Tell me you’re living half a decade in the past without telling me. “Ghost cities” are actually areas where the state preplanned urbanization so everything would be in place when people started moving in. In fact, most of these “ghost cities” are actually populated now.
Edit: could someone please explain why I’m being downvoted? I’ve provided a source to back up my statements. Or is this a case of “everything about China is bad because Red Scare”?
Yeah some urban preplanning didn’t work out but most of those cities are filled up to the point of working now.
I remember back then all those articles - “China is building empty cities! Ha ha so dumb! Who’s gonna buy that, they all work in factories!”
It’s pretty striking that an .ml user posted a comment defending a verifiable fact, and got 10 downvotes for being “uppity”. Oh, sorry for the Wikipedia link sir, I will think more about respect for all powerful America next time
You guys really need to clean out your brainworms sometime, this shit is embarrassing
I said ghost cities exist, and then you said they didn’t. That’s being defensive and then you went after other people who provided facts and you just got more defensive… and here you are now, being defensive. Do you know what being defensive means?
I don’t give 2 shits who downvotes you or why. Grow thicker skin if you can’t handle the internet son.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Under-occupied developments in China were mostly unoccupied property developments in China, and frequently referred toas"ghost cities"or ghost towns. The phenomenon was observed and recorded as early as2006by writer Wade Shepard, and subsequently reported by news media over the decades. Although a feature of discourse on the Chinese economy and urbanization in China in the 2010s, formerly under-occupied developments have largely filled up.
Many developments initially criticized as ghost cities did materialize into economically vibrant areas when given enough time to develop, such as Pudong, Zhujiang New Town, Zhengdong New Area, Tianducheng and malls such as the Golden Resources Mall and South China Mall.[15] While many developments failed to live up to initial lofty promises, most of them eventually became occupied when given enough time.[6][16]
Reporting in 2018, Shepard noted that “Today, China’s so-called ghost cities that were so prevalently showcased in 2013 and 2014 are no longer global intrigues. They have filled up to the point of being functioning, normal cities”.[17]
Writing in 2023, academic and former UK diplomat Kerry Brown described the idea of Chinese ghost cities as a bandwagon popular in the 2010s which was shown to be a myth.[18]: 151-152
I gave you three links (not a quote from one person on Wikipedia) with roughly five years between them, including this year, one of which was built in another country by the Chinese. Another would be the half-finished Sihanoukville in Cambodia, which saw China withdraw its investment and left many holding their bags. Overinvestment in areas with millions of empty rooms in China and abroad and a complete waste of resources is only contested by you.
Not weighing in on either side of the discussion, but that’s a video that’s almost completely unrelated to the topic above.
It speaks to how overleveraged/poorly managed a lot of Chinese development was, leading to a borderline colapse of the construction industry, and largely leaves the subject of ghost cities unaddressed.
Chinese projects / developments are short-sighted.
It’s a Ponzi scheme, Get money from new investors, pay existing clients. So just keep building.
They become ghost cities because building are not fully done for living, so people can’t even move in. The Infrastructure is incomplete like no proper transportation links, no jobs, no shops etc. there is literally nothing there.
Ok, now I get the link you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t fully adress my question.
The one thing that’s still leaving me prickly is simply saying Wikipedia is wrong because it’s editable by anyone. That’s like saying FOSS is insecure because it’s editable by anyone. Neither the conclusion nor the premise is correct in either case. There are hierarchies & access controls in both that often yield better results than the traditional alternative.
Wikipedia is a treasure, and while it is still vulnerable to brigading (far more so than FOSS), this is far from the norm (especially nowadays) and should be backed up with specific sources and rectified.
While I do agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited directly due to this vulnerability, it acts as an excellent contextual citation aggregator, and quite frankly I’ve often found it more up-to-date and less biased than some of the crap that made it past the peer review process in my college days.
