are chinese cities urbanising too fast?

The Future of Shanghai’s Lilong NeighbourhoodsRoss Pirie // MArch Dissertation // May 2013

Are Chinese Cities Urbanising

TOO FAST?

03The Future of Shanghai’s Lilong Neighbourhoods

Declaration

The content of this dissertation isThe result of my own investigation, except

Where stated otherwise.It has not been accepted for any

degree, nor been concurrently submittedfor any other degree within or outside

Robert Gordon University.I take full responsibility of the authenticity,

Sources and originality of the content usedIn his dissertation.

Word Count: 11 046

ROSS PIRIE0805621May 2013

04 Are Chinese Cities Urbanising Too Fast?


Contents

Introduction // p.07

Part One Are Chinese Cities Developing Too Fast? // p.11

Part TwoDefining Shanghai’s Lilong Neighbourhood // p.17

Part ThreeChai vs. Bao [Preservation vs. Demolition] // p.25

Part FourThe Abstract Concept // p.29

Conclusion // p.33

07The Future of Lilong Neighbourhoods

Introduction

China has by far one of the richest and most diverse landscapes in terms of urbanism and architecture and is something of a phenomenon to scholars and academics in these fields at present (fig. 01 & 02). The county itself is home to 1.3 billion people, which accounts for a staggering quarter of the world’s population. In addition to this, the amount of people residing in China’s cities reached 50% for the first time this year however, what is even more incredible is that in the next two decades that will rise to 70%, a shift of almost 350 million people from a rural to an urban setting. You only need to travel back some 30 years and see that only 10% of the population was classed as urban and if you were to step back a further 50 years then cities along the booming East coast, like Shanghai and Shenzhen, were mere paddy fields. Today the Chinese city is urbanizing at an unprecedented rate and there is no doctrine or manifesto on offer that can be used to guide this “maelstrom of development that is destroying everything” (Koolhaas et al. 2001 p.26). Although the previous statement is somewhat an exaggeration, China’s development has had to become increasingly ambitious to keep up with this volatile growth. This pace of development is astonishing but is similar to other industrialised Asian cities, what sets China apart is the sheer scale that this urbanisation is occurring at. For example, Shanghai’s population has increased by 4.7% annually from 1990 to 2000 and it is currently home to 23 million people. In addition, in 2003 alone over 5 600 ‘high rise buildings’ (over 10 storey) were built in Shanghai, 374 of which were over 30 storeys. Naturally this trend of building high and fast has continued to the present day (Wu & Gaubatz 2013; Ren 2008; Xue 2006; Koolhaas et al 2001).

Fig. 01: Demonstrating China’s diverse and contrasting urban fabric of high-rise apartments and low-rise lilong housesSource: Qingong, J. & Wenlei, X. 2012 [see ref.]

Fig. 02: A montage of high-rise buildings to encapsulate the pace of developmentSource: MVRDV 2012 [see ref.]


Object of StudyThis piece of research aims to explore whether Chinese cities are urbanising too fast and the effects of this pace and scale, by looking specifically at the issues of housing within the city, using Shanghai as the main case study. The ambition is not necessarily to answer this almost rhetoric question but to look at the effects of this rapid urbanisation. Understandably, the urbanisation process should be considered as a multi-faceted phenomena with many diverse factors that should be considered to make a full and conclusive analysis, factors such as economics, governance, environment etc… (Friedman 2006). However for the purpose of this dissertation the research will focus mainly on the architectural and social implications of the ‘urbanising too fast’ argument in relation to housing in Shanghai. But at the same time still incorporate other themes of urbanism to create a well-rounded argument.

“Shanghai is a city where two distinctive urban characteristics- the contemporary high rise and the traditional low rise buildings- create a paradoxical pattern of unevenly developed urban fabric.” (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.11)

It is for this reason that Shanghai is such an interesting case study. The main emphasis of this argument is that the current fast-paced trend of building high is having a detrimental effect on the urban fabric and the day-to-day and long-term social experience in the city (Arkaraprasertkul 2009). The required speed of delivery of housing has meant that tower designs are being imported from places with different social, environmental and architectural conditions and placed in a foreign, Eastern context with little or no critical design thinking embedded within them (MVRDV et al. 2012 p.8). There is also no connection to the wider context or any sense of a Chinese architectural language and an extreme lack of social engagement. MVRDV, in their research “The Vertical Village” describe this as a “block attack“, an invasion of repetitive high-rise towers that are altering the Asian city’s distinct architectural language, dynamic urban form and unique social structuring (MVRDV et al. 2012 p.10)

“Other than offering Western standards of living, these structures do little to improve life in Asia. They [tower blocks] don’t lead to urban renewal or innovation, nor do they encourage differentiation, flexibility or individual ideas.” (MVRDV et al. 2012 p.18)

These ‘blocks’ are destroying the intimate and individual nature of the ‘urban villages’1 that have formed over centuries, and have become part of the core fabric of the city. Through this dissertation I develop an understanding of what ‘too fast’ is and then argue that there are lessons to be learned from these urban villages in combating the trend of ‘too fast’ and ‘too high’, looking specifically at traditional ‘lilong’ housing in Shanghai. This type originated in the 1840’s when Shanghai was forced to open as a Treaty Port after losing the Opium War. They were built by Western landlords and rented out to Chinese tenants and were the dominant type in Shanghai’s housing stock. China then initiated the ’open door policy’, which marked the swift demolition of these areas.

Lilong housing was selected as part of this study not only for its low rise and human scale characteristics but it also provides a connection to the public realm and urban context (it is connected and accessible); the arrangement provides a sense of security; a dwelling environment that is both varied and open; and most importantly the quality of the ‘lane’ living which is unique to this type. The lilong’s success stems from the amalgamation of the mentioned qualities and the ‘order and efficiency’, which are the principles of good modern housing (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.11). This research acknowledges that lilong housing is maybe not the most economical solution to the problem, however the concept of a new typology; a “low-medium-rise-high-density, multi-functional, community orientated urban housing that preserves the unique nature of individual vibrant neighbourhoods” (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.12), will be extremely valuable to Shanghai’s successful urban future. From the outset I wish to state that I am looking at the lilong housing from a practical point of view and not a romantic or nostalgic stance. This new type will serve as a reaction to the social isolation and architectural short-comings of the high-rise apartments that are polluting the city at present.

