That I can agree with you, it is not the age of a building that matters, it is how well it is built, how pleasing it is, etc. that matters to the individual. That is why value is subjective.

As I see the issue, though, it is a problem of whether the property is private or collective. Previously collectivized property that was privatized was done so at a cheap price. The consequence of that is the government can now relaim that property (emminent domain) at a cheap price. Privately developed property is now going at a very high price in much of China (a flat in Suzhou a few years ago would go for 200,000 or 300,000 RMB is now going for over a million; prices in Hangzhou, Nanjing, and Qingdao are even higher). These higher prices are quite restrictive. My view is that the farmers are hit the hardest. The farmers do not own the land they farm on, that is owned by the government or some agency of the government. Farmers are not compensated for the land, they do not own the land; they are compensated for the removal of their livlihood.

I recall a story, from the late 50s or early 60s in California. The first school house was still standing, it was in an isolated part of this large ranch owned by an old pioneer stock woman, she may have been in her 60s or 70s. There was a group of people that wanted the State to recognize this first school house, wanted her to open her property up so people could go and see it in its original state and location. She did not like that at all, if they wanted it, they could buy it, take it off her property and do whatever they wanted. But they did not want that, they wanted the State to seize her property, not pay her at all. That old woman, just a day or two before the Assembly was to vote on the measure, got on her horse, rode out to the site, and burned the damn thing down to the ground. I do not favor the state seizing people’s property, whether it be China or the USA. If people want to preserve an old building, let them; if they want to tear it down and build a new, let them.

My point about the old buildings is that just cause their old does not mean they are less safe or somehow worse. There are many nicely retrofitted hutongs in north China.

In China, right now, new construction, outside of a few major “developed” construction companies in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai, is grossly unregulated, corrupt, and shoddy. Poor materials are used, uncertified and untrained architects do design work, and permits are “awarded” based on money, not meeting specifications and following regulations.

Of course development is good, if done right, with the owner’s consent, and without harm to China’s cultural heritage. But much, if not the majority of China’s so-called development, is cheap, fast, and will not last. At least those old buildings can last a few decades or more.

Why tear down “nice” old buildings?

Ry, this is not Social Darwinism, this is State interventionism. There are many who wish to use the power of the State to “improve” the lives of the people, but most such “improvements” turn out to be poor investments.

Concerning these houses, a lot of assumptions are being made, but no data coming forth to support such assumption. I know an American who has purchased such a house (not in that area, though). Housing is privately owned, therefor it is much more complicated, even in China, in determing compensations. Most poor people, when their homes are seized, receive a new home. The real problem is farmers. Farmers do not own the land upon which they farm. Therefor the local organization that has title to the land can sell it at whim, and the farmers (at least in this area) are given two homes, one in which they live and one in which they can rent out, as if anyone would want to rent a apartment when you are surrounded by out-of-work farmers).

Most of the old buildings that I have seen being torned down needed to be torned down. We may wish to romanticize ancient Chinese technology (it was superior to the equivalent technolgoy in many parts of the world at any given time), it was still old technology.