What's new

China 2.0: MEGA Cities, SMART Cities

China does not have enough arable land for that and that also involves moving people. Moving people is infrastructure. People hate crowded cities and high rise, but they also hate boredom, lack of opportunity and low business even more. It is simply mathematically true that as density increases, the cost efficiency of all public infrastructure decreases.
No. China has enough arable land. Now many Chinese farmland in the villages are actually abandoned since people move to cities. The government just keeps several strategic areas such as North East, Hubei etc. to guarantee food safety. With the development agriculture technology, those areas are enough for 15 billions of population. Other Areas are mainly used to guarantee local fresh fruits, vegetables and meats.

As proved by Europe, USA or Zhejiang Province, cities of sizes 100,000-1 millions are big enough to create many job opportunities. Especially with the high speed railway network and highway network, this will be the most ideal structure for China. Zhejiang doesn't have mega cities, but still tons of job opportunities. All other provinces flocks to Zhejiang for jobs, even for those provinces with mega cities.

I tried to say that in this thread:
Mapping China’s middle class

Read down a few



@HongWu002 ...you have any comment

I tried to say that in this thread:
Mapping China’s middle class

Read down a few



@HongWu002 ...you have any comment
President Xi JinPing was promoted for his Zhejiang model. This kind of projects require approval from National Development and Reform commission (NDRC). I bet that most of them will not get approved. Clearly the status of TianJian eco-city is not very good enough to encourage more projects of this kind. One thing good for China that NDRC can expand success models to nationwide while keeping failed model from spreading.
 
I'm waiting to see how the upcoming Sino-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City will do. The Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city is moving too slowly IMO. I'm hoping that some kind of sustainable model of urban development can be adopted from these 2 ventures across all provincial urban planning...

Tianjin Eco-city :: Home

Sino-Singapore-Tianjin-Eco-City.jpg


Sino-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City - Home

images0-2014-project_guangzhou_city___credited_to_DP_architects_Singapore_378249724.jpg



Also, noteworthy is the EU-China Smartcities initiative - EU-China Smart Cities


Good initiative in Guangzhou, new to me, thanks! Yes Tianjin Eco-city is still progressing, a bit slow, they should speed up. Suzhou Industrial Park, is a already a huge success though, spanning 288 sqkm, embarked since 1994 by Li Lanqing (China) and Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore), home to 1.2 million residents. Less than 2 hours drive from Shanghai, 30 min by HSR. A must visit!

200a5f11a10843a29989884d03dc4ef4_c_640_320-jpg.270124


Despite Singapore being second to Hong Kong in FDI, they do mega projects. If one say Hong Kong guys are real estate developers, then Singaporeans are city developers.
 
No. China has enough arable land. Now many Chinese farmland in the villages are actually abandoned since people move to cities. The government just keeps several strategic areas such as North East, Hubei etc. to guarantee food safety. With the development agriculture technology, those areas are enough for 15 billions of population. Other Areas are mainly used to guarantee local fresh fruits, vegetables and meats.

As proved by Europe, USA or Zhejiang Province, cities of sizes 100,000-1 millions are big enough to create many job opportunities. Especially with the high speed railway network and highway network, this will be the most ideal structure for China. Zhejiang doesn't have mega cities, but still tons of job opportunities. All other provinces flocks to Zhejiang for jobs, even for those provinces with mega cities.




President Xi JinPing was promoted for his Zhejiang model. This kind of projects require approval from National Development and Reform commission (NDRC). I bet that most of them will not get approved. Clearly the status of TianJian eco-city is not very good enough to encourage more projects of this kind. One thing good for China that NDRC can expand success models to nationwide while keeping failed model from spreading.

15 billion? the **** you getting these numbers from?

lol all I'm gonna say is: we'll see. But we'll see soon and the trend so far is not in your favor. Europe is going into decline scientifically while US is becoming more megacity, not less. The places far away from LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston and San Fran are losing job opportunities like crazy, their infrastructure is decaying and people are moving out. You can't argue with math and you can't argue with fact.

The ACTUAL goal should be to develop urban culture, like US's hipsters and rap music, to make urban living cool and desireable.
 
China does not have enough arable land for that and that also involves moving people. Moving people is infrastructure. People hate crowded cities and high rise, but they also hate boredom, lack of opportunity and low business even more. It is simply mathematically true that as density increases, the cost efficiency of all public infrastructure decreases.

