I have wondered many times how it is that in China, where the government has ultimate authority to turn some of the worlds grandest infrastructure projects into reality, they seem to have been unwilling or unable to take into consideration any sort meaningful urban planning. Cities like Shanghai seem to be be a an endless sprawl of copy and paste sameness. The residential buildings seems to all be a slight variation of the same blueprint, inside and out. Given that local governments make most of their tax money through land sales, and not to speak of all the bribe money local officials can pocket during such transactions, parks and public spaces seem to be regarded as just a missed opportunity to make some extra cash. And really, how are public spaces supposed to be generating GDP anyways?
Here from a WSJ article with thoughts from a Harvard University planning expert Peter G. Rowe and James Brearley who just published the book “Network Cities” and runs a Shagnahi based architecture firm B.A.U..
Peter G. Rowe argues signature skylines have gotten attention as modern architecture in China but developing the periphery has been an afterthought. “This is where the formulaic, carpet like model of urban development is often most unforgiving of local circumstances, bland and with little urban-architectural distinction,” he says.
In Brearley’s own essay, a description of how Chinese residential areas get designed is perhaps more interesting to non-practitioners than his advice to architecture students about how they can restyle the land for the next 400 million people moving into cities.
Even for massive city remakes, Mr. Brearley explains, architects often get less than 30 minutes to present their plan. In fact, winning an urban planning competition often marks the end of the architect’s participation, as strict building codes require that final blueprints are done by a local design institute, where overworked draftsmen have little time or inclination to adhere to the original vision. All along, government officials promote speed in their quest to build as much as possible before their next job transfer, he writes. The result is standardized construction.
“There is surprisingly little exchange of ideas,” according to Mr. Brearley. His bottom line is architecture in China needs something like a “slow movement.”
With all the shoddy construction that is going on in China, maybe in 50 years when all of the trash that has been built up to now will have to be torn down, they will rethink their urban planning strategy and start over.
Yes, I am joking.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
This by no means is a coincidence that only happens in Shanghai. It also happened in some inner provinces like my own one Hunan. I think for officials in each level of jurisdiction, urbanization is always in their political agenda. Not only because it is a way to knock the higher positions in their political career, but also people can actually see those buildings as a symbol of higher living standard.
Large pile of capital has been therefore devoted to urbanize the city: land, capital and labour.
Since those officials wanted to move higher as quick as possible, they will be more likely to push and complete as more projects as possible when they are still in the office. Maybe not all officials think the same way, but afterall its a very common one. Fast-paced urbanization is therefore not difficult to be understood. Since the time and budgets are both limited with in a certain period of time, then it’s possible that each project is being built with lower quality…
This story could go on and on.
And… it’s just my own explanation to this.