Sunday, August 23, 2015

Chinese planning is like Tetris .... China Urban Development Blog I believe

China Urban Development BlogStart with reality.  Plan an eco city...  good luck with that one!  I have been in planning all of my professional career, since 1981 (33 years).  I believe:





Tetris and the Challenge of Curbing Chinese Sprawl



Chinese SprawlWhile
Chinese cities are growing at an unprecedented pace, much of this
growth isn’t what most city planners would consider “smart” — that is,
growth that is efficient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable.
Instead, most Chinese cities are experiencing high levels of sprawl.
This has led both Chinese and international pundits to focus on the
issue of Chinese sprawl, with some even asking why Chinese cities haven’t learned lessons from American cities. Is sprawl a sign that Chinese leaders don’t know what they’re doing?
In theory, sprawl can be limited by good
planning. In practice, sprawl is an exceedingly challenging phenomenon
to stop. Though there are numerous complex reasons for the growth of
Chinese sprawl, there are three systemic factors driving Chinese cities’
expansive growth: unprecedented Chinese growth, local government budget
dependence on land sales, and the importance of GDP growth in the
Chinese political promotion system.
Unprecedented Chinese Growth
In a way, building cities is a lot like
playing a game of Tetris — waves of incoming population and development
fall like Tetris blocks. In theory, a player wants to pack in the shapes
as tightly as possible, limiting gaps and completing as many full lines
as possible. And that’s the strategy most players use at the beginning
of a Tetris game when the pace is slow.
As the pace of the game increases,
perfectly combining these blocks becomes a lot harder. The need to place
blocks smartly is superseded by the need to respond quickly; players
begin to haphazardly drop blocks to avoid disaster and keep playing as
the pace of the game increases.
If you watch someone playing Tetris and
they’re almost out of room to stack new blocks, it doesn’t necessarily
mean the player didn’t have a strategy; it just means that they didn’t
have time to respond, or didn’t correctly anticipate which pieces would
actually appear.
City planners in major Chinese cities
are playing a high-speed game of planning Tetris. They’re trying to
place the metaphorical pieces as quickly and logically as possible. Like
a Tetris player, they don’t always know which pieces will come next.
In a vacuum, some moves may look
peculiar, but Chinese planners and local officials are often doing their
best to keep “the game” going. In a game of Tetris, this means stacking
blocks higher and less efficiently than you’d like; in Chinese cities,
this means pushing development further away from the center of the city.
As of now, there isn’t an equivalent to a
maximum number of rows in Tetris, so it makes sense to keep building
Chinese cities outward. In this way, Chinese sprawl isn’t “dumb” growth;
it is perhaps just “as smart as growth conditions will allow.”
Chinese Cities Depend on Growth
Cities throughout the world derive
financial benefits from growth; however, tax structures benefit each
place in different ways. One underrated but exceedingly important factor
in the growth in Chinese cities is their land tax structure.
In many places (including the United
States), cities have financial incentives for smart, compact
development, particularly for property taxes. The higher quality of
development, the higher the assessed value of the land that it sits on,
and the higher level of property tax that a municipality collects from
the property owner. These taxes are collected on an ongoing basis,
giving municipalities strong incentives to provide quality services to
these areas to keep them from losing value (and thus decreasing property
tax collections).
Unlike places like the U.S., the Chinese
government owns all land within its borders; to raise money, local
Chinese governments divide up parcels of land and sell development
rights to developers and investors. There is no post-development
property tax. Therefore, Chinese cities receive a majority of their
financial gain from growth at the beginning of the development process.
The money received from selling these development rights often make up close to 30% of a city’s income,
so city officials face a tough decision: do they encourage smart,
compact growth that limits the amount of land they sell, or do they
chase short-term cash infusions by selling development rights to land
further from the city center? Even if you’re a huge proponent of
environmental protection, it is easy to understand why this is a hard
choice for local officials.
The Chinese land tax structure also
creates perverse incentives to investors to build in unnecessary places.
In places with high property taxes, investors are discouraged from
holding property for a long time, as they are required to continually
pay taxes on this property. Over numerous years, tax payments add up and
cut into overall profit when these developments are sold. In China,
however, investors (particularly those with low financing costs) can sit
back and (theoretically) wait for demand to pick back up again. While
investors wait, buildings with unsold space sit empty; some pundits have
speculated that this has fueled the growth of Chinese ghost cities.
Politics
The structure of the Chinese political
system also encourages unchecked growth that results in sprawl. This is
because the Chinese political system works a lot like the farm system in
Major League Baseball, with most officials beginning at lower levels
(county & city) and moving to higher levels (provincial and
central). Officials with strong track records (and strong guanxi) have the best chance to rise within the party to higher levels of government with greater amounts of power.
Though there are numerous ways to measure success for Chinese officials, traditionally the most important has been economic growth. Infrastructure investment and real estate development are major components of local GDP growth. Furthermore, spending
on environmental improvements over transportation infrastructure has
been found to have negative effects on promotion odds
.
Encouraging smart, compact growth
becomes a risky decision. If smart growth policies slow cities’ growth,
they not only endanger municipal budgets but also jeopardize political
careers. In this light, Chinese sprawl isn’t the result of incompetent
technocrats who don’t know what they’re doing; instead, it’s the result
of Chinese politicians recognizing the importance of this growth in
progressing their political career.
There is reason for hope. Since coming
into power, Chinese President Xi Jinping has pushed for reform in the
Chinese political promotion system. Major news organizations like
Bloomberg are reporting that “going green” is now as important of a metric as GDP growth for rising party officials. It’s still too early, however, to tell whether these reforms will have a meaningful effect on the Chinese political system.
So why are Chinese cities sprawling? It
is not because local, provincial, and national officials don’t recognize
that current growth patterns aren’t environmentally or financially
sustainable. Instead, the financial and political incentives built into
the Chinese system favor fast, “dumb” growth rather than slower, “smart”
growth. The challenge of accommodating a large inflow of rural migrants
is exacerbating these pressures.
Local government officials didn’t write
the unofficial rules that dictate city growth. Sprawl isn’t necessarily a
sign that they don’t know what they’re doing; rather, it’s potentially a
sign that the “rules of the game” push them towards unsustainable
policies. Chinese sprawl is not inevitable; rather, to push Chinese
development towards a more sustainable path, officials at all levels of
government will have to consider how they can reform the “rules of the
game” to encourage smart, sustainable growth.







