Latest comments posted about A threat to old Beijing on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/945-A-threat-to-old-Beijing http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/945-A-threat-to-old-Beijing thank you Watts for your concern about the disapperance of old Hutong and courtyard house. But your article has some misleading information I thought worthing pointing out. the one property you have mentioned in your article was recently sold at a record price 110 millions RMB was not due to the increased income of Chinese people but the goldwn mine hunt of international money, this particular property was bought by an Russian billionare, not a Chinese. Although the total sold price is high, but is not a record price: mere at thirty thousand yuan( 2000 pounds) per square metre, and this house is not an ordinary residential house, which has three thousand squre metres land and will be built up to three thirty thousand square ft( including underground leasure centre and a cinema). as I know, the average price in that particular area(royal lake and park)is now as fifty thousands yuan per square metre, it is actually a bargain for a prince's house like this for the price he has paid. I also don't quite agree with what you said, the poor people lived in the courtyard have to live like actors, otherwise has to move out and sell the house to the rich. Most of the properties belong to the state, who has inherited the properties from the royal court in Beijing since 1920s. Any property with a clear ownership could be sold to any individual who has money and also who is willing to look after those properties. there are less than 3000 propertis fit in this categery. The average life expectancy of an courtyard house is 70 -100 years, now many houses are in an dangerous state which do not have running water and sink, nor WC or bathroom, only those country immgrants and very poor and old people will put up with this kind of conditon to stay in the courtyard house. averagely a family with three people only has 15 square metre to live. For people who have a stable job and money will afford to buy an modern flat, they have all moved out the courtyard long time ago. those who are still living in the courtyard house mostly sublet but don't own the house sublet the properties. any prospective buyer has to buy at least two bedroom flat in the city centre for a family,every room has been occopied by one family, normally one small courtyard has 10 familis or more, it means one has to pay over 10 million yuan to clear a small courtyard which may have 200 square metres living space and 100 square metres courtyard.This is why the old courtyard only could be bought by the super-rich, normally they are not native local chinese, mostly oversea chinese and foreigners. Last October the first auction ever hold for courtyard house, over 80 % tenders were westners who are living in Beijing. Many buildings were occopied by the government bodies now have to be cleared. I only hope any body bought those courtyard will follow the law and regulation to restore the old house with right material and methods. Recently I know the East District Government has spent 200 million RMB to maintain and repair some worst area in the district. many people occopied courtyard are not legal owners, so they would not to pay any money to make the courtyard better, but only hope some body will pay a big money to buy them out. After one paid those people leave the rooms which they don't own, one has to pay a price to the government and a lot of taxes. The courtyard problem is a big deliema here: government do not have enough income from the rent( tiny rent for instace 10 pound for a room a month) and coucil tax( no council tax or any tax for ordinary Chinese in China) to keep courtyard house 's in reasonable condition, and the individuals lived in do not consider they have the resposiblity to maintain the house which they may have lived in for thirty years( mostly from Cultrual revelution time earlier 70s.) this is why the only solution people could see is some people with money will buy them and restore them. I have done one myself in last two years, every piece material was old and traditional, no nails and concret in the building I build, and the builders worked in the "free mason" way who built a most beautiful house without a blue print. working along with the World Heritage Chinese office and Chinese Heritage Institute, i will do my best to build more courtyard house in Beijing. I am not the only one who worked very hard to protect Chinese heritage in Beijing, there are many many people like me, they would spend all their energy and money to keep the courtyard house alive and in better condition. Thank you again Mr.Watts. Wed, 16 May 2007 02:19:42 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/945#comment-3701 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/945#comment-3701 Indeed, the residents at Walled quadrangle residences (siheyuan) of the old beijing are using smelly communal toilets. And they use coal-fired boilers for warming in winters. This is an integral part of Hutong Culture. Even if the wealthy people purchase the residence, or move into it, they are not likely to preserve the old way of living. However, is this anything different than faking antiques? The government should invest in the preservation of Siheyuan, instead of letting them be traded freely by individuals, even foreigners. This is truely the national legacy! This type of trading can only accelerate the loss of culture and history! Decades ago, Liang Sicheng, an architect, and the Lin Huiyin couple had called for the protection of Hutong architecture in the northern area when pulling down the old Beijing wall. What they did was to protect situations like the one happened today. Now, the old Beijing wall is gone. And Hutong, too, is dying. Last time, it was a political fever, while this time, it is for economic benefits. Can't we stay sober in front of our own culture? Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:31:53 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/945#comment-3571 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/945#comment-3571 Although this is originated from Guardian, a big brand in journalism, simple mistake can still slip in from careless journalist, if it is not deliberately, which can make quite different reading. If I am not too nit-picking, the words "According to the local media, average prices in the city increased by almost 10% in February" as well as its Chinese translation means 10% increase in the average property price within the 28 days in February. But the "local" sources, both in Chinese and English suggest that is the increase compared with the same period last year. Chinese: http://house.sina.com.cn/scan/2007-04-22/1029186928.html English: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Mar/163343.htm The message will be hugely misinterpreted if one only read from the Guardian, which caught me totally in shock. I am not in a good position to comment on the polarised luxury consumption like this. Same as the $128 million purchase by the Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal and the £100 million penthouse flat by Hyde Park purchased by Sheikh Hamad, the Foreign Minister of the Gulf State of Qatar, these cannot be used as representatives of normal residential property price. Although there must be better options to preserve Beijing's historical hutong and siheyuan, keeping 3,000 of them in the centre of crowded Beijing with poor maintenance and support seems not very attractive. Commercialise some of them could provide a good financial source and economic incentive to both government and private to preserve the rest of them. But all depends on people's recognition of its unique value to history, culture and community, and our collective determination to preserve them through better regulation. At the very least, I am happy to see the hutong and siheyuan will still be kept in some form rather than being swept up to the past. Tao Wang Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:01:09 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/945#comment-3573 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/945#comment-3573