I cannot imagine a future in which concrete blocks are the "preferred way of living" for human beings. I do not think large houses and back yards are an American cultural trait. For ten thousand years, humans have not lived in concrete apartments. Villages were not built like high rises. Towns were not built like high rises. Historical cities were not built like high rises. High rises, if anything, was the Western invention, not sub-urban life.
For tens of thousand of years humans also lacked clothing and basic nutrition. Is that also a preferred way to live?
If you want to talk about how Chinese people preferred to live historically, you should take a look at the practices of wealthy, historical Chinese families. You'll quickly realize they preferred to live in mansions with gardens (the historical parallel to modern back yards), with several generations under one roof. That better reflects Chinese ideals, than Soviet style apartment blocks designed for small nuclear families (which was also a Western invention).
Indeed. The historical precursor to "suburbs" is the landed gentry, the patricians, the elites who could afford to build vast estates in the countryside. But this lifestyle is also completely inaccessible to most people and more importantly, not necessary. One of the primary reasons why the elites moved to the countryside, was because land was an additional revenue stream for them. It provided additional income.
Migration to "suburbs" isn't driven by a societal recognition that they're better for families. They are an economic phenomena. The reason why Elites move to the countryside is to signal status and to invest into a durable, revenue-generating asset.
The reason why "poor" people lived in "suburbs" is exactly the same. Their rural plot fed them, and/or for post 1950s America, because land per square foot is cheaper/higher quality and work is still accessible. It was an economic tradeoff.
The stuff about kids and backyards is always just a bonus to help rationalize the decision, not the primary driver.
So, if you're concerned about "concrete blocks", don't be. As somebody who did actually spend time growing up in an apartment and a house in a post-Soviet country, I can assure you that I benefitted from a better school in the city, a better hospital, a library, and a lot more kids despite living in a smaller space than in the countryside.
Post was already pretty long so I ommitted it, but I did originally expound on the fact that having a vibrant cultural scene requires a combination of willing upper and middle class patronage that few cities outside the richest ones have access to. Emphasis on willing, because I think of San Francisco and San Jose for example, where the upper and middle class are mostly workaholic engineers with little interest in cultural life, and that's why SF's museums and music venues are dying, while San Jose has no recreational life outside of shopping malls. Today one of the cities in China with the highest concentration of middle class residents is Shenzhen and you'd sooner find someone who has faith in China's soccer team than you would someone who thinks of Shenzhen for its "culture."
Nevermind right now the Chinese economy is slowing and the middle class is reigning in spending, but even in a future scenario where the economy is turbo charged and inland cities can grow in population, you're not going to have what you described just prop up magically. So for all intents in purposes, most Chinese cities outside of the ones I mentioned in my OP will be relatively suburban in character if not necessarily urban layout.
As for the rest of the post, I obviously can't say what all Chinese people's idea of a comfortable living environment exactly constitutes. I can only relate what some have some have said to me about the convenience of raising a family in a single family home compared to an apartment complex and as
@Eventine said, what still drives some Chinese to emigrate to Anglosphere countries. It is probably something to think about in the future as the need to cram as many Chinese into modern housing as quickly possible dissapears and the focus shifts to providing Chinese with a comfortable environment to raise families and build sustainable communities.
Culture is driven by popular engagement. San Francisco and San Jose's museums/music venues are dying is because those things are falling out of fashion. In fact, these things being priced out of working-class budgets is precisely why they are falling out of fashion. I can't even remember the last time I went to a concert because the ticket prices are obscene. I'm not even talking about a Taylor Swift ticket, I just want to see an Indie band or an artist comeback or something, but venue prices are so high that they simply do not make it worth my time.
But anyway, I disagree with your framing. A cultural scene develops when necessities are met and populations scale the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The rason why China's cultural scene is developing so quickly today, is because Chinese people are starting to work less, their bellies are full, and they own their housing.
Conversely, Western populations are increasingly living paycheck to paycheck which has led to a decline in, not just living standards, but cultural development. There's also something to be said about the increasingly digital lives of younger generations... but that's a more complicated topic.
