Ten years ago, Beijing built a big, ostentatious business district that now includes the famous China Central TV building and China World Trade Center III:
Well, things move quickly in China, and it’s time for the Central Business District to get an upgrade. The city plans to expand it from its existing size about four square kilometers to almost twice that in just eight years and further cement its position as the financial and media capital of China. Basically, it’s a gigantic regional power grab.
SOM’s “vision,” as it is called in their promotional video, calls for an express commuter rail to the airport, a new high-speed rail network, a streetcar system, and three new districts “anchored by signature parks and green boulevards.” It’ll be lined with pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets. But the most dramatic claim they make is that their plan, if implemented, will reduce energy consumption 50%, water consumption by 48%, landfill waste by 80% and carbon emissions by 50%. That last figure, if you believe them, is comparable to planting 14 million “adult trees.”
Despite the enormity of the project, it’s surprisingly hard to find English-language information about the competition, the contestants, the jury, and the proposals. In researching it, we’ve had to rely on reports from China Daily and press releases from the firms themselves. Neither makes any bones about the fact that the whole point of the expansion is to make Beijing China’s “global address,” as SOM somewhat awkwardly reiterates time after time in its video.
Secondary to that goal is making Beijing a “green and ecological setting for healthy life”–hence the parks and stuff. Successful implementation will create “the world-wide model for sustainable urban development,” and to that end, there will be the Cultural Park (”a land of inspiration”), the Family Park (”a place for family entertainment”), and the Gateway Park (”the city’s air and water filter,” whatever that means). SOM keeps the details light, but insists its plan will have an “intelligent infrastructure” capable of “reducing, re-using and shifting and sharing streams of energy to sufficiently reduce environmental impact.” And, naturally, real estate values will skyrocket. (In fact, they already have.)
.
But then there’s the somewhat sticky issue of what to do with what already exists on that land. Previously, China Daily reported that the Chaoyang district government “is keen to turn more residential areas into commercially successful headquarters for some of the world’s largest multinational corporations.” Just how much residential property are they looking to “turn”? (And by “turn,” of course,we mean “bulldoze.”)
It looks like about 10,000 homes in “one of the city’s most densely populated areas” will be turned. How many residents is that? The number doesn’t seems to have been specified. Obviously, it’s high.
Maybe out of guilt, maybe in the spirit of democracy, the government offers this palliative: “The public now has a rare opportunity to contribute ideas to the 100 billion yuan ($15 billion) project as well as select their favorites.”
The long-term ecological goals of the project are admirable. But it’s hard not to wonder how those torn-down homes figure into the 80% reduction in landfill waste. Or what will cause water consumption to decline more–design brilliance or getting rid of all those residents?
At one point in SOM’s video, which is narrated in Chinese and subtitled in English, the voiceover says, “The SOM Vision fast-forwards to a more prosperous quality of life. A greener, more brilliant, more humane Beijing.”
“More humane”? It might be interesting to run that descriptor by the people living in those 10,000 homes.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:41 am
It’s incredible, but perhaps nothing compared to the millions displaced by the Three Rivers dam. A friend of mine, who lived in China for some years, told me on Saturday that her experience there was not positive; the Chinese seem to value money and business over their citizens.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:46 am
You know…all of our committees, groups, and agencies that our projects have to work their way through are really annoying at times (like in the case of the World Trade Center). They cause delays, entire aspects of a project are changed and reworked to please some small group…
But at least we have a voice. I can’t but imagine how helpless you must feel living in that part of the city. You are a part of it, you make it what it is…but your government wants the big business and all their money so off you go.
All those people that protest about how capitalism is evil in America should be moving to China I suppose.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am
[...] Now that’s how you do redevelopment: the City of Beijing will tear down 10,000 homes in an effort to expand its Central Business District INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Wouldn’t it be more ecologically-sound and cheaper to retrofit the buildings already in the area than to buy and use the materials for these projects? Just another land and power grab to sell to companies at the expense of the people who have been living there for however long, destroying history and livelihoods for profitable ‘progress’.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I don’t think modifying residential buildings into commercial towers and somehow shifting them around to fit the new street format is a cheap alternative. But they’d still save money and be ecologically sound if they reuse some material from the rubble into the new project. I’ve heard of construction firms in the Netherlands dedicated at making new buildings with 70-80% reused/recycled material from the local region. I just wish we could push Americans around enough to demolish Southern California and Arizona to build something like this. The “bicycle-friendly streets” part surprises me, last I heard Beijing actually banned bicycles to make more room for cars downtown.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I spent spring semester 2009 at Capital University of Economics and Business studying Chinese language, and this is absolutely heartbreaking. CUEB is at the corner of Chaoyang and Dawang roads (at the northeasternmost corner of the current CBD), and the areas just north and east, which are in the future expansion, are full of charming hutong-type residences and restaurants.
