American Cities Vs. Asian Cities

[sidney_jec]

they are coming in search of livelihood primarily and not better living conditions. for anyone their hometown/city/village provides the best living conditions. *nostalgic*

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by klamedia

I'm not sure that I understood your answer.

Maybe because you made a ridiculous statement to begin with... You never should have picked Tōkyō as your "case study." If you wanted a dense city filled with highrises and surrounded by shantytowns, you should have picked somewhere in China. Tōkyō is pretty much built out and developed, with a very high quality of life. Same goes for Seoul.

Which brings me to the fact that it is silly to fit Asian cities into one category... There's simply too many of them, exhibiting a wide variety of development patterns and lifestyles—some of which (surprise, surprise) are actually not too dissimilar to American counterparts. Fitting American cities into a single category is more sensible, since we're only talking about one, already developed country (the U.S.) and the development patterns are generally more uniform.

Originally Posted by klamedia

I was asking for evidence of mixed income within the inner ring of the cities themselves.

There is plenty, you are just ignorant of it. The shitamachi of Tōkyō are all very much working-class neighborhoods. And if you had actually been to Tōkyō, you would see that there are surprisingly plenty of small single-family homes within the Yamanote Loop... Despite how much you'd like to paint Tōkyō so, the "downtown" is not all condos for the rich.

Besides, cities in the U.S. are hardly immune from this phenomenon you so dread... Just look at San Francisco and New York, where every day people are complaining about getting priced out of the housing market.

[klamedia]

I'm not exactly sure why you felt the need to insult me when I was only inquiring not making a statement. And no I've never claimed to have visited Tokyo so technically I guess that I am somewhat "ignorant" of the city hence the reason why I participate on this forum where we exchange ideas and views about urban areas that we are perhaps unfamiliar with so as to gain a better understanding. So I'd rather not discuss this with you any longer and would actually like a better understanding from someone else of any Asian city's socioeconomic physical makeup.

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by klamedia

I'm not exactly sure why you felt the need to insult me when I was only inquiring not making a statement.

You set yourself up... I only pointed it out to you, as did Rail Claimore. The tone of your initial post was not of someone inquiring or inquisitive... It was argumentative ("Asian booster", "shanty town encampments", etc.). You made a blanket statement about Asian cities vs. American cities that was based on preconceptions and not fact... Now that others have responded to call out the flawed logic behind your argument, you fall on ignorance as defense.

Again, isn't the lack of cheap housing in inner cities a problem in several American cities as well? So why should Asian cities get singled out for it? What evidence is there that says it's a widespread phenomenon in Asian cities? Where is the evidence that Asian cities are all surrounded by "shantytowns"?

This is directed to everyone here...
Honestly, do we expect to find commonalities between developed cities in Korea and Japan (Seoul, Tōkyō, and Ōsaka) with developing cities in China (Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou), Southeast Asia (Bangkok, Jakarta, Manila, KL), or South Asia (Mumbai, Delhi)? Where do Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taipei fit in? What about Dubai and Abu Dhabi? Tehran and Kabul? The idea that there is a common set of qualities that applies to all of these cities is absurd.

[klamedia]

I don't get your defensiveness nor your belief that we are in some sort of debate, I'd actually like to move beyond you.. But if anyone else would like to enlighten me and further discuss shanty towns, favelas or ghettos in relation to Asian cities(I'm sure they have a unique name unto themselves) and where they are physically placed (socioeconomically)within the urban fabric please respond.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by klamedia

I don't get your defensiveness nor your belief that we are in some sort of debate, I'd actually like to move beyond you.. But if anyone else would like to enlighten me and further discuss shanty towns, favelas or ghettos in relation to Asian cities(I'm sure they have a unique name unto themselves) and where they are physically placed (socioeconomically)within the urban fabric please respond.

You specifically mentioned Tokyo in your initial post. And your discussion/argument/whatever about shantytowns beyond central-city highrises and other socioeconomic dimensions is not a paradigm that fits with Tokyo. Your original post implied to me that you have the belief that every crowded megacity must operate on the same paradigm as Sao Paulo or Los Angeles, when that's simply not true. I don't know if that's what you meant, but it warranted a response.