Academic ContextAs I have mentioned previously Chinese urbanism is currently at the forefront of discussion across many disciplines. The interest in this topic stemmed from my own experience in the form of a study trip to Shanghai and Suzhou last October. I attended a conference entitled ‘Master Planning the Future’ at the XJTL University in Suzhou, at which several issues were raised about the current state of Asia’s urbanism. The seminar that instigated the idea for this research was the question, “Is the West building too slowly or the East building too fast?” Interesting points were raised on both sides of the argument however it was only a starting point to a thought-provoking discussion. I felt that more research was required to establish the effects of this pace of urbanisation in China. There has

1. The ‘Urban Village’ is a rather ambiguous term. Some define it as a small village that has be come part of the city through urban sprawl. In this instance I understand it as a residential block that harbours the qualites of a village (shops, social structure, scale etc) within a city.


been no research conducted that poses the exact same question that I am researching, however parts of the work by MVRDV explore the problems of housing and urbanism in Asian cities. The work by Arkaraprasertkul into the relevance, nature and concept of lilong housing has also been highly influential to my research. The practical stance that he has taken to his research has made it more believable as opposed to a less believable nostalgic or romantic attachment. I have used this as a base and then critically expanded upon it by looking further at the application of the ‘abstract concept’ of lilong housing in modern Shanghai. My research unites these strands of thinking, as well as others, and then uses these ideas to try and derive an answer to the issue of mass housing in Shanghai.

MethodologyThe research is solely literature based and uses Shanghai as the main case study in order to assess the impact of the country’s rapid urbanisation. The reasons for choosing Shanghai, as mentioned before, is that there are these two very dominant urban characteristics; the colossal high rise building which represents the current pace of development; and the traditional lilong housing which represents the architectural, cultural and social success of the city. Having been to Shanghai previously this also allows me to express my opinions as I have experienced what the city and lilong houses are like first hand, although I had not conducted any studies as this research was just at the stage of inception. On the other hand, there has been extensive field work carried out by MVRDV, Ren, Arkaraprasertkul and Zhao which I have been able to utilise. This primary information that they have collected through interviews (semi-structured and informal) and case studies will strengthen the secondary information that I have gathered from journals and books. The analysis of the lilong neighbourhoods as an ‘abstract concept’ is the essential part to this research. It will be defined by a framework that has been developed throughout the research and by applying methods used by others in their own research.

Research StructureThis piece of research embraces four main parts. With this introduction setting the scene, the first part will then set the research in context by looking at the background of Chinese urbanism, starting to define what is meant by ‘too fast‘, by focusing on the post-reform years. This leads on to an analysis of the controversial ‘block attack’ which will become the narrative of what is defined as ‘urbanising too fast’ and will focus on the specific issues of housing within the city. From this it will be clear that my analysis of ‘too fast’ concerns the architectural and social short-comings of the high-rise housing. The second part of this research will rigorously explore the lilong neighbourhood in terms of what this housing type is, and its success and development over the last century. The third part goes on to explain the changes that have taken place during the market orientated economy and how this has come to affect the future of the lilong neighbourhoods. The focus then moves to the issue of whether preservation or demolition is the correct route for these traditional structures by looking at two recent lilong neighbourhood regeneration projects. I felt that it was important to include this discussion as part of the research as it gives grounding to the next part of the research. Having established the arguments for preservation and demolition, the last part of the research will now suggest an alternative way in which the lilong neighbourhoods are to exist, as an ‘abstract concept‘. This section critically analyses the most important aspects of the type that make them an integral part of the future urban fabric of Shanghai. The process of analysing the lilong will be based on a framework derived by this research focusing on the exploration of the architectural and urban form. The question this part explores is whether the concept of the lilong type has a future in Shanghai’s development. Are the principles and concepts of this housing something that we should explore and recreate in the form of a modern housing typology for the city, to serve as a counter-position to the high-rise tower blocks?


Are Chinese Cities Developing Too Fast?

China’s Urban Background - 1949 onwardsLooking back to recent history, the Communist ideologies in China have continually shaped the country’s urbanism and development since it was first inaugurated by Mao Zedong in 1949. He and the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) took control of urban planning and began to create a model that was basically a Soviet Marxist city model with what Mao termed ‘Chinese characteristics’. Mao felt that the industrialisation of the city was not fit for the socialist conditions in China which led to the most influential movement of his era, ‘The Great Leap Forward’ campaign of 1958. This was “urbanisation, or de-urbanisation,” as the countryside was now the centre of industrialisation (Koolhaas et al 2001 p.29). Mao had essentially abolished the city and its importance creating stagnation in urban growth for this period and the years to follow. In addition, this campaign lead to the greatest famine in the country’s history in 1959 and cost around 4 million lives. The CCP was always focussed on creating a socialist Chinese city and creating a cultural revolution. However, it was also clear that the processes in creating a socialist state were failing, meaning that a different approach to urbanism was desperately needed if China was going to announce itself on the global stage (Freidman 2006; Koolhaas et al 2001).

Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping who took over as chairman of the CCP in 1978, was very similar in the sense that he had strong ideas, although Mao’s ideology would give way to his pragmatism. As a result of the failed anti-urban strategies Xiaoping inherited an economic crisis and country weakened by famine and drought. China now looked to the West, and in particular America, for inspiration in urbanism and economic structuring. Xiaoping convinced the country to open its doors to the rest of the world and to create a new urban strategy that would be defined as the ‘New Era‘. It was the economic reforms of the 1980s and the availability of cheap labour, that was the catalyst for this rapid urbanisation process to begin - the stagnated growth of the Mao-era was now over. The country had now adopted a market orientated approach, or capitalism with ‘Chinese characteristics’, which turned its back on the socialist state. This is where we can begin to see the unprecedented speed of urbanisation and superficial importation of design in Chinese cities. This ‘New Era’ Chinese city showed signs of becoming more westernised in terms of architecture, urbanism and lifestyle, which began to change the social structuring and traditional urban forms. Cities began to be built around the American city model and focused on industry, service and trade; with the aim to make all cities ideal cities. China had finally realised its potential and had disregarded the socialist economy and anti-urban strategies and now looked towards its global future, which would inevitably incur both positive and negative outcomes (Koolhaas et al 2001 p.31; Freidman 2006; Xue 2006 p.10; Yu & Padua 2007).

It is only in the last 30 years that China has begun to expand exponentially as institutional changes such as; government power being decentralised, land reforms and housing reforms, effectively meant that small towns grew into cities and that cities grew into mega cities. The most notable of these transformations was one of the governments Special Economic Zones (SEZ); Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta. These SEZ’s were founded on the idea of capitalism, which resulted in the small fishing village, home to 30 000 people, now accommodating 10 million residents in under three decades. It also meant that many homes were destroyed and their owners

Part One


relocated elsewhere, in order to make way for these new structures. This scale of urbanisation was not just an isolated incident but applied to the whole country as Wang indicates in his research. He reveals that in 1982, the beginning of the reforms, there were 20 cities with a population of over one million, this figure then soars to 125 cities by 2010 (Wang 2012 p.32). The magnitude of these statistics is even more incredible when you consider that the UK at present only has two cities with over one million inhabitants. To quantify this urban expansion Beijing’s built up area has expanded a staggering sevenfold between 1978 to 2007, increasing from 180km2 to 1290km2 (Weiwen 2008; Yu et al. 2011 p.1209). Williams (2012), a great advocate of China’s rapid progress, states that these figures should be rightfully celebrated based on their ambition and determination, but at the same time is cautious of the detrimental effects that can result from this pace.