I agree. Creating mega-cities and not allowing the urban areas not to sprawl too much into the peripheries of the city appears to be the optimum approach. This is not iny because a lack of arable land in the case of China, but also, even of new agriculture techniques allows for increased production, to save land for future generations.
 
15 billion? the **** you getting these numbers from?

lol all I'm gonna say is: we'll see. But we'll see soon and the trend so far is not in your favor. Europe is going into decline scientifically while US is becoming more megacity, not less. The places far away from LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston and San Fran are losing job opportunities like crazy, their infrastructure is decaying and people are moving out. You can't argue with math and you can't argue with fact.

The ACTUAL goal should be to develop urban culture, like US's hipsters and rap music, to make urban living cool and desireable.
Sorry. 1.5 billion. Typo. I just showed that government agriculture policy has changed during to the development of agriculture technology. Just the food produced in those strategic areas are enough to guarantee food safety. For other area, agriculture products with high economic values are encouraged. China has enough farm land to self-feed itself now. The focus has shifted from food safety to economic values.

In San Francisco, most Jobs are created in nearby Santa Clara county and Alameda County with very few high rise, not in the San Francisco City. Similarly for LA and Seattle. The greater areas of these cities are famous for single family houses. You have a nice corporate campus with wonderful single family house. You never need to worry about parking anywhere. Of course this kind of lifestyle with wonderful jobs are preferred by most Americans. This kind of model should be encouraged in China, not those high rises.

siliconvalley-map2.jpg

This is map for silicon valley companies. Very few companies are located in San Francisco with high rises on up-left corner.Two different world. People usually only go to San Francisco for international flights. San Jose airport is preferred for domestic flights.
 
Sorry. 1.5 billion. Typo. I just showed that government agriculture policy has changed during to the development of agriculture technology. Just the food produced in those strategic areas are enough to guarantee food safety. For other area, agriculture products with high economic values are encouraged. China has enough farm land to self-feed itself now. The focus has shifted from food safety to economic values.

In San Francisco, most Jobs are created in nearby Santa Clara county and Alameda County with very few high rise, not in the San Francisco City. Similarly for LA and Seattle. The greater areas of these cities are famous for single family houses. You have a nice corporate campus with wonderful single family house. You never need to worry about parking anywhere. Of course this kind of lifestyle with wonderful jobs are preferred by most Americans. This kind of model should be encouraged in China, not those high rises.

siliconvalley-map2.jpg

This is map for silicon valley companies. Very few companies are located in San Francisco with high rises on up-left corner.Two different world. People usually only go to San Francisco for international flights. San Jose airport is preferred for domestic flights.


Bro I see what you mean. Actually there's no conflict of concepts, cos both are applicable.

The Zhejiang model or Silicon Valley model, is definitely applicable. IT parks, industrial parks, should and will continue to grow across China. In fact many such models of various sizes are expected to grown within megapolis, e.g. 288 sqkm SIP in Suzhou, several smaller industrial zones in Shanghai.

On the other hand, the megapolis model is equally applicable, may I briefly elaborate my opinions:
  • Taking into account of both arable land and more importantly forest coverage (and other natural landscaping, even artificial landscaping), national limits should be applied to urban developments.
  • China is an ancient civilization, a lot of urban areas should be reserved for cultural preservation only e.g. capitals of Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty.
  • China is big, many hubs are needed for regional economies e.g. Bohai Rim, Sichuan province. It's fair to have 30-40 of these.
  • For each megapolis that functions as regional economic hub, design it as a mix of ultra-hi-density and lo-density zones, connected by hi-tech infrastructures.
  • Use Shanghai as an positive example. Metro will exceed 800 km, close to 500 stations, areas within 1-2 km radius are ultra-hi-density areas, then density fade out. Areas in between are gardens, parks, sports, city storages, city utility bases or just keep them natural. The industrial park model (of smaller scales) can exist inside metropolis. Hong Kong (a mountainous terrain, high water ratio, these are natural advantages though) is another positive example, 70% landscape completely undeveloped and natural.
  • Beijing is the worst example. No segregation of hi-density and lo-density, every inch developed to medium density. Even ancient city walls were removed to build the #2 ring road. Now the city may give perfect aerial view, but it's pedestrian-unfriendly, absolutely inconvenient to live in it.
Shanghai

Untitled10.png

  • On the left, you see ultra-hi-density Lujiazui district. Across the river, you see Bund as preservation district, very hi-density as well.
  • On the right, it's lo-density Lingang district, an industrial zone.
  • All these are connected by Shanghai metro.
 