[MysticMcGoo]

I like American cities. They have such rich history to them. Many Asian cities are much more modern, and lack character because they've only exploded in population during the last 30-40 years.

Every American city has had it's industrial past, decline, and recovery (except Detroit...R.I.P.). I find that studying them is quite interesting.

[sidney_jec]

American cities have rich history and Asian cities don't?

[Hia-leah JDM]

Originally Posted by MysticMcGoo

Every American city has had it's industrial past, decline, and recovery (except Detroit...R.I.P.). I find that studying them is quite interesting.

Still a great American city.

Detroit Lives|Palladium Boots

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

You specifically mentioned Tokyo in your initial post. And your discussion/argument/whatever about shantytowns beyond central-city highrises and other socioeconomic dimensions is not a paradigm that fits with Tokyo. Your original post implied to me that you have the belief that every crowded megacity must operate on the same paradigm as Sao Paulo or Los Angeles, when that's simply not true. I don't know if that's what you meant, but it warranted a response.

The thread initially used Tokyo as a model by linking the first YouTube video to Tokyo so I didn't independently bring Tokyo into this discussion. My first post following that initial video that showed Tokyo in all of its glory was a question to the informed. The question was does Tokyo set aside provisions for the working class or poor to be able to live in the inner ring or even the core of the city? If Tokyo doesn't set aside these type of provisions then where do they live was my second question. Favelas, shanty towns, ghettos, slums even the rise in suburban slums are all terms that mean the same thing.....poor people en masse live there. I'll open this up to any Asian city and ask the same question but my attempt was to be relevant since the first city that was used as an example of Asian cities vs American cities was Tokyo. Didn't think that this would be rocket science.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by klamedia

The thread initially used Tokyo as a model by linking the first YouTube video to Tokyo so I didn't independently bring Tokyo into this discussion. My first post following that initial video that showed Tokyo in all of its glory was a question to the informed. The question was does Tokyo set aside provisions for the working class or poor to be able to live in the inner ring or even the core of the city? If Tokyo doesn't set aside these type of provisions then where do they live was my second question. Favelas, shanty towns, ghettos, slums even the rise in suburban slums are all terms that mean the same thing.....poor people en masse live there. I'll open this up to any Asian city and ask the same question but my attempt was to be relevant since the first city that was used as an example of Asian cities vs American cities was Tokyo. Didn't think that this would be rocket science.

I have no idea where "working class" or "poor" people in Tokyo live because I'm not terribly familiar with Japanese social welfare policy. All I know is that Tokyo has practically no areas that could be considered "poor" by even American standards: no favelas, no shanty towns, no ghettos, etc. Japan has a relatively even distribution of wealth and a very low gini-coefficient for a developed country (and they have this with a tax rate that's comparable to the US). I do know that many employers subsidize transportation costs to and from work, which is one reason for the sustainability of rail as the dominant form of transportation in the metro area. Those without a lot of money can thus, reasonably afford to live far from the city, and they don't live in anything remotely close to squalor conditions.

I would say that wealthier people tend to own homes or condos within or near the Yamanote Loop, but not everyone who lives in that area or even owns a home in that area is wealthy. Some people have simply not moved from their residences even as the land values have soared through the roof. Japan's property tax system and land-use regulations allow for this to occur.

[MysticMcGoo]

Originally Posted by sidney_jec

American cities have rich history and Asian cities don't?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? "Asian cities dont have history"? You didn't even read my post.



I just find a lot of modern day economic, social and cultural changes have taken place in the US, and more specifically the urban centers. It's got a more engaging history in my eyes. I know that American cities are historically much newer than their Asian counterparts, but Asian cities have evolved historically at a much slower pace than US cities. A lot has happened here in a short amount of time.

[sidney_jec]

and American cities don't have one?