I hope, but without much faith, that the public’s input will actually be considered here.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
@David: You don’t happen to have any photos of that area, do you?
November 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Why would people who don’t like capitalism want to move to China? China is an example of capitalism run amok- few labor and environmental laws, exploited workers, and a horrendously polluted environment.
Western Europe has a healthy mix of the private and public sectors.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@Brent,
“the Chinese seem to value money and business over their citizens.”… Brent, I assume you are not an American.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:34 am
The renderings look like the tried-and-failed tower in a park idea for CBDs: put up towers in the middle of traffic interchanges or on top of subway stations, and make it as hard as possible to walk from one building to another on the streets.
In Shanghai, the purpose-built CBD has already failed. Pudong/Lujiazui is a ghost town after hours. My Shanghainese classmates tell me that residents don’t even go there - they hand out in Xujiahui, which is Union Square to Lujiazui’s Wall Street. Even the subway station is empty by Shanghai standards outside rush hour.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Despite what David said above that area doesn’t have any hutong-type homes. Most of the structures currently there except for the Wanda-Center due east of the disgusting CCTV tower are drab cold-war era housing and nothing really worth saving. Most of it is outside of the 3rd and 4th ring roads and the remaining “hutongs” that were meant to be protected are within the 2nd ring.
The big downside and kick in the ass to those forced from their homes is the spike in real estate for those buildings that remain. The real estate is already over-priced and this will inhibit the average dude from living here in or around the CBD
November 10th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I know Beijing has population and economic pressure to bulldoze and build UP, but the destruction of 1000 year old hutong neighborhoods is akin to burning rainforest for grazing land. I lived in the hutongs near here for a few months while studying in Beijing in 2006, and they are by far the coolest little neighborhoods I’ve ever seen. The homes are generally one or two stories, but were built 1000 year ago in the Ming Dynasty. Families have been living there for centuries — you have to look at this like we do biodiversity in rain forests. The social fabric there is so rich, that it justifies the inefficiencies of the buildings.
I saw hutongs being bulldozed al over Beijing. In their place would come high rise buildings, all generally lifeless. You only have to look at the soviet-era concrete clock housing to see how this experiment plays out long term. i spent most of my time living with a family in one of these, and was blown away by how much more socially rich and aesthetically pleasing the hutongs were.
Obviously, Beijing has to meet its housing needs, but destroying these hutongs to build business parks is ridiculous. The Chinese still know how to practice the art of living, and they just turn those places into ghost towns at night (had a friend who lived in one.) Maybe they’ll change (change the “Chinese way”? hmmn), but and live like Wall St’ers or the Japanese, but they’ll lose their soul and character in the process.
China is driven by the inferiority complex the CCP exploited and inflated to consolidate power — the notion that China was shamed by Western powers, colonialists then the imperialist U.S. — and all they are doing is using capitalism to suck in wealth then use it to emulate the West in a giant gave of “You think you’re better than me? WELL WHO IS BETTER NOW! I can do everything you can!”
Hutong courtyard homes and neighborhoods have such a great pulse. Walking their narrows streets is like living in a park. How many streets in our cities evoke that much calm/peace and exude that much personality?
Google images: “hutong” for some great pictures.
Its just a shame.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Apparently, not too long ago, something thought Beijing would be more interesting as a collection of Las Vegas buildings situated on Washington-style Imperialist oversized blocks and serviced by LA/Houston’s monstrous freeways. What a shame.
Although, to be honest, I doubt this expansion will happen as depicted. The China bubble is running out of steam as the government gets frightened, once again, by out-of-control real estate speculation.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Furthermore, they might want to try filling the office space in the EXISTING CBD first. Just a thought.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Why would people who don’t like capitalism want to move to China? China is an example of capitalism run amok- few labor and environmental laws, exploited workers, and a horrendously polluted environment.