The Shanghai Block AttackIt is widely agreed that this pace of development is staggering and completely unprecedented. Yu and Padua (2007 p.255) describe this pace as “feverish” and that it is resulting in massive changes to the urban landscape of cities, reminding us that what Western cities achieved - in terms of urbanisation - was a development over two centuries, whereas in China this same level of change spans just two decades. The main aim of this section is to explore whether this is ’too fast’ and what is meant by this idea of ’too fast’. There are many implications of this pace that could be explored, however as stated previously the research will focus on the architectural and social issues caused by this rapid urbanisation.

The 1990s mark the start of major demolitions across Shanghai, continuing as part of Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatic urban reforms, which begins to illustrate the ‘too fast‘ argument. It is in this period that the ‘365 Plan’ was unveiled, which proposed to demolish 365 hectares of ‘decrepit housing’ by the year 2000, and to replace them with modern high rise apartments. The definition of ‘decrepit’ was never explained in any detail, but mostly related to the urban villages and lilong houses which provided the city with a hugely successful socio-spatial structuring. This plan gave way to the famous slogan of the Shanghai government ‘Changes Every Year, Transformations Every Three Years’ (Ren 2008). This vicious pace of development is best illustrated in a series of images which clearly depict these transformations and Shanghai‘s ‘Block Attack’ (fig. 04).

Fig. 03: Shanghai in the 1930s and 2009. These images compare the urban fabric and depicts that the lilong blocks were the dominant form in the 1930s. The situation now is a complex amalgamation of high and low-rise buildings.Source: Virtual Shanghai Project - Lyon 2 University (left) & Google Earth Image (right)


Fig. 04: This series of images depict the ‘block attack’ and demonstrates how these towers are breaking up and invading the intense structure of lilong neighbourhoods.Source: Google Earth Images - edited by author

2000

2002

2004

2007


The rapid building process that followed the demolitions is termed by MVRDV (2012 p.7) as ‘The Block Attack’. This is the process in which monotonous, repetitive high rise towers are replacing the intense and extremely social urban fabric of the urban villages in East Asian cities - or the ‘decrepit housing‘ as coined by the government. The diagrams below (fig. 05) represent the severity of the ‘block attack’ and the major shift from intimate low-rise neighbourhoods to sterile high-rise towers. They argue that the invasion of these anonymous high-rise blocks, coupled with the pace at which they are being built, is causing major problems to the urban and social functioning of the Asian city, stressing that “they [the towers] obstruct urban innovation and discourage differentiation, flexibility and individual ideas“ (MVRDV 2012 p.7). All the qualities that are being lost are the basic characteristics of the lilong neighbourhoods, which begins to prompt the discussion that there may be something to learn from the urban villages.

Fig. 05: The maps show how severe the ‘block attack’ is in the centre of Shanghai. There is a major shift in the dominant housing type.Source: MVRDV 2012 [see ref.]


Problems of the Block AttackUnderstandably, the vertical expansion of cities is the logical and most efficient option in dealing with the pressures of mass housing. However the current disproportionate trend of only building high and at a rapid pace is creating a serious imbalance within the urban fabric, losing a diverse neighbourhood structure that is unique to the city - and the city’s inherent culture. Simply replacing the dilapidated old with the economically profitable towers only causes new problems (Arkaraprasertkul 2012a p.155). These towers in no way can replicate the social experience at ground level, or internally, that is a key aspect of lilong neighbourhoods. They typically stand within masses of undefined open space which distorts the scale of the city and will also effectively lead to the death of the street and the loss of a sense of community. That is not to mention the added social pressures of the gentrification process - the displacement of the poorer families to out with the city centre, then being replaced by the upper classes and foreigners who can afford to live in the high rise apartments. This will obviously result in a lack of diversity within the city, and the city as a whole will lose the residents who have lived there for generations. Other than social displacement, pushing these people out will reduce their access to public and transportation infrastructure, increase social inequality, and will increase the chance of squatter settlements appearing on the less developed outskirts of cities (Arkaraprasertkul 2012a; MVRDV 2012 pp. 6-10). Huang is also critical of these changes and states that “Shanghai in its role [as] a global city [is] more of a monumental space, a capitalist showcase rather than the lived space [she] would call home” (Huang 2004 p.101) This highlights a serious social issue that Shanghai is becoming an increasingly difficult place to live and along with the other reasons mentioned, gives strength to the argument that the city is urbanising too fast.

There are also major problems with the architectural quality of these ‘New Era’ high-rise buildings. Although there are examples of sensitive and critical design the majority tend to resort to a superficial expression of architecture that is damaging the image of the city. Yu and Padua (2007 p.257) highlight that there is a major issue with current approaches to design which rely on the importation of an architectural language and urban image that has been created in an entirely different culture, context and time. They make reference to the same architectural problems the US faced during the ‘City Beautiful’ movement in the 20th century, when they imported a Beaux-Art style of urban planning that failed to incorporate the countries identity and culture. They continue to explain that the importing of mainly Western ideas and physical forms has left Chinese cities with similar problems; the urban landscapes are of a monumental scale, almost alien, which evidently do not provide a suitable environment for the daily life that the Chinese lead (Yu & Padua 2007 p.257; Arkaraprasertkul 2012b). In terms of the cities image, the ‘copy and paste’ nature of these buildings do little to enhance the experience within the city. It may be argued that this is just has to be accepted as part of the globalisation process but Xiaodong reminds us that “[g]lobalisation does not mean the disappearance of territorial, cultural and historical identity” (Xiaodong 2000 p.405). However this loss of identity is occurring as the city builds higher and faster. This all but reaffirms the idea that China should slow down and look to tradition and culture in order to find a contemporary architectural language that satisfies it’s social and architectural desires.

In essence the first part of this research can be distilled down to a single statement; the current trend of building high and fast is having a serious negative effect on the social and architectural quality of Chinese cities. Therefore, what I propose is that we should revisit the low-rise high-density housing models, specifically the lilong neighbourhoods that are currently being erased to make way for these towers. The remainder of this research aims to identify what makes this typology architecturally and socially successful and extrapolate these ideas in order to understand how we might make a better urban environment within Chinese cities.