[MysticMcGoo]

Originally Posted by sidney_jec

and American cities don't have one?

Dont have what?

[sidney_jec]

Originally Posted by MysticMcGoo

Dont have what?

it will be out of context because you edited your post after I posted a comment/reply on your unedited post which said "Asian cities have feudal history...." and blah blah blah.

[sidney_jec]

Originally Posted by MysticMcGoo

I like American cities. They have such rich history to them. Many Asian cities are much more modern, and lack character because they've only exploded in population during the last 30-40 years.

Every American city has had it's industrial past, decline, and recovery (except Detroit...R.I.P.). I find that studying them is quite interesting.

Originally Posted by MysticMcGoo

Why are you putting words in my mouth? "Asian cities dont have history"? You didn't even read my post.

I just find a lot of modern day economic, social and cultural changes have taken place in the US, and more specifically the urban centers. It's got a more engaging history in my eyes. I know that American cities are historically much newer than their Asian counterparts, but Asian cities have evolved historically at a much slower pace than US cities. A lot has happened here in a short amount of time.

"Many Asian cities are much more modern"
as per my comprehension it implies what I said in my next comment after this comment of yours.
and when you say that I would have only this particular impression and not the one in your next post.
If you read both of your posts you'll find them ambiguous. I am not a psychoanalyst or a mind reader to automatically know what you have written and what you have in mind are different.

[MysticMcGoo]

K well my original post did say they had a feudal past, but when i thought about it, there weren't really any "cities" as we define them today in feudal asia, so it would have no meaning in this thread.

During the industrial revolution is really when American cities came into their own. Countries like China for instance, are now highly manufacturing based nations, particularly in urban centers. They are now experiencing production methods similar to when places like Detroit and Cincinnati went through that phase much earlier.

American cities are primarily Post-Fordist in nature now, and extremely service based. But their history and expansion go back way beyond that, as do Asian cities.
Asian countries are now going through what the U.S. did during the 1930s-40s in the era of mass production. This is why I have said they are evolving slower.

Asian metropolises are a much newer phenomenon, and lack as much culture and history as their American counterparts in my mind.
Thats not to say they have absolutely zero history like you are accusing me of saying.

[sidney_jec]

Originally Posted by MysticMcGoo

K well my original post did say they had a feudal past, but when i thought about it, there weren't really any "cities" as we define them today in feudal asia, so it would have no meaning in this thread.

During the industrial revolution is really when American cities came into their own. Countries like China for instance, are now highly manufacturing based nations, particularly in urban centers. They are now experiencing production methods similar to when places like Detroit and Cincinnati went through that phase much earlier.

American cities are primarily Post-Fordist in nature now, and extremely service based. But their history and expansion go back way beyond that, as do Asian cities.
Asian countries are now going through what the U.S. did during the 1930s-40s in the era of mass production. This is why I have said they are evolving slower.

Asian metropolises are a much newer phenomenon, and lack as much culture and history as their American counterparts in my mind.
Thats not to say they have absolutely zero history like you are accusing me of saying.

the industrial resurgence that the Asian cities are witnessing right now has more to do with economic viability than anything else. Yes US cities were the first ones that started it. Asian cities caught up later. much later in fact.

Asian metropolises are a much newer phenomenon, and lack as much culture and history as their American counterparts in my mind.

Now please dont say that I am putting words in your mouth. I am quoting what you have written. I guess you must be aware of the fact that as much as the East is influenced by the West for it's scientific progress, the West is influenced by the East for it's culture. Now culture is relative. What culture are you talking of? Take for instance India. It's culture dates back for more than 5000 years. and so does China's. You must be knowing that Yoga and mysticism are considered as the biggest export of India to the west. Well metaphorically. You have the right to your opinion (and I dont really have to tell you that ) but if you are giving a counter argument based on a falsity than I will tend to differ

[MysticMcGoo]

This thread is about cities. I'm talking about urban culture/history.

[sidney_jec]

i too was talking about the same. Delhi, Beijing, Calcutta are some.