Even China’s population of 1.4 billion would not be enough to fill all the empty apartments littered across the country, a former official said on Saturday, in a rare public critique of the country’s crisis-hit property market.

China’s property sector, once the pillar of the economy, has slumped since 2021 when real estate giant China Evergrande Group (3333.HK) defaulted on its debt obligations following a clampdown on new borrowing.

Big-name developers such as Country Garden Holdings (2007.HK) continue to teeter close to default even to this day, keeping home-buyer sentiment depressed.

As of the end of August, the combined floor area of unsold homes stood at 648 million square metres (7 billion square feet), the latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) show.

That would be equal to 7.2 million homes, according to Reuters calculations, based on the average home size of 90 square metres.

  • @cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nah. China’s urbanization rate is currently 65%. South Korea for comparison has 82% urbanization rate. So the Chinese have plenty more (say, a hundred million or so more) homes to build. The current difficulties are more to do with (i) loss of consumer confidence caused by the leadership’s bad economic management, and (ii) the deliberate restriction of credit to developers because of the government’s concerns about debt.

    This analysis reminds me of the hoo-hah about China’s “ghost cities” circa 2010. Those ghost cities ended up being filled up.

    • @rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      There are still vast ghost cities in that country, so no they don’t actually all fill up

      • @cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Enough of them filled up that even the press outlets that pushed the ghost cities narrative most aggressively, like Bloomberg, have run follow-up stories acknowledging it.

        Yes, some developments worked out and others didn’t, but building out housing in advance of increasing urbanization is a good thing, not a bad thing. It’s how you avoid housing unaffordability in urban centers, or worse, the rise of slums.

        • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Building housing 15 or 20 years ahead of time isn’t a good thing. When people move in, the places are already old. Apartment buildings deteriorate over time even with no one living in them. It’s clearly wasteful to build them that early and there’s definitely a huge property bubble in China.

          • @cyd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -21 year ago

            It’s not 15 or 20 years ahead of time, though. The “ghost cities” came alive within only a few years; for example, this page points to Zhengdong New District, which was singled out as a ghost city by 60 Minutes in 2013. It had a population of 5 million seven years later. For district development (as opposed to constructing a single building), seven years is nothing.

            Coming back to their current property crisis: let’s assume the article is correct that there’s an excess of 7 million homes. We can plug this into China’s current urbanization rate, and suppose China will get to South Korea’s urbanization rate in 20 years (that’s roughly how far they’re behind SK, by GDP per capita). At one home for every 3.5 people, they need 3.4 million homes per year on average. So they have overshot by about 2 years, which is hardly going to make buildings crumble.

      • @Sl00k@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ghost cities are largely American propaganda and most have filled out to well urbanized areas. You can read quite a bit about it on the wiki

        • Lemminary
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Propaganda implies a concerted and deliberate effort. Even your source labels it as media misinformation stemming from gawking curtiosity.