Defining Shanghai’s Lilong Neighbourhood

The humble, historical row-houses that are commonly known as ‘lilong’, are a low rise, high density housing typology unique to Shanghai and literally translated, ‘lilong’ is a combination of two ideas; ‘li’ referring to neighbourhood, and ‘long’ referring to the lane or alleyway (Zhongshu 1992). Technically, lilong is an adjective and not a noun, meaning that ‘lilong housing’ “is a form of dwelling in a lane structured neighbourhood - to the extent that neighbourhood means more than an area, but a community where members interact with each other on a regular basis“ (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.20). This part explores the architectural and social development of this typology and how it has adapted and changed from its origins, around the mid-19th Century, through to its current condition in Shanghai today. The city’s urban process is not a complex one, however Shanghai’s housing is the most important component to the cities modernisation and the lilong neighbourhoods have given academics and professionals an extremely interesting area of urbanism and urban housing to explore (Arkaraprasertkul 2012a).

History and ContextThe begining of Shanghai’s modern urban housing can be defined when China lost the First Opium War and was subsequently forced to open the city as a Treaty Port in 1842. Shanghai, which was merely a fraction of the size it is today, was divided into three territories; the old Chinese City, the French Concession and the International Settlement (British and American). As a result of this Western influence there was a large increase in commercial activity, which in turn lead to a sharp population growth, and with that a great supply of labour. These three areas began to flourish, which created opportunities for better jobs thus creating a further influx of migrants from all over China. In the International Settlement alone the number of Chinese inhabitants rose from 75 000 to half a million in under three decades, around the 1890s (Huang 2000 pp. 5-8).

The principles of this condition that we see here is not dissimilar from the current situation in Shanghai, just that the scale differs significantly. Naturally, this rapid population increase called for an equally rapid response in terms of housing. As most of these inhabitants were migrant workers or labourers there was no real regard for quality and the ultimate solution to this was the ‘lilong neighbourhood housing‘. The initial forms of these neighbourhoods were designed by Western architects, and built with only a real consideration for maximum density and speed of construction as Zhao explains, “[the buildings] could be quickly and simply constructed with wooden boards at the lowest cost: built in rows like army camps, accessed by some internal paths joined with one general path that connected to the public street” (Zhao 2004 p.57).

The Old Style LilongThe demand and success of the houses grew in parallel meaning the typology began to develop further. A typical early neighbourhood consisted of a densely packed collection of low rise houses, generally two to three storeys, organised in rows thus creating a walled community. The development consisted of a main lane that cut through

Part Two


Fig. 06: Two sketches to visually explain the basic structure of the neighbourhoods. The hierarchy of lanes and spaces become clear in the ‘spine and ribs’ metaphor. The spine is the single main lane and the ribs are the multiple narrower branch lanes.Source: Sketches by author

the length of the block with smaller lanes connecting perpendicular to the main lane creating a highly functional circulation space. The ‘spine and ribs’ layout of these neighbourhoods, in relation to the unit and lane organisation, is best described visually (fig. 06). This layout was seen as the most efficient and economical way of housing such a high density of people. In terms of an architectural language, there was no real reference to the traditional courtyard housing of China, as seen in the much lower density ‘hutong’ neighbourhoods of Beijing, in which the courtyard space was much larger and the central focus in which the dwellings were then orientated around. As the overall ambition was to accommodate the highest possible density this resulted in the courtyard being seen as a luxury as opposed to a necessity (Arkaraprasertkul 2012a p.17). In some respects the lilong can be seen as a ‘hybrid design‘, in terms of architectural language and style, between an English terraced house and the aforementioned traditional courtyard houses of China (Ruan 2006 p.163). Although this description may sound uninspiring, these houses were popular with the migrants. They provided a neighbourhood environment in which people felt safe, having moved from a rural to urban setting. This social aspect became the key component to this type of housing which has carried through to the present day (Zhao 2004).

In the first year of their construction, 1854, there were around 800 of these wooden structures built in the International Settlement. Incredibly a further 8000 were built by 1863 using the same methods of timber construction. However the government realised that this form of construction was increasingly unsafe due to the materials being used and the densities that they were being built in. In the 1870s, this lead to new regulations that prevented the use of wood frame structures and therefore the lilong had to adapt. This is where we can see the first major transformation in this type as there is a shift to using locally sourced material, load bearing brick walls and timber beams, to form a more robust dwelling. This marks the transition between ‘The Old Style’ lilong to the ‘Shikumen’ lilong.

The Shikumen LilongThe first of these Shikumen houses were built around 1870 and acquired its name from the decorative gateway that was the main entrance to these neighbourhoods, and the smaller gates to access the houses. In the Shanghai dialect ‘Shikumen’ means “gates wrapped in stone” (Ren 2008 p.32). The smaller gates consist of two wooden planks covered by a ’stylish stone frame’, with two large bronze rings fixed to either side, and decorative stone carvings above, while the main gates were a larger and more elaborate version of this (fig. 07). This shows an aesthetic development and that people were beginning to take pride in their houses as it became the most popular

main lane

urban street

entrance lane

branch lane

individual plot

shop-houses around perimetre


Fig. 07: Shikumen gates showing the varying levels of styles and grandeurSource: Qingong, J. & Wenlei, X. 2012 [see ref.]

lilong for the working-class families in the first part of the 20th Century. This is where a change in who occupied these houses can be seen, it was still the workers that these houses were built for but it was everyone, apart from the very poor and the very rich, that lived in them due to the price of rent.

This new style evidenced an even stronger reference to the typical European row houses but differed by employing Chinese ‘lane and courtyard’ characteristics. They also make reference to traditional Chinese houses in the way they are clustered together allowing many families to live in the same cluster and share the same semi-private lane spaces (Arkaraprasertkul 2009, Zhao 2004). The lanes, generally only four metres wide, started to become an outdoor extension of the private living spaces, creating this idea of Chinese street culture. This result was never the intentions of the developers and Arkaraprasertkul (2009 p.17) admires how the Chinese “naturally adapted” to this new lifestyle to work with the lack of open space and minimal internal dwelling space. The internal rooms and their organisation reached an acceptable standard compared to the previous lilong and were still achieving high densities, without overcrowding. The addition of the small courtyard area made this type of lilong even more attractive and provided better ventilation, sun light and a communal space. The ‘lane living’ remained a major aspect, as the lanes between the houses were still only a short distance. This communal feel was further enhanced by the integration of commercial ’shop houses’ to the neighbourhood. They were typically the units at the end of the lanes that could be accessed from the street, unlike the residential units that could only be accessed internally. This became the essence of Shikumen, as the community now had a source of income that made it financially sustainable (Arkaraprasertkul 2009, Ren 2008).

