文章 Articles

China’s urban disease (1)

Zhang Song is a Shanghai-based planning professor and urban-preservation expert. In the first half of a two-part interview, he talks to Zhang Chuanwen about the death of vitality in China’s flash new cities.

Article image

Despite the “Better City, Better Life” theme of the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, many argue China’s cities are becoming ever less habitable. Southern Metropolis Daily reporter Zhang Chuanwen discusses the problems facing China’s cities with professor Zhang Song of Shanghai Tongji University’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning (CAUP).


Zhang Chuanwen: For the first time, the theme of the World Expo is “the city”. What does that signify for China?

Zhang Song: China needs to pull together the mistakes made and lessons learned from building cities and look at advanced practices in foreign countries. The Expo has many showy buildings, but it doesn’t seem like any of them will become classics. The former dean of CAUP, Wu Zhiqiang, was the chief planner for the Expo, and at the start of planning proposed a focus on the city rather than landmark buildings.

His proposal for the Expo was to create an “eco-positive” urban concept focused on purifying water, producing energy, increasing greenery and reducing temperatures. Buildings, spaces and landscaping would demonstrate this concept and, at the same time, showcase the latest methods of reducing urban energy and resource consumption. But given the time available for construction, I’m afraid it wasn’t easy to achieve this ideal. Maybe some buildings used some sustainable technology, some energy-saving materials, but the Expo is huge and limited by available funds and technology. So there was a big gap between the original plan and the actual outcome.

The site of the Expo was originally home to hundreds of thousands of square metres of factory space. If that had been made full use of, perhaps things would have been simpler, or have better embodied environmental principles. But, while a few old buildings were kept, the majority were demolished. Outside of China, a huge proportion of large cultural facilities are housed in old buildings. Paris’s bid for the 2008 Olympics included plans to remodel old factories as stadiums. 

China is currently urbanising very rapidly – the number of urban dwellers is approaching half of the country’s total population and there is a significant rural population that is temporarily resident in cities. Despite China’s massive efforts, there are still many problems with cities of all sizes, even in the “New Villages”. There’s a real need for an examination of how urbanisation in China should proceed. 

ZC: Many people complain about unsatisfactory transportation, environment, housing, public facilities and buildings. Many places suffer from congestion and polluted skies. Cities are changing at an incredible pace, with many modern and post-modern buildings appearing, but lacking any sense of intimacy. I fear there is a common feeling of oppression arising from unfamiliarity and dislocation.

ZS: China’s cities are becoming ever less habitable, there’s no debate about that. It’s due to overdevelopment of urban areas.

At the start of reform and opening up, special economic zones such as Shenzhen [a city in south China] were established to boost industry, and planning rules were applied flexibly. This spurred local economies, particularly in industrial development. At that time, it wasn't possible to consider issues like the environment. Some industrial zones might not have given enough consideration to their local environment, but they did promote rapid industrial growth – and so have historical significance.

Since then, large scale rebuilding programmes have transformed the appearance of old cities. For years we neglected preservation of older areas, and so the environment declined and facilities decayed. China’s approach to development is also extremely backward. Developers take a piece of land they believe will be profitable and then completely rebuild it as they see fit. 

If the government’s main function cannot shift toward the social – concentrating on things such as housing provision – then it will be led by the market. Currently, a completely commercialised mode of development is gaining strength and the quality of urban spaces is declining. And, of course, the government makes no small income from land development.

After World War Two, the west also saw many of its old cities rebuilt. The war had left many old houses empty or ruined, and some cities reconstructed these areas or built new areas to solve housing issues and improve the environment of the original city. But in Europe, the United States and Japan, this was done through special legislation, with the state or public companies taking the lead. In Japan, a housing corporation under the construction ministry was responsible – it obtained local government land and used it principally to provide housing.

In China, development was originally carried out by companies owned by the housing authorities, but this has changed, with Hong Kong developers, private corporations and listed companies now taking the lead. Of course, state-owned firms also exist, but market competition and the pursuit of productivity means they act no differently from the others. So China currently has no city with government-led housing provision and, as land becomes more expensive, profits from development increase and house prices go up, the authorities are often left powerless.

ZC: Does the single-minded pursuit of maximum profit mean that China’s cities are bound to be unpleasant to live in? Is there anything we can learn from other countries?

