In general, economic factors are the main determinant of where people live. Working people move to where the jobs are, or the pay is better e.g. in recent years from Poland to Britain, especially the London area. But the opposite is partly true as well: new or changed businesses flourish in cities because that's where people live so that's where the market is. Most businesses need urban infrastructure around them -- roads, sewers, banks, telecoms, media, contacts, advertisers, print shops, vans for hire etc etc.
If by "commercial" you mean (retail) shops, these tend to gather in city centres -- or in large malls easily accessible to many city residents. "Industrial" activities, as in factories and workshops.... in the modern world this is often where labour is cheap but reasonably well educated e.g. China, Thailand, India. The more sophisticated the industrial process, i.e. the more specialised, the more knowledge-intensive, the more likely it is to be in the West.
You've got the HK story basically right. Before China began to open up in 1978, there was plenty of manufacturing in HK, much of it in small backstreet workshops, especially Kowloon side and in the (flat and lower land cost) New Territories between Kowloon and the border. When China opened Shenzhen, HK firms seized the opportunity to transfer basic manufacturing to lower-labour-cost Shenzhen while keeping support services, design, finance etc in Hong Kong. It was a new opportunity that had previously been prevented by politics (the border). The specialisation -- of Hong Kong into activities like design and finance and things requiring the use of English, and China proper into manufacturing -- is a natural consequence of borders open to the free movement of goods, money, and services. It works even better when there is some freedom of labour to move too (work permits). "Free trade", as economists call it, makes people better off on both sides of the border(s) traded across, because they can specialise in what they are most efficient at and exchange the fruits of their work.
Cities function by making or doing something that covers the cost of bringing in what they don't make and do for themselves. Some large cities, such as Chicago, have a pretty broad economic base, but many are somewhat specialised. London, for example, has lots of people working in finance, lots in administration (most British company headquarters as well as governmnet are in London) and media; it has plenty of shops and some manufacturing. But it has almost no agriculture, most of everything Londoners eat is brought in from elsewhere, and most of the manufactured goods they buy also, along with the wrappers and the plastic dustbins they put their rubbish in, which is then taken out and dumped on someone else's land (for a fee, of course).
Some cities are very specialised, for example Salzburg in Austria lives almost entirely by tourism, as do many other cities round the world. Zurich really does make a lot of its living from its Swiss banks and insurance companies.
So, no, a city doesn't have to "have all three" to be able to economically function, it just needs to have, or rather to produce and create, things that others pay for. In practice, though, any city will have residents, otherwsie it isn't really a city is it; and will have some commerce that serves the residents and those who live outside the city but within range of it. Even a modest-sized third-world city like Thohoyandou in the Venda district of S Africa has a huge central market that people from many parts of Venda sometimes shop in. But some cities do not have industry, and quite a few have very little.
2007-01-04 04:21:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by MBK 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have no idea to help you in the region you speak of, but I do know that some basic idea is the same about everywhere, although the theory around how areas are created can change dramatically based largely on population, socioeconomics and general cultural stuff.
First you need to separate out the various real estate: End user Residential, Commercial includes: retail, office, institutional (hospitals, etc) industrial and then raw land and municipal land (owned by the city town, etc for services, parks, etc.)
Residential building comes before all other in most settings. Sometimes a large business will move into a rural area and that will spur residential building and then support office, retail and maybe some expanded institutional.
Any thinking area will have a land use plan that plays out almost as written in some form or fashion.
The other thing you mentioned was where will the industrial areas go. These are not pretty sites and cities generally don't want them flagrantly in the heat of things. They are generally around airports and large transportation routes.
There is so much to be said here. You may benefit from visiting a planning office where you are and get some more specific info or feel free to email me.
2006-12-31 16:48:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by donewiththismess 5
·
0⤊
0⤋