The actual houses themselves were built reasonably functionally and introduced varying thresholds. As you depart the public lane and pass the Shikumen gate you enter into an ample, semi-private courtyard and encounter the main house. Each house was typically laid out in three bays which were around 3.6 to 4.2 metres in width, along with the overall depth of roughly 16 metres, gave each unit a ground floor area of 200 metres squared (fig. 08). This early style of Shikumen was built over two floors, creating a separation of public and private spaces. All the important public rooms, such as the living spaces and hall, were symmetrically positioned around the courtyard. At the back of the house there were small, single storey auxiliary rooms, such as the kitchen and bathroom, which were separated from the main part of the house by a semi-private narrow lane, generally 1.5m wide. This allowed for cooking to be done outdoors and groups of residents to dine together. Also there was a terrace space on top of these auxiliary rooms, accessed from the main house, creating a small open private area. There were also examples of five and seven bay models which would have been for the richer families that were incorporated into the neighbourhood structure (Zhao 2004).

All and all these were pleasant places to live and this Shikumen style had become a successful, rational and a natural result of the city’s historic setting. The houses catered for the nostalgic attachment to a Chinese way of


living and answered the need for a modern form of urban housing. The inhabitants accepted this modern type as it provided a way of living that was; convenient, with facilities that existed within and the central location; social, as the lanes and courtyards provided differing spaces of interaction; and safe, as the large brick walls and heavy gates provided security from the chaos of the city. However as Shanghai’s population began to grow exponentially the Shikumen house had to adapt with it. This gave way to an even higher density ‘New (or Late) Shikumen Lilong’, where we begin to see another series of important changes (fig. 09). The previous houses were built using a three or five bay model but now they were reduced to just one or two bays, as well as the courtyard being considerably reduced - it was now just a small open space in front of the living area. An attic space was also created in the main part of the house and the terrace above the auxiliary spaces was removed to create another storey. This is where the process of densification begins. These extra spaces would be sublet by the middle/working class family to poorer families and students in order to supplement their own rent. However there were no immediate issues of overcrowding as a result of this densification. So as the internal floor area (not the plot or bay dimensions) increased, the lanes were subsequently widened to allow vehicles to pass through, and some houses even had small garage spaces. This widening allowed for larger community spaces which moved the spatial focus of the Shikumen from internal space to external space, as well as improving day-lighting and ventilation. There was also a shift in the materials used as construction methods advanced. The main gate was now built in brick instead of stone and the traditional black roof tiles were replaced by machine made tiles. The most stylistic change was the exterior walls being expressed in clean brickwork, either red or grey, instead of a whitewash of lime. The details on the windows, doors and gate became more expressive also, usually with a Western influence to express the grandeur (Arkaraprasertkul 2009, Zhao 2004, Lu et al. 2001).

The New-Style LilongThis style of lilong was first constructed in the late 1910s as the population was still rapidly increasing alongside the need for higher density housing. Naturally, the scale of these neighbourhoods increased dramatically and this lead to the sacrificing of the courtyard in exchange for more internal space. The only open space that remained was a small garden area at the front of the house. Externally, the most obvious omission was the ’Shikumen’; the decorative gate had been replaced simply by iron bars. This omission can be interpreted as a purging of ornament and the houses ultimately becoming more Modernist in style. Internally, The New Style was a compacted version of the previous Shikumen house, in order to be economically successful with the rising land values. Arkaraprasertkul

Fig. 08: Figure Ground Diagram, Plan and Section of Shikumen house, showing the three-bay arrangement. The grey represents the interior space and the green represents the open space within the plot. The main living spaces are planned around the courtyard and the ‘auxiliary rooms’ are accessed by the internal lane.Source: Sketches by author

3-bay unit

branch lane

branch lane

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FIGURE GROUND

SECTION

internal lane


(2009 p.19) notes the key changes, “the floor height and building width were reduced to the minimum, the number of floors increased, and the interior space of each unit was clearly partitioned for different activities.”

To summarise, the lilong had started to increase vertically as the ground floor plan decreased in size. These changes in some respects reduced the architectural quality of these neighbourhoods, compared to the Shikumen, but it was seen as a necessity as it was the more economical solution. Huang (2000 pp.5-29) through his research, notes that the depth of the New Style houses were reduced by 20% compared to the Shikumen, a reduction of roughly 10-14m to 8-12m. In terms of the plan, it was now a linear procession of spaces that were clearly defined by a functional logic in their organisation, as opposed to being organised figuratively around a courtyard like the Shikumen. The construction also differed as a reinforced concrete structure was used alongside the load bearing brick walls, which allowed for a third storey to be added. As they developed modern facilities were incorporated such as gas, electricity and heating systems (Arkaraprasertkul 2009, Zhao 2004).

The lilong neighbourhoods were the dominant residential form in Shanghai before Deng Xiaopeng’s economic reforms of 1978, and at a point during their peak in the mid-1960s, they accounted for 90% of the housing stock (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.18). However the lilong neighbourhoods development came to an end in the 1980s, as the economy really started to grow, giving rise to the ‘apartment lilong‘. In short, this seven storey concrete framed building signified the start of the repetitive modern high rise ‘block attack’. This was essentially a modern apartment block which included facilities, with repetitive floor plans, repetitive façade and a central core. The problem was that it had no relation or the slightest reference to the previous lilong types and completely removed the social/neighbourhood community aspect that was the essence of these neighbourhoods.

A Summary of the TypologyAs stated, the overriding theme throughout this housing is the internal social neighbourhood structure, the lanes, which have become the most successful element of this lilong housing style. The two main factors that contributed to this success were; “the programmatic flexibility and the plasticity of local culture” (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.15), as evidenced above. These houses were built in the inner city as Shanghai was beginning its urban process and was built within city blocks to create a dense urban fabric, that is now widely recognised as Shanghai’s vernacular architectural language. The initial success of The Old Style lead to the further development in this typology as it

Fig. 09: Figure Ground Diagram, Plan and Section of New Shikumen house, which demonstrates considerable changes from the previous style. The grey represents the interior space and the green represents the open space within the plot showing a reduction in floor plate but increase in the number of floors. The plot is no longer divided by the sub-lane as the ‘auxiliary rooms’ are now part of the main house. The overall layout is becoming more functional.Source: Sketches by author

1-bay unit 2-bay unit

branch lane

branch lane

GROUND FLOOR PLAN SECTION

FIGURE GROUND


Fig. 10: Figure Ground Diagram, Plan and Section of the New Style Lilong. This style has been reduced to a very minimal and function plan with the floor plate being considerably reduced.Source: Sketches by author

satisfied the needs for modern high density housing in Shanghai, leading to the production of more than 200 000 units, on average 60 to 150 metres squared, in less than a hundred years (Rowe 2005 p.124).

