thanks! Fixed.