Last edited:
I have been to many USA cities. You always can find that High Rise building are abandoned within the city. In the beginning of 20th century, USA also had a fervor for high rise building. But with the coming of car era, people and corporations move to suburbs for better housing, better environment and less commutation time. Many great high rises in the center city are abandoned.

With the rising of car ownship in China, China has entered similar stage. People want better life quality and hate wasting time on Traffic and parking. Corporations want to have better working environments and lower the costs. As soon as infrastructures in suburbs and small cities improve, time to leave crowded cities. For example, if you have industrial parks, people may prefer living farther from the city for better housing and better environment. With cars or high speed railways, it may only take less than one hour to go to center city if necessary.

Time to learn lessons from USA.

Most of Chinese buildings in cities do not have good parking lots. In the era of cars, people will prefer Malls and Outlets in the suburbs with good parking.

rsz_62.jpg

Franklin Mills Mall in Philadelphia

China 2.0 should be like this. Shopping malls with enough parking lots. Housing districts full of single family houses with good environments.

green-wood.jpg

companies like this. Parking before your building.
 
I have been to many USA cities. You always can find that High Rise building are abandoned within the city. In the beginning of 20th century, USA also had a fervor for high rise building. But with the coming of car era, people and corporations move to suburbs for better housing, better environment and less commutation time. Many great high rises in the center city are abandoned.

With the rising of car ownship in China, China has entered similar stage. People want better life quality and hate wasting time on Traffic and parking. Corporations want to have better working environments and lower the costs. As soon as infrastructures in suburbs and small cities improve, time to leave crowded cities. For example, if you have industrial parks, people may prefer living farther from the city for better housing and better environment. With cars or high speed railways, it may only take less than one hour to go to center city if necessary.

Time to learn lessons from USA.

Most of Chinese buildings in cities do not have good parking lots. In the era of cars, people will prefer Malls and Outlets in the suburbs with good parking.

rsz_62.jpg

Franklin Mills Mall in Philadelphia

China 2.0 should be like this. Shopping malls with enough parking lots. Housing districts full of single family houses with good environments.

green-wood.jpg

companies like this. Parking before your building.


Shopping Mall? Sure it should be built everywhere, in both high and low-density districts. For malls in hi-density commercial districts, they are more compact, multi-storey with adequate parking resources (there are high-tech parking systems, very space-efficient). They should closely integrate with neighboring office or residential buildings, and link up with METRO which is the key.

0-jpg.209662
Untitled11.png


The Shanghai model (metropolis model) maybe is only best known high-density, but let's see the whole picture shall we? While it's super-high density in downtown districts, Shanghai keep rest of the city as low-density as possible (even uninhabited!), supported by tech & infrastructures. Chongming Island is one of the 6 districts of Shanghai put under low-density by Urban Planning. The Island is focused on agricultural science and leisure, these pics are from Chongming Forest Park:

1-130912162444-jpg.209658
2501606_162014160000_2-jpg.209659
2012021508540377639-jpg.209661


In these 6 low-density districts there are industrial parks, as well as residential parks. People may want to live there? Sure, like my parents do, while I prefer downtown life especially during week days, more fun and entertainment. Buyers can choose stand-alone houses, semi-detached townhouses, low-rise condos, all are available in the market. And yes, parking is no a problem.

Untitled12.png


Like I have mentioned in previous post, the metropolis model that Shanghai is using comprises of both ultra-high density districts, as well as low-density districts. Both exist, both applicable in one METRO supported model.
 
Last edited:
alot of people have this ultra silly idea of China being able to support high car ownership while having low density population. My question is: the **** are you smoking dawg?

1. land is limited, especially in China.

2. the economic activity on the land will be the one that provides highest output on that land.

3. it is almost never the case that a parking lot will be the best use of land that is otherwise either habitable or arable, since a typical parking lot wastes tens of thousands of square meters of land for very low value added and high upfront cost.