For instance, if what you’re saying is true (shortsightedness), people may over the years still populate those areas (the claim of the Wikipedia article is that a lot/most of the ghost cities did). If you have sources stating otherwise, please report the article for manipulation and include them there. If you don’t feel like it, post them here and I will do so, despite knowing absolutely nothing about Chinese ghost cities, because I believe this is important.
Please don’t dismiss such a shining example of human collective action so lightly. It’s one of the few things that makes me believe there’s still some good left in the world.
Never said Wikipedia was wrong
I’m just saying be careful because people can edit to fit their narrative, which has happened with like Russian and Chinese topics.
Sadly a lot properties are unfinished and left to rot away and will get demolish.
I’m starting to believe this is a bad faith argument. Do you have anything addressing the specific point of ghost cities actually (not) being populated now?
For those that are too lazy to read:
link 1: 39 buildings demolished for illegal construction
link 2: 50 second clip of 7 buildings that were never finished being demolished (no context, other than the buildings being there for some years)
link 3: luxury mansion development stalls due to missmangement/lack of funding, leaving people that paid for those homes without a property
Wikipedia isn’t great place for sources because everyone can post and edit.
Then you can check the sources listed in the article. You’re not just supposed to take Wikipedia’s word for it, but you are allowed to click on the links in the references section. So either you’re not aware of this, or you’re not making this argument in good faith. In either event, because looking at the several sources in the wiki article I provided seems like it’s still not good enough for you, I get the feeling this conversation is going nowhere.
China has ghost cities with empty apartment buildings. They have tons of resources to waste.
Tell me you’re living half a decade in the past without telling me. “Ghost cities” are actually areas where the state preplanned urbanization so everything would be in place when people started moving in. In fact, most of these “ghost cities” are actually populated now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China
Edit: could someone please explain why I’m being downvoted? I’ve provided a source to back up my statements. Or is this a case of “everything about China is bad because Red Scare”?
I stated a fact and you bent over backwards trying to prove anyone who agreed with me was wrong.
Ghost cities are real. It wasn’t a ‘everything about China is bad’ comment like you whined so that’s why you’re getting downvoted.
Why get all defensive anyway? Is someone paying you to defend China from any criticism? You come across like you’re simping for China.
Do you get upset when people talk about winnie the poo?
Defensive like downvoting facts?
Yeah some urban preplanning didn’t work out but most of those cities are filled up to the point of working now.
I remember back then all those articles - “China is building empty cities! Ha ha so dumb! Who’s gonna buy that, they all work in factories!”
It’s pretty striking that an .ml user posted a comment defending a verifiable fact, and got 10 downvotes for being “uppity”. Oh, sorry for the Wikipedia link sir, I will think more about respect for all powerful America next time
You guys really need to clean out your brainworms sometime, this shit is embarrassing
I said ghost cities exist, and then you said they didn’t. That’s being defensive and then you went after other people who provided facts and you just got more defensive… and here you are now, being defensive. Do you know what being defensive means?
I don’t give 2 shits who downvotes you or why. Grow thicker skin if you can’t handle the internet son.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Under-occupied developments in China were mostly unoccupied property developments in China, and frequently referred to as "ghost cities" or ghost towns. The phenomenon was observed and recorded as early as 2006 by writer Wade Shepard, and subsequently reported by news media over the decades. Although a feature of discourse on the Chinese economy and urbanization in China in the 2010s, formerly under-occupied developments have largely filled up.article | about
65 million empty according to your link.
A myth is something which never existed. They do:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67610677 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170223-chinas-zombie-factories-and-unborn-cities https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17390729
I gave you three links (not a quote from one person on Wikipedia) with roughly five years between them, including this year, one of which was built in another country by the Chinese. Another would be the half-finished Sihanoukville in Cambodia, which saw China withdraw its investment and left many holding their bags. Overinvestment in areas with millions of empty rooms in China and abroad and a complete waste of resources is only contested by you.
