Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 20

A developing city and its old, cheap apartments

A city is undergoing modernization and there are many new apartment buildings going up in and around it.

Historically, how does this affect the old, small, cheap apartments in the city center? Years later, do they seem less valuable in light of the new ones? Is the overall result a more valuable city making the apartments more valuable. Excluding other considerations, what typically happens? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Gentrification 131.251.254.154 (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

How many "years later"? These things are cyclical. The inner-city apartments of many cities are more valuable now than a generation ago. Also, where? Paris has a densely populated, mostly prosperous core, and a surrounding banlieue with a large degree of poverty. Many US cities still have poor people downtown and richer ones in the suburbs, but that's changing, see Granola Shotgun on e.g. "retrofitting suburbia". The US has a completely different "donut effect" than the British model. (Economist article on inner city revival, suburban decline in Britain.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Years later", people often start to like the more generously proportioned and/or charming and/or quirky old apartments again, apartment buildings that have become run down might get restored to their former glory and sold at very high prices. In cities with lots of high rise towers, old low rise apartment buildings often start to command a hefty premium. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carbon Caryatid and PalaceGuard008. I'm talking about maybe ten years later and am referring to the Chinese city of Haikou. China is an odd place in that the people here do not like charming, quirky apartments. They also do not refurbish or restore much. The places just get more and more run down. Also, most apartments are owned, not rented. Plus, prices normally do not drop much because there are few distressed sellers with mortgages. Also, if they can't get the price they want, they do not sell at market value, whatever that is. They just stubbornly do not sell. Volume just drops. I guess this is a hard one to guess at, eh? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, I have never been to Haikou and I can see that things may well be very different in smaller cities in China. But certainly in the big metropolises like Shanghai, the old apartment buildings (both the European-style and/or modernist buildings from the 1920s and 30s and also even the better quality Soviet-style blocks from later) in the city centre attract a hefty premium compared to new high rises. But China is a big place and I should hesitate to generalise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi PalaceGuard008. The old, small, cheap apartments are not stylish, but maybe will end up desired anyhow. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't exclude other factors, specifically, the supply versus demand:

• If the new apartments were built because of a shortage of housing, and they haven't been able to fill the shortage, then older apartments will also go up in value.

• If the new apartments created an oversupply, then the prices on other apartments will go down dramatically, as people will presumably prefer the newer, also cheap, apartments. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. There is a huge surplus. They are building way more than demanded right now. I think it is because the banks have been told to lend lend lend to developers to keep the economy going. Sometimes it seems that the 7% growth rate is mainly due to construction of residential and commercial space that nobody needs. I sure hope the sink and kitchen and tile businesses, etc. keep things going after the construction stops. Just to fill you in more: The older apartments are typically cheaper per square foot because they are "second hand" and nobody likes second hand anything in China. And as I said above, prices never seem to drop because of the high percentage of people who don't take out mortages. They refuse to sell cheap. They'd rather just sit on the place, as many do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like all the ingredients are there for huge drop in prices of the older apartments. As for the owners refusing to lower the price in order to sell, I'd expect that when the inevitable recession or depression does hit, they will no longer have a choice, as they will need whatever money they can get, and the resulting price war will send prices into a death-spiral. What you describe makes the Chinese economy sound quite unsustainable. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. You may well be right. It is so hard to figure out here. There is a huge push to convert to an internal, consumer economy. And yes, inevitable recession or depression. Capitalism always ends in tears. I suspect it will abandon China. Then the next poorest countries (African?) will be the new manufacturing centres. Oh, and another thing about property: Chinese people love it more than anything! In the countryside, they put all their cash (pensions often) into building a huge cement box of a house. Inside, stools and plastic chairs. Little else. Second and third floors empty. They are just happy to have the sq meters in their posession. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that to survive long-term, capitalism requires true democracy. In any system, those who run the government will find a way to steal money from the rest (this is why I advocate direct democracy), but in a (non)representative democracy there are limits on this, as they eventually get voted out of office. So, they can steal millions of dollars, but probably not billions. However, under an authoritarian state, they can just steal more and more, and execute anyone who complains, until they are stealing billions a year and severely damaging the economy. Also, poor economic decisions cause leaders to be removed from office in a democracy, but not in China or Russia (Russia is allegedly a democracy but Putin just changes the rules to stay in power). See kleptocracy. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Give a call, what about Bernie's own opinion? What's that guy ? A Socialist ? --Askedonty (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the problem with representative democracy is that any one person, even the President, can't overcome the desire of the majority of those in government to enrich themselves at the expense of the general population. So, for example, if Bernia became President and introduced bills to do any of the things he promised, they would be dead on arrival in Congress. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

StuRat, I didn't know capitalism and democracy could co-exist. :)

But the big problem is maybe not governments stealing. It is corporations. In the US, how much is given from the government to companies related to the military and security? And with the help of governments, how much do the wealthy and their corporations get out of paying their fair share?

And you talk of governments and democracy. Where is the democracy in the workplace? We hear how US is so democratic, but it simply isn't for most people most of the time. Most of their waking hours are spent in an undemocratic work environment. The elites, via education and the media, have convinced people that if not capitalism, then communism. Both are terrible. It is the word Marxism, where the workers control the profits, that is keep off the list of choices. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There are co-ops and worker/union-owned businesses. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Does gentrification shed any light on this? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi TammyMoet. I'm not sure that is what is happening in Haikou. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sievern and Johann Andreas Wagener in South Carolina

I read about Johann Andreas Wagener, who emigrated from Sievern in the Kingdom of Hanover to South Carolina in 1831. He was mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, and founded Walhalla, South Carolina, according to the article.

I also saw that there is an article Sievern and Knoxville Railroad. It's about a railroad line from Batesburg, South Carolina, to Sievern, South Carolina. I looked for information about the place "Sievern, South Carolina" on the Internet, but there is hardly anything except for the information that the railroad ended there. By looking at some maps I learned that there is a place called Seivern that fits the distance of "about 17.5 miles" between Batesburg and Sievern.

Do I assume correctly that this is the same place? Is there any information whether the place was named after Wagener's birthplace and when it happened? Is there any explanation for the spelling change? Is there any information about the history of the place? --::Slomox:: >< 15:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Found it using some google-fu. Some sources call it "Selvern" perhaps because of confusing "i" with "l", but based on some searches, it seems to be a location northwest of Wagener, South Carolina. You can find it on this Google Maps search, located Northwest of Wagener, at the intersection of SC Highway 73 and New Holland Road. --Jayron32 16:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)