As someone who works in the planning and urban design field the real issues are private property and heritage. China doesnt care about either. The UK cares too much. The answer is of course somewhere in the middle. Lets not forget most of the UKs existing infrastructure (including railways, roads, canals) was built on private property and through heritage items too, just in a different environment where this was easier to do.
Where there is clear wider community benefit, IMO consultation should be relatively narrow ('we will build this but if small changes can provide major benefit please make sure we know about them and we should be held to account in planning for them') however compensation should be generous. Few heritage items should be sacrosanct however not many will be affected and losses in heritage should be compensated by greater heritage contributions elsewhere (eg money for conserving heritage items on the at risk register). It really shouldnt have to be so controversial if the right systems are in place. We have to plan for the future and this should not be questionable...
Rule of law, labour practices and corruption-free practices arent incompatible with these projects.
I'm always amazed when I see more detail about the UK's canals. They are individually quite small (e.g. when you go for a walk) but the national network is huge. One day when I can take a sabbatical, I'm going to try and navigate from one end of the country to the other on them.
I think this analysis fails to consider the effects of timelines of development, population and history.
The chinese revolution led to complete overhaul of the property system, land ownership and land reform from the 50s.
Being developed countries a lot of development happened in a different era in most western countries when the rules, environmental awareness and current standards just didn't exist. China is doing it now. It's a completely different ball game.
China is a huge country compared to most european countries and has more than 1.3 billion people. Its unlikely the things that apply to Europe or the US will apply here.
Where there is clear wider community benefit, IMO consultation should be relatively narrow ('we will build this but if small changes can provide major benefit please make sure we know about them and we should be held to account in planning for them') however compensation should be generous. Few heritage items should be sacrosanct however not many will be affected and losses in heritage should be compensated by greater heritage contributions elsewhere (eg money for conserving heritage items on the at risk register). It really shouldnt have to be so controversial if the right systems are in place. We have to plan for the future and this should not be questionable...
Rule of law, labour practices and corruption-free practices arent incompatible with these projects.