Easy answer: no.<p>The US is 81% urbanized.<p>And here's a comparative chart of PPP per capita vs urbanization: <a href="https://theaspiringeconomist.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/urbanisation-and-income-per-capita-in-asian-countries/" rel="nofollow">https://theaspiringeconomist.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/urbani...</a><p>China's per-capita PPP is about 12-13k, so doing the obvious extrapolation gets you a 65-70% urbanization rate (as opposed to the article's claim that a 60% target is 'too high').
> A good step would be a program to deliver clean water to the hundreds of millions of Chinese who currently lack it.<p>Fair point.<p>> Another would be a national plan to control urban floods, like those that have afflicted central and southern China in recent weeks.<p>Uhm... This is not a simple task. When dealing with natural disasters, you can only do so much to control it, and countries rather focus on the mitigation of the effects. You cannot just "control floods" in China or "control hurricane" in the US context.<p>> Finally, the government needs to reform the antiquated "hukou" permit system that prevents rural migrants from easily acquiring the rights and services that their urban counterparts are entitled to.<p>It is already happening. Give it a few years.
China is trying hard to spread out its urbanized population to more cities. Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong/Shenzhen/Guangzhou/Dongguan are just too crowded. But it's not a "back to the land" movement; it's about moving more people and industries to other cities, some of them newly built.<p>Of course, most people want to be in the big cities because that's where the money and good jobs are.
Considering the efforts China takes to prevent people from moving into cities from the countryside I'd say they've not reached any sort of natural bound.