Some more here: https://allthatsinteresting.com/chinese-ghost-cities
And here: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ghost-town-deserted-chinese-mega-villas-overrun-farmers-2023-7?op=1
And here: https://uschinatoday.org/features/2022/01/11/cities-lost-in-limbo-are-chinas-ghost-cities-here-to-stay/
It’s the attitude we don’t appreciate.
Also, you’re on the back foot to start with on a .ml account.
Because you believe China’s propaganda
I don’t blame you, Wikipedia sources are fairly old and everyone can add/remove stuff.
Recommend more sources after 2020
If you are bored https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qhwk3O6JHZk https://youtube.com/watch?v=dnp_MxXY9qs
Not weighing in on either side of the discussion, but that’s a video that’s almost completely unrelated to the topic above.
It speaks to how overleveraged/poorly managed a lot of Chinese development was, leading to a borderline colapse of the construction industry, and largely leaves the subject of ghost cities unaddressed.
Chinese projects / developments are short-sighted. It’s a Ponzi scheme, Get money from new investors, pay existing clients. So just keep building.
They become ghost cities because building are not fully done for living, so people can’t even move in. The Infrastructure is incomplete like no proper transportation links, no jobs, no shops etc. there is literally nothing there.
Ok, now I get the link you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t fully adress my question.
The one thing that’s still leaving me prickly is simply saying Wikipedia is wrong because it’s editable by anyone. That’s like saying FOSS is insecure because it’s editable by anyone. Neither the conclusion nor the premise is correct in either case. There are hierarchies & access controls in both that often yield better results than the traditional alternative.
Wikipedia is a treasure, and while it is still vulnerable to brigading (far more so than FOSS), this is far from the norm (especially nowadays) and should be backed up with specific sources and rectified.
While I do agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited directly due to this vulnerability, it acts as an excellent contextual citation aggregator, and quite frankly I’ve often found it more up-to-date and less biased than some of the crap that made it past the peer review process in my college days.
For instance, if what you’re saying is true (shortsightedness), people may over the years still populate those areas (the claim of the Wikipedia article is that a lot/most of the ghost cities did). If you have sources stating otherwise, please report the article for manipulation and include them there. If you don’t feel like it, post them here and I will do so, despite knowing absolutely nothing about Chinese ghost cities, because I believe this is important.
Please don’t dismiss such a shining example of human collective action so lightly. It’s one of the few things that makes me believe there’s still some good left in the world.
Never said Wikipedia was wrong I’m just saying be careful because people can edit to fit their narrative, which has happened with like Russian and Chinese topics.
Sadly a lot properties are unfinished and left to rot away and will get demolish.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/04/investing/evergrande-stock-gain-resume-trading-intl-hnk/index.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Om6b0_ffyFQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=tj0-6am9cMY
I’m starting to believe this is a bad faith argument. Do you have anything addressing the specific point of ghost cities actually (not) being populated now?
For those that are too lazy to read:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UPwtUTrwKRI wasted time and resources because everything is shortsighted and mostly affect the buyers.
How could they?
A few of the sources are literally from 2023. But do go on, it certainly seems like you’re here in good faith, right?
Yeah, I’m not saying there isn’t anything newer “A few” vs what’s up to date
Wikipedia isn’t great place for sources because everyone can post and edit. We taught in school never to source Wikipedia for that reason.
Wikipedia banned seven users after reported ‘infiltration’ by a Chinese group https://www.engadget.com/wikipedia-banned-seven-users-after-reported-infiltration-by-a-chinese-group-104143971.html?
China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49921173
I’m here in good faith 🙏
Then you can check the sources listed in the article. You’re not just supposed to take Wikipedia’s word for it, but you are allowed to click on the links in the references section. So either you’re not aware of this, or you’re not making this argument in good faith. In either event, because looking at the several sources in the wiki article I provided seems like it’s still not good enough for you, I get the feeling this conversation is going nowhere.
Yeah, we should stop because you are not getting what I’m saying and probably can’t see why you being downvoted.
Cheers