That is why instead of what you are saying, cars are becoming more and more limited, not less. You simply won't have the space to conveniently park in any sort of city, and any expansion of the city (due to parking lots being now required) either carries the cost of building construction or of land acquisition; good luck turning a profit on those.
 
I have been to many USA cities. You always can find that High Rise building are abandoned within the city. In the beginning of 20th century, USA also had a fervor for high rise building. But with the coming of car era, people and corporations move to suburbs for better housing, better environment and less commutation time. Many great high rises in the center city are abandoned.

Yes, a lot of high rise building in the West failed and became rundown urban decay because of poor social engineering. Thus in the 70s when Singapore started to build their HDB flats or apartments in large numbers the West also said they will fail. But Singapore urbanization has been a success. I live in Singapore in the 80s in town of Ang Mo Kio. Every residential town are self sustain with shops, restaurants, community centers, swimming pools, sports centers, religious temples etc. The town is serviced by feeder bus 15 cents that will take you to the town center where you can then take the metro or connecting buses to work. The first floor of all apartment blocks are vast empty spaces for you to organise everything from funeral to weddings. The flats are also clean regularly every month and repainted every few years. There are also strict rules or you will lose you apartment,

With the rising of car ownship in China, China has entered similar stage. People want better life quality and hate wasting time on Traffic and parking. Corporations want to have better working environments and lower the costs. As soon as infrastructures in suburbs and small cities improve, time to leave crowded cities. For example, if you have industrial parks, people may prefer living farther from the city for better housing and better environment. With cars or high speed railways, it may only take less than one hour to go to center city if necessary.

Time to learn lessons from USA.

Most of Chinese buildings in cities do not have good parking lots. In the era of cars, people will prefer Malls and Outlets in the suburbs with good parking.

US urbanization has failed in many places specially LA. US model is very wasteful. Public transport are poor to non existent. You need a car to survive. Every morning the highway are jammed with only ONE person per car or truck or SUV or Minivan. Its so wasteful. If you cannot afford a car you cannot do anything. Not everyone can afford a car. Old car will need maintenance, there are emission tests every 2 years and if you fail you cannot use your car.


rsz_62.jpg

Franklin Mills Mall in Philadelphia

This picture is a good example of what is wrong with United States. Just to go from one end to the other you probably have to drive. I can split the mall into 4 sections and pile them on top of each other to create 4 storey building. Then I create another 4 floors underground for the parking. Then another 10 floors above for resident apartments. Just look how much land that will save. Then I planned for a metro to be integrated into the mall so you do not have to drive there.
 
Last edited:
China does not have enough arable land for that and that also involves moving people. Moving people is infrastructure. People hate crowded cities and high rise, but they also hate boredom, lack of opportunity and low business even more. It is simply mathematically true that as density increases, the cost efficiency of all public infrastructure decreases.
Arable land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Yes, a lot of high rise building in the West failed and became rundown urban decay because of poor social engineering. Thus in the 70s when Singapore started to build their HDB flats or apartments in large numbers the West also said they will fail. But Singapore urbanization has been a success. I live in Singapore in the 80s in town of Ang Mo Kio. Every residential town are self sustain with shops, restaurants, community centers, swimming pools, sports centers, religious temples etc. The town is serviced by feeder bus 15 cents that will take you to the town center where you can then take the metro or connecting buses to work. The first floor of all apartment blocks are vast empty spaces for you to organise everything from funeral to weddings. The flats are also clean regularly every month and repainted every few years. There are also strict rules or you will lose you apartment,

US urbanization has failed in many places specially LA. US model is very wasteful. Public transport are poor to non existent. You need a car to survive. Every morning the highway are jammed with only ONE person per car or truck or SUV or Minivan. Its so wasteful. If you cannot afford a car you cannot do anything. Not everyone can afford a car. Old car will need maintenance, there are emission tests every 2 years and if you fail you cannot use your car.

This picture is a good example of what is wrong with United States. Just to go from one end to the other you probably have to drive. I can split the mall into 4 sections and pile them on top of each other to create 4 storey building. Then I create another 4 floors underground for the parking. Then another 10 floors above for resident apartments. Just look how much land that will save. Then I planned for a metro to be integrated into the mall so you do not have to drive there.


I concur with that.