The most critical change over this period was the reduction in ground floor area and the increase in density in these houses, which solved, and caused, some issues. The reasons for these changes were due to the shift in the government’s policy of creating a home for every worker in the city. However as the economy started to grow so did the value of land, pushing up the affordability of rent, which in turn lead to the restructuring of these neighbourhoods (clearly seen in the transition of Shikumen to The New Style). As the units dramatically increased in density, along with the reduction in the ground floor plan, multiple families occupied the same unit in order to save on rent, leading to extreme densification bordering on slum-like qualities. This was not helped by the reduction in open space within the houses, also a significant change, and in some respects decreased the liveability. However the plan had become more refined, minimal and functional over time which is a key aspect of modern housing, along with the more sophisticated material use and introduction of modern facilities. Although, for some of these neighbourhoods, this was not enough to escape from eventual demolition and replacement by a radically different typology - the high-rise tower block.

1-bay unit

branch lane

branch lane

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FIGURE GROUND

SECTION


Fig. 11: A selection of images to generate an understanding of what the neighbourhoods are like.Source: All images from Qingong, J. & Wenlei, X. 2012 [see ref.]


Chai vs. Bao [Preservation vs. Demolition]

Lilong houses in the current context of ShanghaiAs an urban housing typology, the lilong neighbourhood is in danger of being wiped out (as explained in part one). Admittedly, in Shanghai’s current urban condition the neighbourhoods no longer provide the densities required that make them economically sustainable, mainly due to the soaring land values in the city centre. As stated previously they were built for the migrants and the working class moving into the city, never having the intention of being a permanent form of housing. Remarkably, they have gone from being a ‘modern’ solution to a housing problem in the late 19th/early 20th century, and through their initial success developed into being part of the vernacular fabric of Shanghai today. However a change in lifestyle and the new market-orientated economy has meant that these areas are being rapidly and systematically razed, in order to create much more profitable high-rise apartments. The demolition of these neighbourhoods is dispersing the residents who have lived there for generations. Although they are given compensation, in some cases this is not equal to what is being taken away. In addition, they are also relocated on the edge of the city where rent is cheap but services and infrastructure are poorer. However it has to be recognised that some residents are happy to be removed from this way of life and placed in a modern high-rise apartment as they see this way of living more desirable and suited to their modern needs (Arkaraprasertkul 2009, Rowe 2005).

Supporting reasons for the demolition are that the condition of these houses has severely declined over the years as they have not been properly maintained, with some now being beyond repair. They have also become increasingly overcrowded - almost slum-like - and subsequently the least desirable places to live in the city, making them ideal homes for the ’floating’1 migrant population who have very little money and do not have ‘hukou’2 status. Rowe (2005 p.40) states that “the squalid, run-down condition of these houses [are] often seen as reminders of a way of life the Chinese would rather forget”, and that many residents now want to live in the tower blocks further out of the city centre as they offer a modern, cleaner and more spacious dwelling environment. Another lifestyle change that has affected the lilong houses survival is the governments ‘One Child Policy’. At the time of the lilong neighbourhoods construction the Chinese tradition was that the extended families would live together, meaning there was a need for large units and for them to be in close proximity to each other, and these conditions were

Part Three

1. ‘Floating’ refers to the unaccounted population who do not have ‘hukou’ (see below) status. These people are migrants who have residence out with Shanghai, either rural or in another city, and have come to the city to find better paid jobs.

2. ‘Hukou’ or ‘household accounts’ is a population management system established in the 1950s. The entire population was divided into two non-interchangeable groups: rural and non-rural, creating restrictions on housing, jobs and benefits. In the economic reform years the restrictions were lifted but rural hukou population are still treated as migrant or peasant workers (Shiwen 2008 p.24).


adequately provided by the lilong houses. As the policy has been introduced families have become nucleated and the tradition of the grandparents living with the family has almost ceased. It is also becoming increasingly common for people to live on their own or as a couple, in fact since the economic reforms in 1980 the average people per household has fallen from 4.6 per household to a little less than 3 people in 2008, with a projected decline to around 2.5 in the next decade (Arkaraprasertkul 2012a p.155) This has resulted in the modern high-rise apartment block being the preferred and logical option of dwelling. Rowe also points out that the preservation of historical buildings in Eastern Asia is less than exemplary. It is only in recent years that Shanghai has seen the economic (not architectural or social) potential of these neighbourhoods as it continues to establish itself as a global city. Thus making it more attractive to tourists and investors, as it appears to be a city with a history, instead of a sterile ‘newness’ that is the current trend in most Chinese cities. Clearly this begins to highlight the problem of superficiality in the historical preservation of these areas (Bracken 2013, Ren 2008 p.27, Rowe 2005).

‘Chai’ One of the main discussions amongst academics at present is, do the traditional lilong neighbourhoods have a place in rapidly urbanising Shanghai? (Arkaraprasertkul 2009, 2012a; Bracken 2013; Huang 2004; Huang 2000; Ren 2008) Or will the process of gentrification be the ultimate solution leading to a city without diversity or tradition? I believe that it is necessary to briefly explore the effects of preserving these neighbourhoods, looking at the benefits and short comings of doing so, in order to set the idea of the lilong as an ’abstract concept’ in context. The major issue with historical preservation in lilong neighbourhoods is that it can become superficial and nostalgic if the emphasis is placed solely on the appearance of the houses, as this was secondary to the socio-cultural neighbourhood qualities that they thrived upon. Recently, there have been two very different approaches to preservation of the neighbourhoods, in the form of Xintiandi and Tianzifang. These contrasting styles of redevelopment have had very different effects for the type.

Xintiandi, when translated, means ‘new heaven and earth’ and consists of two Shikumen style blocks which are part of the wider redevelopment of the Taipingqiao area in the former French Concession. The Xintiandi, part of which housed the first Chinese Communist Party meeting, is seen as a turning point in the government’s outlook on the ‘chai’ or ‘bao’ of the lilong neighbourhoods. This project, completed in 2001, has been most successful in terms of shopping and entertainment and it is now one of the city’s most popular places to visit, highlighting the element of superficiality. Other reasons for this popularity are that the different groups who use it perceive it, rather strangely, in different ways: foreigners believe that this is the real China, where as the locals see it as excitingly foreign (Bracken 2013 p.136).

