Posted on 01/12/2016 4:27:17 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
The Phenomena of China's Disposable Buildings
By Juliet Song, Epoch Times January 3, 2016
Last Updated: January 4, 2016 5:41 am
Two nearly complete luxury housing estates in Tianjin, once the envy of builders because of healthy pre-sales, will be torn down due to dried up credit and multiple safety violations, Chinese media reported.
In China, it is not uncommon to see relatively new buildings torn down, wasting an average of over $70 billion a year, according to research conducted by China Academy of Building Research (CABR) in 2014.
The reasons for demolishing buildings early vary.
The two luxury residential complexes in Tianjin were found to have had many safety violations. One frustrated condo owner, Zhang Xin, told Faren (a luxury magazine in China) that she learned that the eight buildings in her complex were built too close together.
Experts in Tianjin mapped out the building last year and found the design falls below standard in terms of provisions for emergency evacuation, including building apartments where the evacuation space should be, and making the public space in the first and second floors of buildings No.1 to No.4 too narrow.
"It is unimaginable how the plans, which violate the rules so flagrantly, were able to pass through so many levels of evaluation," Zhang angrily told Faren. And when she consulted the government department in charge, she was told that it's none of her business as a condo owner.
It's expected to cost upward of $9 million to demolish Mingmen Hall, one of the two housing estates. At the other estate, located in the commercial district of Tianjin city, three of the buildings are essentially complete with the roofs already in place, and may cost even more than Mingmen Hall to tear down.
While poor construction is the issue in some cases, commercial interests were leading cause, 46 percent, of early demolition in an investigation of 54 publicly reported cases examined by CABR.
For example, Water World Summer Palace in Shenyang, a giant indoor water park, was built in 1994 at an investment of $30 million. In 1997, it was named one of the 10 best sites in Shenyang and was a city landmark.
Yet In 2009, the 15-year-old building was reduced to rubble in two seconds, under the power of 900 kilograms (nearly 2,000 pounds) of explosives, because the land was slated for real estate development.
Other reasons cited by CABR for demolishing relatively young buildings include short-sighted behaviors such as image and prestige projects, as well as lazy urban planning, the unsound legal system, and low construction quality.
"The essential reason is that the land in China is state-owned and is too easy to demolish. Residents don't have legal rights or regulatory guarantees," Ding Li, an economic administrator at an investment and consultancy company told Radio Free Asia in explaining the phenomenon."Even though there are some legal regulations, local officials or developers can disregard them."
"A second reason relates to political achievement of officials. For many years, GDP was the standard used to measure political achievement. Projects and construction are the easiest ways to produce numbers. A third reason is corruption. Officials can gain benefit from it. Not only political achievement, but also personal gain is involved," said Ding.
According to China Statistical Yearbook 2012, between 2006 and 2010, the ratio of building demolition to building construction was 23 percent. This high rate of demolition was calculated to produce about 400 million tons of extra construction waste and approximately 10 percent extra carbon emissions every year.
With reporting from Zhou Huixin
Build, destroy and do it as often as you can, which is a new way to prosperity.
P!
They need to hire Krugman as Housing Czar. :)
Worse than the overbuilding and building code issues is that very often they tore down perfectly good old buildings and villages that simply needed renovation. Chinese cities all look alike now
-— “The essential reason is that the land in China is state-owned and is too easy to demolish. Residents don’t have legal rights or regulatory guarantees,” -—
Did somebody say, Kelo?
How would you feel if you were the person who leaned against that building while checking your texts?
“How would you feel if you were the person who leaned against that building while checking your texts?”
Like I needed to diet!
In the future, if there is anything akin to honest history, what China has done with their buildings (build them and then destroy them to create new work) will be looked upon as the most extreme example of Hazlitt’s Broken Window Fallacy.
It truly is jaw-dropping to behold.
‘”It is unimaginable how the plans, which violate the rules so flagrantly, were able to pass through so many levels of evaluation,” Zhang angrily told Faren. And when she consulted the government department in charge, she was told that it’s none of her business as a condo owner.’
LOL, sounds like our govt.
Monty Python: Flats Built By Hypnosis
In the skit, the buildings only stay standing as long as tenants believe in them. Hilarious!
https://youtu.be/1ujRE2IkEIo
Keloe decision anyone? Judge Souter needs a copy of this.
I have travelled to China on 6 different occasions over the past decade and seen this phenomena first hand. The part that this article doesn’t capture is that this process keeps their people busy and allows the state to distribute money to the masses- a so-called “make-work” process. There are many new empty western style developments and ghost cities all over the countryside. If you look at the vacancy rates country-wide it would be astounding.
It is comparable to their punishment ideology. Dig a hole, fill it in, dig another hole. It keeps people working with no tangible results.
No different from how we treat publicly financed stadiums here.
#4 The buildings can still be lived in. Just close up the holes on the “roof”
“Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business, you’re starting to think, ‘Beijing looks like a pretty good option.’”
Bribes are unimaginable?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.