Having been to many cities, Singapore despite being dubbed a hi-density city looks more like a garden to me! As I have mentioned in the other post, many senior PRC officials were trained in the so-called Mayor's Program in Singapore, which alongside with Hong Kong are the two benchmarking role models for PRC urban planners.

Regarding metro, the Tokyo-inspired concept is to build city on metro, not metro trying to catch up with the city. Primary function of roads (expressways included) is for in-city freight logistics (and ambulance, school buses, police, fire engines, leisure), not commuting passengers.

People in Shanghai is repeating the same pattern as observed in in Tokyo/Singapore/Hong Kong, use public transport for commuting, and cars for leisure and sports. For commuting, public transport can be used in combination with DiDi (or Uber).

Shanghai model is China 2.0
 
Last edited:
Urbanization seems to have been badly implemented in many Western countries. Many high rise areas were allowed to decay and became crime infested ghettos.

North East Asians on the other hand have been very successful in their urbanization. We tend to be more pragmatic and more realist while the West are more idealists.
 
China 2.0: How Upgraded Cities Are Driving The Future Of China
Feb 23, 2016 @ 08:40 AM


“We are now coming to the new city center,” Charles Dou, a local businessman in Taizhou, Jiangsu once said when giving me a tour of his rapidly expanding, tier three city four years ago.

“What do you mean the new city center?” I asked, holding the concept that “city center” is a designation that generally remains fixed and immutable.

“The city center used to be by the Pozijie (an older shopping center in the historic core), but then it was moved here last year when Wanda opened,” he answered matter-of-factly, as though describing an occurrence that happened daily.

In 2011, Wanda Plaza, a chain of shopping mall/ residential living combos, opened up a location in the south of Taizhou, and since then the wheels of development began turning full speed in that sector of the city. Suddenly, an area that up until that point was all meandering alleys of traditional style, dilapidated grey brick and terracotta-roof houses became the place where everyone wanted to be. Dozens of new high rises were erected, radiating out from the new shopping mall like waves, and a modest array of new middle class F&B operations and relatively classy establishments like Starbucks moved in. Within the span of a year or two, a mini-migration began emanating from the ancient, moat-encircled, 2,000 year old city center to the now trendy area by the Wanda Plaza.

This is a pattern has been replicated throughout China.

Over the past 15 years China’s cities have been busily at work doubling down on their urban cores by constructing completely new sub-cities, districts, and towns in what was once their hinterlands. Shanghai has Pudong, Zhengzhou has Zhengdong, Guangzhou has Zhujiang, Tianjin has Binhai, Chengdu has Tianfu, Suzhou has the Suzhou Industrial Park, Kunming has Chenggong, and Lanzhou has Lanzhou New Area. While the historic cores of China’s big cities tend to maintain some degree of central status — especially in the famous tier one metropolises of the east where the core is still prime commercial and residential territory — new “town centers” have been popping up around their peripheries at an incredible rate. Most of these new centers were built from scratch, being nothing but expanses of farmland liberally sprinkled with small villages before the bulldozers arrive to wipe them off the map, literally.

View attachment 295219
An outline of the original area of Zhengdong New District superimposed over San Francisco. Image: Warner Brown/Google/MapFrappe.

Now, every major city in China has at least one “new and improved” version of itself sitting by its side — and some are surrounded by them. These new areas tend to be massive, often being the same size or even larger than the original urban core. Dantu, a new area of Zhenjiang, commands 748 sq km. Chenggong, Kunming’s flagship new district, is 461 sq km. Tianjin’s Binhai is a collassal 2,270 sq km. While Chengdu’s Tianfu and Suzhou’s SIP come in at 1,578 sq km and 288 sq km respectively. Over the past fifteen years the size of Shanghai has increased nearly sevenfold. Even the relatively minor Changzhou in Jiangsu province recently received approval from the central government to absorb another 1,872 sq km of surrounding farm land, which is larger than London, and this is in addition to its Wujin new district, which is nearly the size of Los Angeles.

To be fair, while these incredibly huge new areas are classified as being urban, that doesn’t mean they’re fully city-like — at least not yet anyway. In China, the term “city” is an administrative designation, and basically just means that a certain area is under the jurisdiction of a municipal level government. (To provide an accurate view, the maps in this story that show some of China’s new districts superimposed over Western cities only show only the built-up or actively developing parts of these newly urbanized areas).

View attachment 295221
A render of Xi’an’s Chan-Ba new area. This is all being built from scratch.

