虽然文章来源于《卫报》——一个新闻业知名机构，如果不是刻意而为之，一些细微之处的错误还是会由于疏忽而发生。这些错误很有可能会造成重大的误解。我并不是故意挑刺。“据当地媒体报道，今年2月北京的平均房价几乎上涨了10%“这句话的意思是在二月份28天之内，房价平均上涨了10%。但是事实上根据中文的报道（http://house.sina.com.cn/scan/2007-04-22/1029186928.html）和英文的报道（http://www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Mar/163343.htm），这个增长是针对去年同期水平相比较得出的。如果读者只读了《卫报》上的文章，这一信息将会造成很大的误解。而我个人读到这里也感到很震惊。

我本身似乎并不太适合评论如此极端奢侈的消费，就像钢铁大亨米塔尔1亿2千8百万美元的交易和卡塔尔外交部长Sheikh Hamad高达1亿英镑的消费水平与一般水平的房产买卖不可同日而语一样。

显然简陋的维护和任其暴露在拥挤的北京市中心并不是保护胡同和四合院的好办法。商业交易能提供良好的经济来源，这是一种对政府和个人都能起到鼓励作用的办法。但是重点在于人们对其历史价值的认可，还有对制度规范的决心。至少现在人们正以不同的形式来保护这种文化，这是我们很高兴看到的。

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

谢谢沃茨先生对老胡同和四合院消亡的关注。但是你的文章中几处有误导之嫌，我认为有必要澄清。你文中提到的以破纪录的1.1亿元人民币成交的房产并不是中国人民收入增加的结果，而是国际游资淘金热的产物，这套房产的买主是一位俄罗斯百万富翁，并不是中国人。尽管总售价高，这也不能算历史新高：仅仅是3万元（2000英镑）一平米，而这不是普通住宅房，它占地3000平米，将被建成三万平方英尺（包括一个下沉式休闲中心和一家电影院）。据我所知，那个区域（皇家园林）的平均房价现在是每平米5万元，所以对皇家宅院而言他付这个价钱实际上是很便宜的。

另外我不太同意你说的，住在四合院的穷人得像演员一样住着，另一些人则不得不搬出去而将房子卖给富人。大多数房产属国有，这是国家从始于1920年代的那代皇室手中继承下来的。任何具有清晰归属的房产都可以卖给有财力并愿意照看这些房产的人。划入这一类别的房产不足3000处。四合院的平均寿命在70-100年，现在很多房子都处于危险期，既没有自来水也没有卫生间，只有那些农村移民和很穷很老的人们才能忍受这样的条件继续生活在四合院里。一个三口之家的平均居住面积在15平米。拥有稳定工作和收入的人们买得起现代的公寓，他们在很早以前就全部搬出去了。现在住在那里的人多半是转租户，并不真正拥有房子的所有权。任何意愿买方都必须在市中心为每家置办至少两室户的公寓房，一家一间房，一个四合院一般住10家或者更多，这意味着买家要支付1000万元以上来清空一个200平米居住面积100平米院子的小四合院。这就是为什么老四合院只可能被超级富豪买去，一般来讲他们都不是当地的中国人，而多半是海外华人或者外国人。去年10月举行了首次四合院拍卖会，其间80%的出价者都是住在北京的西方人。很多曾经被政府机构占据的四合院现在都要清空了。我只希望买了房子的人都能遵照法律法规用合适的材料和方法来对老房子进行重建。最近，我知道东城区政府出资2亿元人民币对该区的最薄弱区域进行维护和修缮。很多占据着四合院的居民都不是合法的所有者，所以他们不愿意花钱改良，只寄希望于有人花大价钱把房子买去。在花钱让这些人们搬出去以后，买主还要付一笔钱给政府并支付很多税费。四合院问题是个大大的两难问题：政府无法从房租（很低的类似每月10英镑的房租）和房屋税（中国不对公民征收房屋税和其他税费）中得到足够的收入用于四合院的合理维护，而住在里面的住户又不认为他们有责任维护这些生活了三十年的房产（大多数是从70年代早期的文化大革命时期开始的）。这就是为什么唯一的解决方案就是卖给富人并由他们出钱修缮。这两年来我修过一座，所有材料都是古老而传统的，我建房子没用一颗螺丝钉和一点混凝土，所有的工匠都是“自由泥瓦匠”，与世界文化遗产中国办公室和中国文化遗产研究所一起，没有蓝图却建出了老北京最漂亮的房子。我会尽我所能建更多的四合院。努力保护北京的中国文化遗产，我不是唯一一个人，还有很多人都和我一样，他们愿意耗尽精力和金钱来让四合院活下去，并变得更好。再次感谢你，沃茨先生。

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.