By JIALEI TANG, 3/20/2016. After the insightful seminars held last weekend, I find myself asking new questions on my research and navigating it in new directions.
Instead of trying to uncover the program adjacency of a village that may be developed into a steel-clad city like Shenzhen, why not look to urban developments that successfully retains their architectural heritage? This steered me to consider a comparative study of cities such as Shenzhen; Guangzhou and Suzhou; Hangzhou.
The former two are cities most recognized for their skyscrapers and rapid development. On the other hand, while the latter pair are also considered urban, their emblem as a protected heritage site allowed for a more considered urban growth pattern in which their vernacular architecture are retained.
Suzhou, a prefecture-level city, is protected with a UNESCO World Heritage Site seal. Similarly, Hangzhou, a sub-provincial division, is unanimously acknowledged for its landscape and architectural beauty. Both are economically strong. According to China Knowledge, Suzhou’s GDP “increased by 9.6% year on year to RMB 1.3 trillion, ranking first in Jiangsu province.” in 2013. The same year, Hangzhou’s GDP “rose 8.0% to RMB 834.35 billion, ranking first in Zhejiang Province.” The stellar achievements of these two “culture hometowns” (“文化之乡”) suggest that steel-glass buildings are not the required hardware for economic success.
On the other hand, Guangzhou and Shenzhen are economically hubs which lack, at least architecturally, the preservation of history and heritage. I wish to find out more if this is the case.
While studying the two pairs I will not only consider their administrative status, but also their economic and social developments. What I am interested in is the growth pattern of a place, village or town or rural are, into a “city” — a functional, accessible, integrated habitat. Furthermore, is an official recognition, such as a UNESCO World Heritage Site label, is necessary for a place to protect its tangible cultural assets in face of urban development. Prof. Mary O’Donnell brought up Lijiang during our chat. It is the first place in China to receive UNESCO’s designation as a World Heritage Site. Yet, the influx of tourism has raised several economical and social problems such as gentrification. It is also here where I question what it means to be a city and whether cities can be grown organically. In other words, whether a place can develop into a city while taking into account its regional characteristics and preserving them. This is because these characteristics are attributed to the lifestyle and livelihood of the locals.
This evokes a secondary questioning: what power do and should the locals have over the development of their homes? In China, the development plans are almost exclusively in the hands of the administration. I want to find how much consideration is given to the people. As Prof. O’Donnell mentioned in the seminar, success in China is defined as the legitimacy of the government. The legitimacy of the government lies in securing the people’s lives. How this is achieved or defined remains to be investigated.
References