Pii: S0264-2751(00)00007-X
Table 8 The growth of Shanghai (1949–95)
tải về 149.87 Kb. Chế độ xem pdf
|
Phat trin chan nuoi bn vng
| Table 8
The growth of Shanghai (1949–95) Year 1949 1982 1985 1995 Change 1985–95 Total population of municipality 618 6185 6186 6340 154 (2%) (million) Total land of municipality (sq. 5.03 11.81 12.17 13.01 0.84 (7%) km) Urbanized area (sq. km) 23 232 351 2057 a 1706 (486%) Population in central area 4.19 6.27 6.98 9.57 2.59 (37%) (million) a Including the Pudong New District and four new urban districts (previously rural counties). Without the five new urban districts, the urbanized area was 390.2 square km in 1995. However, a big proportion of land in these new urban districts is for urban uses.Source: Shanghai Statistical Yearbook, 1986 to 1996. 128 The Chinese version of urban sprawl It is important to distinguish urban sprawl from “rational” or “normal” urbanization. Although defin- ing urban sprawl is still a controversial topic in the US, most researchers tend to characterize urban sprawl with the following characteristics: (1) leapfrog or scattered development, (2) commercial strip devel- opment, and (3) large expanses of low-density or sin- gle-use development (Ewing, 1997; Moe, 1995). For a developing country with a low urbanization level like China, normal urbanized area growth with increasing rural–urban migration is a common process of modernization. The Chinese version of urban sprawl is the disproportionate expansion of the urbanized area. Although the Chinese context is quite different from the US, there are similarities in urban sprawl patterns of the two countries. The first is the disproportionate conversion of farmland to urban uses. The population of the Chicago metropolitan area increased 4 percent in the last two decades, but its urbanized area increased by 45 percent in the same period ((Openlands Projects, 1998) McDonald et al., 1992). The urbanized area surrounding New York City expanded by 65 percent, while the population grew by only 8 percent between 1960 and 1985 (Richmond, 1995). As mentioned above, the popu- lation of the urban district (Shi-Qu) of Shanghai increased by 37 percent, but the urbanized area grew by 486 percent from 1985 to 1995. The second character of the Chinese version of sprawl is scattered development in the urban fringe. The US version takes a form of development located on the edges of existing communities or leapfrogging into previously undeveloped areas. The Chinese ver- sion has some variations but retains the main feature of the dispersed development pattern. New develop- ment districts (kaifa qu in Chinese) of various types such as “High-tech industry park”, “Tariff-free dis- trict”, and “Special economic development zone” are often located in areas that were previously farmland. Those development zones increased so rapidly that in only one year (1991 to 1992) the number of develop- ment districts increased from 117 to 8,700 and occu- pied 16,000 square km of land, although fewer new Land market forces and government’s role in sprawl: T Zhang zones were added in recent years (Zhao et al., 1998). Most districts were located away from the often crowded and fully developed existing urban centers to attract foreign investment. However, in many cases, local government designated new development districts but either had no financial ability to complete (or even to start) the project or no foreigners to invest in it. The result is hundreds of hectares of idle land surrounding one or two incomplete high-rise office buildings on the far edges of these cities. (This is especially true in some small and medium cities, such as Beihai in Guangxi Province.) A 1995 survey found that only 2% of the development zones had been com- pleted by the end of 1992 (Zhao et al., 1998). Low density and commercial strip developments are not characteristics of the Chinese version of sprawl, in contrast to the American version of urban sprawl. Also, central city decline resulting from nega- tive impacts of urban sprawl is not a Chinese phenom- enon. Central cities are still booming in China, although statistics show that since 1982 they have been slowly losing their population (Zhou and Meng, 1998). The main cause of population loss in central districts is the high price of housing. Not only are ordinary city residents forced to move out from cen- tral areas, but average enterprises are often forced to relocate to municipal fringes due to problems of affordable land in central areas. New housing projects in fringes have provided ordinary urban residents bet- ter living conditions, at the cost of longer commuting time, and the loss of cultivated land in peripheral areas. While “richer” people in general prefer to live in suburban areas in the US, it is the “poorer” who have to move to fringe areas in Chinese cities. This is one of the most important differences between the Chinese and the US versions of sprawl. tải về 149.87 Kb. Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
|