These new areas are often provisioned with all the amenities and necessities that a 21st century Chinese city demands, and are in every way a “city 2.0” type of upgrade project. Rather than completely demolishing and reworking the often outdated or under-planned designs of the historic core, the idea is to start over from scratch on a completely blank canvas of land nearby. These new areas tend to have wide roadways that are designed to accommodation masses of personal automobiles, lavish parks and monuments, a premium stock of luxury and middle class housing, high-quality office space, gargantuan new headquarters for the local government, and are well-connected to the new logistical and transportation grid of the country. These new urban expanses are often attempt to engineer-out many of the pitfalls of the cities they are meant to improve upon — they are places for middle and upper class residents who tire of the crowds, pollution, and unsuitable urban designs of the old city to escape to.

Likewise, China’s well-positioned and/or heavily invested-in new areas are often poised to out-compete the historic cores they are built next to. Ideally, once the initial stages of development are completed on a large scale new town a gravitational pull will begin drawing in the trendiest retail outlets, companies looking to upgrade their office space, the best schools and medical facilities, and posh residents looking to live by the newest and best shopping mall. In a very real sense, these place really can become new city centers.

View attachment 295222
The built-up part of Kunming’s Chenggong new district superimposed over London. Image: Warner Brown/Google/MapFrappe.

This model for development has created an old city/ new city dichotomy across China, which is perhaps no better exemplified than in Zhengzhou. With the intention of building a “national central city,” the party leaders of Henan Province and Zhengzhou, its capital, sought to expand and modernize their city. What they did was almost incomprehensible outside of the context of China: they added on a 150 square kilometer new district (larger than San Francisco) which effectively doubled the city’s size. They called it Zhengdong New Area, and developed it in six distinct parts: an extravagant CBD, a logistics zone that includes a high-speed rail station, a giant residential area, a university town, a science park, and two high-tech industrial parks. The new district provided over 3 million sq meters of new office space, 400,000 housing units to live or invest in, dozens of shopping malls, golf courses, European-style neighborhoods, and just about anything else China’s middle and upper classes could desire.

Although many international media sources erroneously claimed it to be a “ghost town” during its initial stages of development, Zhengdong is now vying to become the new heart of the city and is already the financial capital of Henan province. Fifteen major banks, including HSBC, have their regional headquarters there, which process 70 percent of deposits and 60 percent of all loans in the province. Fifteen universities are also in operation, bringing in 240,000 students and staff. According to a May 2014 “On The Ground” report by Standard Chartered Bank, occupancy in the new area more than doubled since 2012, rising to more than 60 percent. Foxconn has a 120,000+ worker factory there. Zhengdong has also since expanded to 260 sq kilometers and there are plans in the works to extend it out to 500 sq kilometers by 2020, as Zhengzhou quickly merges with Kaifeng into one of China’s 10 proposed mega-regions.

View attachment 295223
Zhengdong over New York City. Image: Warner Brown/Google/MapFrappe.

Why this is significant is because these new areas are the places in China where the new business opportunities are arising and where large amounts of money is flowing into. It’s not just about developing a new area full of land and real estate that can be sold but about creating a new gravitational pull to get people, businesses, and public institutions to come in and take advantage of what’s being offered. The municipal, and in some cases central, governments of China are often instrumental in triggering this transition, and will ship in new universities, state owned enterprises, banks, and give incentives (tax breaks, free rent) to private companies to move in.

Chengdu’s Tianfu New Area is now producing one out of every five desktop computers and two out of three iPads in the world, while Tianjin’s Binhai New Area now has 57 Fortune Global 500 companies and Suzhou’s SIP (Suzhou Industrial Park) has 91. Once the ball is rolling on a new district market forces tend to take over, as one time backwaters become new city centers — into the places that will tell the future of China.
Im sorry ... IF Xi can not doing his job very well to solve internal troubles left in the Party from last ten years ... there's not China 2.0, there's only USSR 2.0 ... im sorry, i already see "Boris Yeltsin" appeared in the Party. Today CCP meeting a big trouble from inside since 1949 ... internal division & losing trust from grass-roots level, well like the end of 1980s of CCCP.

2016 is the critical year for CCP and China, not for China city. And we clearly know what's the 2.0 for China if CCP lost herself in China.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom