And it doesn’t matter much that the hutongs are small. The neighborhoods that the urban renewal czars designated as slums had small apartments, by suburban standards; they were still more lively than anything that’s come to replace them. Dharavi offers a few square meters of living space per person, and, despite the government’s attempt to demolish it to expand the CBD, it’s economically vital as well.

Where did I advocate a numbers-based approach to housing?

When they demolished them many and replaced them with housing projects, the neighborhoods collapsed? Duh. If my neighbors and I suddenly begin living in tents (or a 30 story high rise with 1/10 the square footage per household, on 1/50 the footprint), our neighborhood (economy and social fabric) will collapse as well. So where the continuity in that?

There is value in living in an aesthetically pleasing environment — buildings obviously shape the ‘psychology’ of a neighborhood, which ultimately shapes the economic and cultural wealth of a neighborhood.

I’m not gonna bother picking apart the irony and near contradictions in your comment Alon — too tired. It is funny though that you advocate a cold “numbers”-based approach to housing planning, while slandering someone who tried to sell you on socialism. I’ve lived in a seven story cement box where hutongs once stood, and didn’t see the economic or social bounty that the former had — literally because the design didn’t allow for the space, personality, and flexibility it needed to flourish. Off topic but, your anarchist is probably right about neither the PRC or USSR practicing genuine socialism. They were firstly authoritarian states, and welfare states second. I can’t think of any thriving pure examples of its counterpart though. Either way, an ideological approach is a born loser, which is why I lamented the loss of hutongs primarily for short sighted reasons they’re being demolished, and what is replacing them (not because they’re entirely superior to any other option.)

Blah blah blah — our cities would be miserable places if all the character-rich brownstones and hutongs were replaced by high-density housing — go look at any of the other cities Mao tried to build in the 70s, and take a stroll through those lovely mazes of identical constructionist housing blocks. You probably wont though, because you’d have no desire too, like the residents have little motivation to live there other than necessity.askjaksdhvakjsvakjfvakfvbj

And as for true capitalism: I’ve recently had the pleasure of arguing with an anarchist, who maintained that true socialism has never been tried and the Soviet Union and Maoist China were not truly socialist because, they just weren’t. If you’re interested in arguing over what true capitalism/socialism is, go waste your time with him.

Western Europe has a healthy mix of the private and public sectors.

This is not Capitalism. This is a corporate welfare state. In a true capitalism, blatant theft on this scale cannot happen. A privately held company can rarely become large enough to infringe on peoples’ rights in such a way, but a powerful government can do it any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

How different is this from the hundreds of thousands of people here in America who will have their homes and businesses stolen from them (eminent domained away) to make room for smart grids and HSR?

Although, to be honest, I doubt this expansion will happen as depicted. The China bubble is running out of steam as the government gets frightened, once again, by out-of-control real estate speculation.

I saw hutongs being bulldozed al over Beijing. In their place would come high rise buildings, all generally lifeless. You only have to look at the soviet-era concrete clock housing to see how this experiment plays out long term. i spent most of my time living with a family in one of these, and was blown away by how much more socially rich and aesthetically pleasing the hutongs were.

Obviously, Beijing has to meet its housing needs, but destroying these hutongs to build business parks is ridiculous. The Chinese still know how to practice the art of living, and they just turn those places into ghost towns at night (had a friend who lived in one.) Maybe they’ll change (change the “Chinese way”? hmmn), but and live like Wall St’ers or the Japanese, but they’ll lose their soul and character in the process.

China is driven by the inferiority complex the CCP exploited and inflated to consolidate power — the notion that China was shamed by Western powers, colonialists then the imperialist U.S. — and all they are doing is using capitalism to suck in wealth then use it to emulate the West in a giant gave of “You think you’re better than me? WELL WHO IS BETTER NOW! I can do everything you can!”

Hutong courtyard homes and neighborhoods have such a great pulse. Walking their narrows streets is like living in a park. How many streets in our cities evoke that much calm/peace and exude that much personality?

Google images: “hutong” for some great pictures.

Its just a shame.

In Shanghai, the purpose-built CBD has already failed. Pudong/Lujiazui is a ghost town after hours. My Shanghainese classmates tell me that residents don’t even go there - they hand out in Xujiahui, which is Union Square to Lujiazui’s Wall Street. Even the subway station is empty by Shanghai standards outside rush hour.

“the Chinese seem to value money and business over their citizens.”… Brent, I assume you are not an American.

Western Europe has a healthy mix of the private and public sectors.

But at least we have a voice. I can’t but imagine how helpless you must feel living in that part of the city. You are a part of it, you make it what it is…but your government wants the big business and all their money so off you go.

All those people that protest about how capitalism is evil in America should be moving to China I suppose.