Latest comments posted about Which way China? on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/297-Which-way-China- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/297-Which-way-China- I think it is interesting that the majority of the responses fall into one of two general categories. Some are very skeptical, feeling that this is just a bureaucratic dream. The others tend to be hopeful, believing that something like this is bound to happen and it cannot hurt to try. I can understand both points of view. On the one hand, the government says many things, few of which are actually carried out. For example, six months ago I read an article about how the CCP was going to seriously enforce intellectual property rights, but I can still buy 25 cent DVDs and cheap imitations of the latest technology. So I understand why people scoff when the government says it will do things. On the other hand, we are going to have to start figuring out ways to live sustainability and if this city is a step toward understanding how to do that, then we might as well try. Even if it is a spectacular failure, at least we can learn something from it. As the author said, there are too many people in China and India for the entire world to try to live lavish lifestyles. Hopefully this Dongtan will succeed and provide an example that we all can try to emulate. Mon, 05 May 2008 03:10:01 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-7336 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-7336 It is a valid point to argue that more investment should be made in improving the environmental friendliness of infrastructure in existing cities. However, Dongstan is an innovative concept and it will be a useful model to evaluate whether this type of eco-city is feasible. With such an ongoing trend of urbanization, it seems possible to invest in new cities for people to inhabit. I also agree that it will be largely up to the residents of Dongstan to ensure eco-friendly success. At this point in time, it would be really encouraging to see this project succeed. Mike P. Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:04:23 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-7296 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-7296 If enough people try， then it will eventually be done. Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:34:36 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-5683 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-5683 I think the initiative to develop this kind of city is admirable these thoughts need to be implemented on a larger scale and the scemes converted to suit the existing building stock in order to become a standard. It's all well and fine to complain about the machines building the city not being ecofriendly. They might become some day in the near future once some of these concepts has begun to swing amongst the general public. You cannot change the world overnight, but if all works towards a common goal we will get there eventually. Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:02:29 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-4563 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-4563 No one ever said this type of city would exclude the poor. It would be designed to be a sustainable community, meaning the tax revenue from the production of the goods by the citizens would be used to maintain the city. There would most likely be a range of socio-economic classes filling in different roles in the city. The idea of the city would be to provide an eco-friendly city with a hgih quality of life for all of its inhabitants because of the pre-planning of the city. Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:06:01 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-4532 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-4532 "Though eco city construction wont be necessarily effective for a large population..." Can it really be considered sustainable then? If this lifestyle is only accessible for the rich, then what use is it. May as well kill off all the poor and forget about eco-footprints... What happens to these people? The real problem here is social. Do cities like these create more reductions of freedom, where the rich get away with extravagant lifestyles while the poor are forced to give up more of their lifestyles to suit? [this comment has been moderated by chinadialogue. please read our moderation policy or contact us to discuss further] Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:16:17 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-4233 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-4233 People are crucial to the failure or success of the 'city of biodiversity'. Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:52:51 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-3505 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-3505 The idea of an eco city is a good one on paper! But when the city is being built, is all the machinery going to be eco-friendly too? There is much more research to be done in this area but lets hope that a dream can become a reality for the sake of the environment. Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:17:15 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-2010 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-2010 Sustainable development has been promoted in education ranging from secondary schools to universities in China. So far, it is time to experiment with trying new practices. To build ecocities is an constructive action from whatever aspects we talk about it. Though ecocity construction won't be necessiarily effective for a large number of populations, lessons and experience which will lead to revolutionary changes could be learned from building ecocities. Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:43:21 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-1891 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-1891 Jane Jacobs in the "Life and Death of Great American cities" says firstly that in cities we should maintain particular districts' many functions. Mixing up functions can be guaranteed to attract different people at different times, there are people who keep these activities from morning to night. Secondly, she advocates maintaining small streets. Smaller streets increase the opportunities for people to take different routes to reach their destinations. The third is to retain old houses. The house can attract different generations of people, with differing rents the house can satisfy the needs of different economic groups. The fourth is to maintain a high population density. She holds that a vibrant city has a lot of people, leading to the various activities of the community. Though if the town's population reaches a certain density, it cannot attract more people and commercial activities will be impossible. Jacobs' diverse cities make one think of the 20th century rise of "New Urbanism", on which she was a significant influence. In her book she repeatedly emphasized public participation in urban planning and community development. China is undergoing a rapid development of urbanisation, in many cities this is similar to the 1960s "urban renewal" phenomenon in the US. But in response to urban renewal, Jacobs emerged as 'critical thinker', and encouraged opposition to this massive urban transformation. However, in today's China. In today's China where is our Jacobs? American planners embarked on a period of self-reflection and self-examination and put new planning ideas into practice.And American politicians finally voted to terminate the "Urban Renewal Act". In China today, is there a possibility of stopping large-scale urban renewal projects? Perhaps it is difficult to avoid large-scale urban transformation, but when will it end? Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:17:11 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-532 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/297#comment-532