July 24 (Bloomberg) -- As recently as July 1, cattle apparently grazed in the fields intended for the world’s tallest skyscraper in the rural outskirts of Changsha, in China’s Hunan province. That wasn’t the original plan: Sky City, as the concept is known, was scheduled for completion earlier this year after a mere 90 days of construction.
Understandably, few people inside or outside China believed such a deadline was possible. It wasn’t. Work never even started on the project, which was delayed in part by the government-approval process.
So on Saturday afternoon, when Zhang Yue -- chairman of the Changsha-based Broad Group, which is developing Sky City and, for what it’s worth, owns a pyramid in the Hunanese countryside -- touched down on the alleged construction site in his helicopter, reporters and microbloggers took notice. The occasion was the long-delayed Sky City groundbreaking, and Zhang made up for his own 10 minutes of tardiness with a dash across the fields to the podium for his big announcement.
The building, he explained, will be built from prefabricated steel and concrete modules, and will rise 202 stories. That will make it 838 meters (2,749 feet) high, as previously planned -- 10 meters higher than Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s current tallest building. It will come complete with malls, residences, schools, a hotel, a hospital and a vertical garden sufficient to feed 30,000 residents. It will also be capable of sustaining a magnitude-9 earthquake. Sky City, July 2013 edition, will apparently require a modest nine months and 5.25 billion renminbi (roughly $850 million) to complete. Burj Khalifa took five years and $1.5 billion. But if any developer deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cost and timetables, it might be Zhang: Last year, his company built a prefabricated 30-story hotel in 15 days. Sky City will be built using the same energy-saving methods.
Despite the project’s ambition and its potential to be a model of fast, sustainable development, it has met with quite a bit of skepticism. This is to be expected: The current Chinese economic slowdown, combined with a host of empty mega shopping malls and newly built “ghost towns,” has sapped the public’s taste for ostentation on the part of real-estate developers (many of whom are widely presumed to have unsavory connections to local government officials).
On Sina Weibo, China’s most popular microblogging platform, such skepticism has at times turned in an apocalyptic direction. On Sunday, Jiang Ruxiang, a Beijing-based management consultant and frequent commentator on economic and business issues for Chinese television, offered this over-the-top message: “An economic crisis is coming! 838 meters tall, 5.25 billion yuan! Offices on the 6th to 15th floors, apartments of different sizes on the 16th to 170th floors. Hotels on the 171st to 202nd floors. U.S., Japan and Dubai all built ‘tallest’ buildings before their economic crises. China is not an exception. Take care, Chinese companies! Economic crisis is coming!”
Jiang may not be an irrefutable scholar of architectural history, but his general point has been floating around Chinese newspapers and social media for weeks, as rumors of Sky City’s resuscitation circulated. On June 10, journalist Chen Zhilong, more negative than most, went so far as to post on Sina Weibo that Chinese history has been dogged by a “magnificent buildings curse,” whereby the construction of grand works like the Great Wall spurred human resentment and divine retribution. “As offspring, we mourn the collapse of a dynasty, but never learn from it,” he wrote.
China’s newspaper commentators -- many of whom write for Communist Party-owned venues -- aren’t quite ready to cite Sky City as evidence that the country is due for divine retribution. They also don’t exactly share Zhang’s enthusiasm for skyscraper innovation. This is somewhat new: For years, China’s news media have been slavish boosters of the country’s pursuit of bigger and faster (if not better) infrastructure, buildings and events, uncritically promoting them as symbols of the country’s economic and diplomatic ascendance. The privately developed Sky City hasn’t enjoyed such praise.
Rather, the project appears to have become a convenient symbol of everything wrong with China’s pursuit of international recognition at the expense of more sensible development. On Sunday, the official Weibo account of People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, offered a cautionary voice when it posted, “As China urbanizes, blindly opposing skyscrapers isn’t rational. But neither should we worship these increasingly high landmarks as if they’re totems.”
Likewise, on Monday, Wang Qi, writing for People’s Daily Online, distilled these undercurrents into a piece of social criticism that stretches far beyond Zhang’s 202 stories: “The obsession with being number one is actually a manifestation of a lack of confidence. For example, in Europe and the U.S., no matter how vigorous their economies, they don’t madly pursue ‘the tallest building.’ The reason is that their strength does not need to be proved via ‘the tallest building’ and ‘the largest project,’ because they’ve already won the respect and admiration of small countries.”
This sensible utilitarianism is laudable. It is also too late and arguably misguided -- at least in the case of Sky City. Unlike many of China’s other super-tall skyscrapers that are under construction, Sky City is a vanity project that, if successful, could transform high-rise construction into a more sustainable enterprise that uses less construction materials to achieve super-tall results. That’s a big, mostly untested “if,” with the potential to turn into further delays, a debacle or something much worse. As one Shanghai-based Weibo user posted Monday: “You can read the news in a few years: World’s tallest building collapsed.”
(Adam Minter, the Shanghai correspondent for the World View blog, is writing “Junkyard Planet,” a book on the global recycling industry.)
To contact the author of this article: Adam Minter at ShanghaiScrap@gmail.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Zara Kessler at firstname.lastname@example.org.