Talk:Kangbashi District

District

Which administrative division is this in? It's strange that it's status as a sub-district is given, but it's not stated which administrative division of the city this subdistrict is in. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's a district but I can't find a source right now. The infobox and the History section both call it a district. It's not listed at Ordos City, which I thought it was part of, but there is a separate section for it in that article. So now I don't know what it is. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you find out, let me know. Perhaps it's a newly elevated district which is why it wouldn't be on the Ordos City map on that city's page. In either case, this should be rather simple for someone who reads Chinese to find out so we can correct this on all pages. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Ordos City web site says "The total area of the city is 87 thousand square Kilometers, with 7 Banners, 1 district (Dongsheng District) and the Kangbashi New District." Maybe a "new district" is district-level but is considered distinct from a "district"? I've always found the Chinese administrative structure very confusing. 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reading a bit more of the website, I found this:

" In order to realize the development of “small city, great industries”, the Municipal Party Committee and the City Government of Ordos come to the idea of expanding Ordos city to a bigger city with three districts---Dongsheng, Kangbashi and Azhen, enjoying a population of 1 million..."

Sounds to me both Kanbashi and Azhen were either carved out of one of the banners or Dongsheng, itself, and are simply new districts. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

District Part II

Someone changed this page to say that this is now a district without offering any citation, and just days after I added a part about how it's a subdistrict split between the district and banner. Citation? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

See, MCA - 国函〔2016〕102号 it officially became a district on 8 June 2016. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 05:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Name

is Kangbashi (one word). Apart from the running text and articles already being used by the page, Google Scholar provides several hundred articles using it versus roughly 8 that use the two-word form. — LlywelynII 01:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Needed Updates and Should it even be called a Ghost City in the first place?

Pointing at a spanking brand new city less than 5 years old and saying it’s a "ghost city", is silly. A stereotypical ghost town is previously a heavily populated town that becomes abandoned and depopulated..however this is a city that is simply new, has a rapidly growing population and also should have its current improved status, updated by now. The jury is still out on this, but seeing that many "ghost cities" a decade ago are now populated and thriving after 2 to 3 decades from birth. Whenever they do fill up, become a thriving metropolis, they no longer become news or updated on Wikipedia. On this article, it only gives narratives and clear impression it's a ghost city and no counter arguments, and only showing outdated and narrow contextual articles supporting that claim of a ghost town.

Is it even appropriate in using a now questionable paper to cement that diagnosis of "ghost city" as the core official understanding for Kangbashi District on wikipedia? It would be warranted to have a proper fair discussion over it.

Below are quoted statements.

Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/06/30/ordos-chinas-most-infamous-ex-ghost-city-continues-rising/

"...It was in Ordos Kangbashi, in fact, that the Chinese ghost city narrative was born. In 2009, an Al Jazeera reporter reputedly stumbled into the new city by accident while reporting on another story. Although there were roughly 30,000 people living in Kangbashi at that time, she called the place “empty” and dismissed it as a ghost town. This narrative spread through the various media channels of the world like a brush fire in a dry summer. The story fed the West a validation many seemed to have been grasping for: that the rise of China was a hoax, that the country was cooking the books on their gaudy GDP growth numbers, that the “awakened dragon” hype amounted to little substance.

...What was completely missed in the analysis of this initial report was that when Al Jazeera visited, Kangbashi was a mere five years old. This means that a massive section of an entirely new city was built and partially populated within half a decade. In a world where it takes Germany over 25 years to plan and build a single airport, or where the Empire State Building was once despairingly monikered the “Empty State Building” for its lack of tenants during its first decades after construction, and where it regularly takes western cities five to ten years to build civil works projects like monorails or new subway lines, Ordos Kangbashi probably should have impressed the world with its rapid pace of development. Instead, it was mocked as a ghost city.

However, in 2017, the ghost city label is getting more than a little difficult to hang on Ordos Kangbashi. According to a recent report, there are now 153,000 people living there, 4,750 businesses are now in operation, and housing prices have risen roughly 50% on average from the end of 2015, when the local real estate market bottomed out. Of the 40,000 apartments that had been built in the new district since 2004, only 500 are still on the market."

You guys can argue on whether to even call it a ghost city or not on wikipedia. Given its age and updated improving status and the term "ghost city" really meant not to be populated ever and going downhill despite it has been improving significantly every year. I think that's a very unfair one sided term to smear a city on wikipedia and obviously the 2017 report should be included too.

14.202.177.65 (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)