ZS: Why did the west change its approach after a decade or more of large-scale and intense urbanisation? Because it was causing environmental destruction across entire cities. Densely packed, tall buildings were spoiling the ecological balance; and rebuilding old cities was failing to solve transportation pressures, housing costs and unemployment.

They realised what was happening and very quickly shifted policy toward the protection and restoration of old cities, emphasising the reinvigoration of communities and public participation in planning and construction. Protecting and changing the use of old buildings is better for the environment and saves resources and energy – and also touches on hidden issues such as social structure.

ZC: People get the feeling that cities are all identical, that they lack individual characteristics and are just emotionless giants.

ZS: A city isn’t a mechanical thing, but an organic life form with history and culture that needs to grow. The identification of residents with their city is also extremely important. But China views cities as machines to be dismantled and put together at will. That has created numerous problems, including the loss of urban characteristics and a crisis of urban culture. 

Urban-rural planning issues have not been solved at root, and the disparities in economic levels and welfare across cities are increasing. Within cities, social segregation and stratification are intensifying and there is a very clear problem when it comes to identification with cities – residents move too frequently, old areas have been developed and destroyed and the original architecture lost. Many new arrivals cannot integrate into the city and so feel alienated and have no sense of belonging.

There is an expert in Japan who says that, where planning is concerned, the difference between Japan and China is that the Chinese consider things visually – since reform and opening up, China’s metaphorical path has widened, and so the roads in cities have to be wider too. This kind of idea is deeply rooted in the minds of many leaders, with planning often aimed at creating large spaces, restricting or removing the vitality of the city. Beijing is a classic example. Huge roads make it difficult for citizens to get around, and there are major transportation problems. After the reunification of Germany, West German planners found the work of their colleagues over the border to be dehumanising. But when I went I thought it was actually not bad – because our roads are even wider.

Many new districts are even more open, are drawn in even larger strokes. This increases the cost of maintenance. For example, the large lawns running through the middle of Guangzhou [south China] are an example of an artificial environment – maintaining that grass carries a huge annual cost. A good environment will look after itself without a great deal of human intervention and, therefore, will not cost much. Many cities are looking for a quick impact and so they just go for superficial projects.


NEXT: the need for an urban awakening

This article was first published by
Southern Metropolis Daily on May 9, 2010. It is adapted and used here with permission.

Zhang Song is professor and PhD supervisor at Tongji University’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning. In 1996, Zhang was awarded a PhD in urban design and historical preservation from the University of Tokyo. He is also a member of the China Urban Planning Association’s Historical Culture Preservation Committee and Shanghai Building Association’s Historical Building Preservation Committee

Zhang Chuanwen is a journalist at
Southern Metropolis Daily.

Homepage image from Jakob Montrasio

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

更糟的城市,更糟的生活

“古城保护、旧建筑改造利用不仅关系到生态环境、节约资源能源,而且还会涉及社会结构等隐性问题。”的确,这还有利于保存一个地方的历史价值。一个城市的身份除此之外还能表现在什么其它地方呢?在北京,古老、优美的胡同被逐渐拆毁,取而代之的却是丑陋的30层高建筑,慢慢抹除着首都城市的真面目。就如张松教授所说“居民对城市的认同也是非常重要的”。我知道一些事例:从保留地域搬迁出去后,人们发现自己住在离自己生长地数里远的村庄里,而且在寻找自己传统、习俗和人际关系中面临着巨大的问题。城市同样面临如此问题,特别是那些被任意重新规划和重建的城市。中国应学习其它国家过去的错误并明智地进行发展。环境和社会所要担负的代价实在是太高,难以忽略。

Worse city, worse life

“Protecting and changing the use of old buildings is better for the environment and saves resources and energy – and also touches on hidden issues such as social structure.” Certainly, it also helps preserving the historical value of a place. Where does the identity of a city end up otherwise? In Beijing they’re gradually demolishing the old, lovely hutongs to build ugly 30-storey buildings, slowly erasing the true character of the capital. As Zhang says, “the identification of residents with their city is also extremely important.” I know of instances where people, after being relocated from a reservoir area, found themselves living in villages miles away from their native places, and had massive issues in finding their own traditions, habits and relationships. The same applies to cities, especially if so indiscriminately re-planned and re-built. China should learn from other countries’ past mistakes and approach development in a wiser way. The price that environment and society have to pay is too high to be ignored.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

城市化=发展?