Once a run-down area, it has now been transformed by a Hong Kong developer, Shui-On Land, and American architect, Benjamin Wood, to a place that now plays host to trendy bars, restaurants and hyper-expensive coffee shops. Despite the economic success, the superficiality of the area begins to become apparent as the architect himself admits that the historical and social preservation of the area was not his main concern. What remains is the highly polished shell of the traditional brick façade, with the intimate internal spatial and social organisation completely gutted. Along with the diverse socio-cultural neighbourhood element that was the essence of lilong houses. Bracken highlights the issues of superficiality well;

“The nostalgia we see here is nothing less than a purging of the past, a cleansing of any hint of dirt and grime or misery so that the newly scrubbed and polished version of the city’s history can be repackaged for the global elite.” (Bracken 2013 p.136)

The success behind the preservation of an area like this is being able to capture the whole experience of the sense of community that once existed, not just the physical memory. As the development has only captured this physical memory of Shikumen houses it has lead it to become rather kitsch. What is also disappointing is that this top-down approach to the design has created a social injustice, where the original residents who may have lived there for generations are relocated to make way for upper-class residents who can afford the extortionate rent. Chen argues that this project has only really benefited “a certain group of up-level users rather than the original communities” (Chen 2007 p.12), which is a polar opposite to the idea of the original neighbourhoods as they catered for a wide range of the population and thrived on diversity. Huang highlights that the economic success of this area has also had a social effect on the surrounding lilong houses. As land values have risen, due to their proximity to Xintiandi, these residents are then also forced out and relocated elsewhere, again destroying communities which have developed over generations. Bracken adds that this is one of the problems that gentrification causes, a social unevenness, and that the Xintiandi has become an uncritical and somewhat ‘false’ reconstruction of supposedly authentic Shikumen houses. This form of regeneration and gentrification process starts to suggest that the preservation of these areas may lead to a loss of diversity and community within the city (Bracken 2013; Chen 2007; Huang 2004).


In stark contrast to this there is the community led redevelopment of the Tianzifang, also in the former French Concession just a few blocks from Xintiandi. Ironically the locals refer to it as ‘Laotiandi’, making references to its counterpart, as ‘lao’ means ‘old’, fully translating as ‘old heaven and earth’, as it has become a more critical and considered response to an authentic preservation. The focus has not been entirely on the physical elements but has placed a large emphasis on the social sustainability of the area with the main focus on the rehabilitation of the arts and creative industries. The success of this area comes from its bottom-up approach, starting with the spontaneous regeneration of The Taikang Road Arts Centre and then progressing organically through the block without any real direction other than to restore the unique qualities of the lilong neighbourhood (Bracken 2013, Yung et al. 2011). Having experienced both the Xintiandi and Tianzifang for myself, the latter has certainly retained its authentic character, identity and sense of community.

The alleyways of this neighbourhood form a labyrinth of space with contrasting scales, widths and changes in level which really advocate the success of the spatial qualities this typology has to offer. The physical structures are saturated in colour but still have the dirt and grime that remember the history. It is populated mostly by locals rather than foreigners, both as visitors and as residents, suggesting that the preservation is more authentic. Also, the families who have lived here for generations still do, unlike the evictions of Xintiandi, and there are no major corporate chains which allow local galleries and small cafes which line the alleyways to succeed. The commercial units all provided facilities which can be enjoyed by locals creating a more socially inclusive environment. There is still the colourful laundry hanging from bamboo poles, elders playing mahjong in the lanes, people eating from hawker stalls and drinking tea outside their houses, all culminating in the vibrancy that is Chinese street and neighbourhood culture that appeals to all the senses. This preservation, Bracken argues, “is a return to a pattern that is both welcome and long overdue” (Bracken 2013 p.150).

Yung, Chan and Xu’s research into the success of the Tianzifang also emphasises the huge importance of social sustainability when dealing with historical preservation. They identified several different attributes that were vital in creating this success, such as “enhance sense of place” and “promote local culture and uniqueness”. This research praised the bottom-up approach and demonstrated that there is a successful way forward for the typology without resorting to gentrification, and the detrimental effects associated with this approach (Yung et al. 2011).

‘Bao’The two areas raise awareness that there is still something to be learned from this typology and really emphasises the success of the intimate, social, neighbourhood qualities that Shanghai is losing rapidly. Tianzifang is arguably more successful as there is an integration of historical preservation and social sustainability, which looks beyond

Fig. 12: Image of Xintiandi: the renovated Shikumen houses now playing host to bijou shops and cafes.Source: Bracken 2013 [see ref.]


the economic goals and tackles the social issues of gentrification and inequality (Yung et al. 2011 p.14). Huang, in her research, has reiterated the importance, and somewhat glorified, the qualities of the lilong houses by quoting the Chinese novelist Wang Anyi;

“the emotional power of [lilong] houses lies in the sights and sounds of everyday life… It is not the power of the heroic epic, but that of the accumulation of ordinary life. Flowing among those lines of houses is nothing grand, but as minute grains of sand, which can build a tower when brought together.” (Wang Anyi quoted in Huang 2004 p.122)

It is this spirit that should remain if the neighbourhoods are to preserved, not the kitsch and the trendy. However these areas were built in a completely different era, for a completely different population, scale and lifestyle. This begins to suggest that they should just be demolished and allow for modern, higher density towers to be constructed. This is certainly the preferred approach by developers, government and even some residents at present, with an extremely logical argument for doing so. As mentioned some of the houses are in need of serious repair as they have been neglected by the residents who do not have a sufficient income to rectify this as they are mainly migrant workers and of working-class. Arkaraprasertkul (2012b p.171), through interviews, highlights that many people are “embarrassed” of the houses they live in due to their condition and that they are happy for the government to remove them and place them in a new modern apartment. This is interesting as it suggests that maybe there is bias in favour of nostalgia and romanticism without properly studying the current liveability of the lilong. There are problems with the outdated sewage and drainage systems that do not provide constant hot water or any other mod-cons that the high-rise can offer. Although access has improved over the neighbourhood’s development there are still concerns over fire safety, waste disposal and general accessibility for older and disabled residents. The houses themselves do not allow a great deal of flexibility or expansion due to the minimal floor plates, and as the Chinese family structure has shifted from extended to nuclear, they do not satisfy the current demand for studio and smaller self-contained apartments. Even if the houses are restored the chances are that the cost of doing so will be so high that it will only be the upper-classes that can afford to live in them, or in the case of Xintiandi only bijou shops that can rent them, which will completely undermining the whole intent behind preservation.

Therefore the question remains, is demolition or preservation the correct route, or is there an opportunity to create a new housing typology that serves as a contemporary development of the lilong neighbourhood? The arguments for both sides are strong but Bracken reminds us that it is not the buildings and streets that are the essence of cities, that it is the people and their interaction (Bracken 2013 p.139). This idea, which is the inherent quality of lilong houses, needs to be the main driver if this approach is to succeed.

Fig. 13: Image of Tianzifang: the bottom-up redevelopment is socially more successful.Source: Bracken 2013 [see ref.]