Are Chinese Subway Systems the New American Interstate?




Beijing-Subway_enBeijing Subway Map
It is virtually impossible not to marvel
at China’s new subway systems after spending some time in a city like
Beijing or Shanghai. The relatively new subway systems allow for
convenient and affordable (albeit crowded) way to travel around these
cities. These infrastructure investments will certainly leave a lasting
impact on Chinese cities for years to come, but what will this legacy
be?
On one hand, this massive commitment to
public transportation could be interpreted as China learning the lessons
from American sprawl, suburbia, and private car ownership. On the
other, we could be looking at the development of sprawl with Chinese
characteristics, with subway systems playing the same role as the
American interstate.
Urban planners generally consider sprawl
to be bad- but why? Above all else, sprawl is environmentally and
economically wasteful. By spreading out where people live, sprawl leads
to infrastructure redundancy and the conversion of undeveloped land —
land that could be used for agriculture or simply natural environment
preservation (which provides a wealth of environmental services
like improving air and water quality) — into developed land.
Additionally, the further people live from where they work and play, the
more likely they are to travel to those places by carbon-intensive
modes of transportation (primarily the private automobile).
Sprawl is the major defining
characteristic of 20th century American growth.While there are numerous
reasons why this is the case (including Federal housing policy that
encouraged home ownership), one theory that helps urban planners
understand sprawl and suburbanization is the bid rent theory.
At the heart of this theory is the idea that choosing where to live or
set up a business is about balancing access to lots of people and rent
prices; land users’ willingness to pay rent is dependent on their need
for access to the central business district (i.e. downtown).

No comments:

Post a Comment