无论是奥运会抑或是上海世博会,中国绝对会使出浑身解数让外表看起来更美观的。这就是“城市化”意味着朝“正确”方向发展的思想心态,尽管在开始阶段有讨论过对环境的影响,但很少有成为(发展的)主要目标的。

does urbanisation = development?

Whether it was for the Olympics or the Shanghai Expo, China is definitely all about making things look pretty on the outside. It's the mentality that "urbanisation" means development in the "right" direction and although the effects on environment may be discussed during the beginning stages, it rarely becomes the main goal.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国特色城市规划!

曾看过一部有关广州新地标“小蛮腰”的纪录片,开头就如是说“In crazy constructing China”,言简意赅。住在广州,每天街头都在挖、建、补。就算是建了新的高楼大厦,市中心始终是一团糟,交通堵塞、噪音污染等等。我知道广州政府在努力,这么一座老城要修缮改造是蛮困难的。但是我希望广州的城市规划能够更持久些,保存并妥善保护好其历史特色,重要的是给人民带来良好的人居环境,这才是最重要的。一味的建造新地标,企图用冰冷、后现代的钢筋水泥高楼大厦取代老城、老文化的温婉,是不可取的。非常赞同张松博士的看法:“把城市看作简单的机械,随意拆卸、任意打造,带来了城市特色消失、城市文化危机等众多问题。”生态还要“伪生态”,广州已经投入不少到美化环境上面,但是挖了又补、种了又重种,就不要做不可持续的面子工程了。
Angie, 广州。

City planning with Chinese characteristics

I once saw a documentary on Guangzhou's new landmark, 'Xiaoman Yao.' It opens with the line "In crazy constructing China," brief and to the point. Living in Guangzhou, I see streets being dug up, built or repaired everyday. Even if a new skyscraper was constructed, the city is still a mess, with traffic jams, noise pollution, etc. I know the municipal government has been working hard; to restore and transform this old city is very difficult. But I hope Guangzhou's city planning can be more sustainable, by preserving and protecting its historical features and importantly, by providing people with a good living environment. Blindly constructing a new landmark and attempting to use cold, post-modern steel and concrete buildings to replace the old city and gentle old culture is not desirable. I strongly agree with Prof. Zhang's opinion: "views cities as machines to be dismantled and put together at will. That has created numerous problems, including the loss of urban characteristics and a crisis of urban culture." The environment becomes an "artificial environment". Guangzhou has invested a lot on environmental beautification, digging and repairing, planting and replanting, but don't do unsustainable face-saving projects.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

规划?

中国肮脏的城市建设是一个大问题。每上任一个市长就要修一次路,架一座桥。变个不停的的规划,那还叫规划吗?

A plan?

Impure urban development in China is a big issue. Every mayor who takes office will repair a road, support a bridge. Can an endlessly changing plan still be called a plan?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

以规划为借口,是领导的创新

看多了,这个文章说的早就是事实。这种规划,是领导实现另一种目的的创新方式。
我祈祷自己的乡村不要被变成城市,可上帝会帮我吗?

Using plans as an excuse is the "innovative work" of leaders

Looking closer at this article it can be seen that it speaks the truth. These types of plans are innovative means for leadership to achieve other aims.
I only pray that my village doesn't become a city, but can God help me in this?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

文献上的忠告

祝好运!我们西方几代人都有这个问题,也写出了有关此问题的一些好书。让我来提一个建议:读一读简•雅各布斯写于1963年的《美国城市兴衰史》。在这本书中她也在强调宜居性,并就如何实现提出了几点简单的经验法则:多重用途,密集居住,小街区,保留部分老建筑为不太富裕的人口留出空间,等等。

简•维克伦德

A literature tip

Good luck! We westerners have had these problems for some generations now, and have had time to produce good literature about it. May I recommend the best: Jane Jacpbs' book The death and life of great American cities, from 1963? She is also stressing liveability, and proposes a few simple rules of thumb on how to achieve it: multiple use, density, small blocks, a few aged buildings here and there to give space for non-affluent activities, etc.
Jan Wiklund