Western Europe has a healthy mix of the private and public sectors.
This is not Capitalism. This is a corporate welfare state. In a true capitalism, blatant theft on this scale cannot happen. A privately held company can rarely become large enough to infringe on peoples’ rights in such a way, but a powerful government can do it any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
How different is this from the hundreds of thousands of people here in America who will have their homes and businesses stolen from them (eminent domained away) to make room for smart grids and HSR?
November 10th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Its GOOD to see a country run with discipline….
November 11th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Who cares whether the existing buildings are aesthetically pleasing? The brownstones in New York are an eyesore, and yet when the city demolished them to build housing projects, the neighborhoods collapsed. The point of buildings is to house people while maintaining neighborhood continuity.
And as for true capitalism: I’ve recently had the pleasure of arguing with an anarchist, who maintained that true socialism has never been tried and the Soviet Union and Maoist China were not truly socialist because, they just weren’t. If you’re interested in arguing over what true capitalism/socialism is, go waste your time with him.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
[...] Tags] Living above the store [Globe and Mail] INTERNATIONAL Show Me the Money! [Portland Mercury] Beijing to Tear Down 10,000 Homes for Expanded Business District [The Infrastructurist] Detroit: Urban Laboratory and the New American Frontier [New Geography] [...]
November 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The brownstones are an eyesore? What are you talking about? The brownstones are an iconic part of NYC life.
When they demolished them many and replaced them with housing projects, the neighborhoods collapsed? Duh. If my neighbors and I suddenly begin living in tents (or a 30 story high rise with 1/10 the square footage per household, on 1/50 the footprint), our neighborhood (economy and social fabric) will collapse as well. So where the continuity in that?
There is value in living in an aesthetically pleasing environment — buildings obviously shape the ‘psychology’ of a neighborhood, which ultimately shapes the economic and cultural wealth of a neighborhood.
I’m not gonna bother picking apart the irony and near contradictions in your comment Alon — too tired. It is funny though that you advocate a cold “numbers”-based approach to housing planning, while slandering someone who tried to sell you on socialism. I’ve lived in a seven story cement box where hutongs once stood, and didn’t see the economic or social bounty that the former had — literally because the design didn’t allow for the space, personality, and flexibility it needed to flourish. Off topic but, your anarchist is probably right about neither the PRC or USSR practicing genuine socialism. They were firstly authoritarian states, and welfare states second. I can’t think of any thriving pure examples of its counterpart though. Either way, an ideological approach is a born loser, which is why I lamented the loss of hutongs primarily for short sighted reasons they’re being demolished, and what is replacing them (not because they’re entirely superior to any other option.)
Blah blah blah — our cities would be miserable places if all the character-rich brownstones and hutongs were replaced by high-density housing — go look at any of the other cities Mao tried to build in the 70s, and take a stroll through those lovely mazes of identical constructionist housing blocks. You probably wont though, because you’d have no desire too, like the residents have little motivation to live there other than necessity.askjaksdhvakjsvakjfvakfvbj
November 13th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Not everything that’s iconic is good. After walking through entire blocks where the buildings all have the same dirty red brick facade, the icons get tiring. By the standards of how buildings look in, say, Southern Europe - they actually have different colors and smooth walls - they’re a mess.
And it doesn’t matter much that the hutongs are small. The neighborhoods that the urban renewal czars designated as slums had small apartments, by suburban standards; they were still more lively than anything that’s come to replace them. Dharavi offers a few square meters of living space per person, and, despite the government’s attempt to demolish it to expand the CBD, it’s economically vital as well.
Where did I advocate a numbers-based approach to housing?
November 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Good lord, Beijing is not a theme park. It’s a living city being confronted with many challenges of urbanization, which requires the bulldozers to work over time. I can’t imagine the Chinese want to apologize to those who wish to see a Disneyfied version of Beijing, compete with quaint little neighborhoods with red lanterns. The theme park enthusiasts should look elsewhere.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Beijing is now more westernized than ever (not to say that there’s anything wrong with civilization/ urbanization). There’s a reason why people travel to Beijing & that is to see the unique culture/ history that it still has to date, pretty soon there’ll be nothing special & unique about Beijing, because it’ll be an ordinary country.