The Abstract Concept

The Lilong Neighbourhood as an Abstract ConceptHaving established that preservation nor demolition are the appropriate way forward for this type, I will now suggest an alternative way in which the lilong neighbourhoods are to exist, as an ‘abstract concept‘. The ’abstract concept’ is an idea that critically analyses the lilong neighbourhoods and determines the qualities that make them a successful urban type, in order to replicate those principles to create a contemporary response against the current high-rise trend. The process of analysing the lilong will be loosely based around the framework that was developed in “The Vertical Village“, however my process will be more focused in its exploration of the architectural and urban form. Through the process of analysing the physical and social qualities that make this hybrid of Chinese street life and Western modernity, it becomes apparent that the architecture of the lilong houses do not necessarily need to confine themselves to a set physical form. Rather that it is the social urban neighbourhood which is the concept that should be embraced to develop this urban housing type.

Through this research so far it has established the historical importance of the lilong neighbourhoods to Shanghai and that they should not just be blindly erased, but at the same time understand that preservation alone will be equally unsuccessful. Admittedly, the idea of renovating these existing areas will not succeed in terms of economic feasibility or meeting the colossal housing demand. Meaning that the city will continue to rapidly build vertically, thus losing the diverse nature of the city and allow a diminishing sense of street culture and a traditional urban environment. Therefore, like Arkaraprasertkul (2012a, 2009) and MVRDV (2012) suggest, we should look critically at the key aspects of this housing type that makes it so successful, in order to retain and further the unique elements that it has to offer the city.

As explored in part one, while explaining the argument of ‘too fast’, MVRDV acknowledge in their text “The Vertical Village”, that the loss of urban villages across East Asia is having a severe negative architectural and social impact. They created a framework in which to analyse these ‘urban villages’, from the ‘cho’ of Tokyo to the ‘soi’ of Bangkok, by studying the work of Christopher Alexander, Jane Jacobs and other urban theorists. They then formulated the key aspects into specific criteria that would allow an evaluation of what makes these communities so successful. Using this framework as a base I have expanded upon it in order to create a more robust and less superficial

Part Four


exploration which aims to rigorously explore the factors that make the neighbourhoods so successful. This is mainly a qualitative analysis as opposed to quantitative, as what I aim to analyse is the subjective atmosphere and experience of these neighbourhoods, however the physicality will also be important to explore.

Spatial Hierarchy and Collective Communities

“Communities are collective; they offer the feeling of being part of a safe and mutually supportive group, with shared ways of living, ambitions, characters and qualities, tied together by a dense social fabric” (MVRDV 2012 p.50)

Spatial hierarchy and ‘collectivity’ are the most essential components to this type, they are critical as they reinforce the importance of the shared; public, semi-public and even semi-private spaces; and the benefits of having this type of arrangement. What is most exceptional is the fact that when you are inside these neighbourhoods the spatial structuring seems non-existent, almost chaotic. However, the actual hierarchy of spaces within is highly organised and effective which creates its defined uses. The main lane functions as the primary circulation route - pedestrian and vehicular - and can be considered as a blurring of public and semi-public space as it connects to the street outside. This architectural device, whether intentional or not, works as the streets surrounding the block are considered entirely public therefore this transition to the main lilong lane is almost an invisible threshold, although this varies between lilong’s as the Old Shikumen style had the stone gateway that loosely defined the boundary. Nevertheless, across all types of lilong it still created a sense of identity and safety for the community on the other side. The narrower branch lanes become more individual spaces that again blur the boundaries, this time, of semi-public and semi-private space as they are essentially an extension of the semi-private ground floor living spaces, as all rooms are connected to, and spill out onto a lane in some way. This way of occupying space greatly benefits the residents as outdoor activities such as; practicing Tai-Chi, the elderly playing mahjong, children playing games; are an integral part of daily life and the narrow lanes provide an environment for this.

There is an increased sense of community as the entire ground-floor of the neighbourhood, in some respects, is a semi-private space due to the front and back lanes cutting through the plots, it is only really the upper floors that are completely private. This makes tasks - such as cooking - an outdoor communal activity that can involve others from surrounding houses or lanes and allows them to engage, discuss and become familiar with each other. Increased interaction also benefits the safety of the community. The plan arrangement of the neighbourhoods’ means that they create a ‘neighbourhood watch’ style of security that depends on people interacting with each other, as everyone knows everyone it is impossible for strangers to pass through unnoticed. This organisation creates an even more intense form of what Jane Jacobs famously refers to as “eyes on the street“, meaning there is a strong sense of security but still a relaxed for of social interaction (Arkaraprasertkul 2012a p.151)

The shop-houses on the perimeter reinforce this safety element as they almost become gated communities, but at the same time remain porous as the lanes running through the block allow a visual link to the external streets. The dual nature of these neighbourhoods creates a legible urban form that integrates with the surrounding fabric, which is vital in creating a successful city as a whole. People who live here feel safe and do not feel alone in the intimate environment that is created, which is a quality that would struggle to be replicated in a high rise block. Although some may question whether this makes the neighbourhood a difficult place to live - due to the lack of privacy. As housing demand soared the houses were then subdivided to accommodate more families, causing overcrowding and making them increasingly difficult places to live. This would effectively sacrifice what little communal space there was on the ground floor for more bedroom space, again forcing residents to use the lanes as their living rooms. Privacy is a large concern as this created an almost suffocating feeling due to the constant interaction with others and the lack of private space internally. This shows a downside to the blurring of some spatial boundaries and this level of intimacy and if a contemporary response was to be designed then it may need to consider a different use for the ground floor, other than accommodation in order to combat the issues of privacy and liveability. However, Arkaraprasertkul (2012b pp.171-172), through his interviews with residents, discovers that it is in fact the lack of the privacy that the residents would miss the most, “it makes us a community” one resident states, but I am not convinced it is as simple as this. Understandably, this is not conclusive evidence but does reinforce that it is the community and collective aspect that is critical to this typology. When compared to the isolation of the block there is a heightened sense of ‘belonging’ within these lilong communities which is important as it appears that Shanghai, as it globalises, is starting to lose touch with its culture, tradition and indigenous residents through gentrification.

Density, Scale and Quality of SpaceSo not only is the spatial organisation of these neighbourhoods a valuable concept in itself, when this is combined with the scale and density of the area this creates a unique quality of space within. These areas boast an


architectural vibrancy and intimacy that is the polar opposite of the vast and sterile urban landscape that high-rise towers have to offer. In order to explain the success of the lilong neighbourhood’s scale and spatial quality it is best to compare them against the high-rise towers. The issue with the towers is that the key component of the city, the resident, is disregarded as the towers are built in masses of open space and then segregated by super-highways. There is no evident consideration of scale in this approach, however the lilong neighbourhoods are of a human scaled environment that is successful and works on two levels - a macro and a micro. Firstly, in terms of the city, the scale of the neighbourhood as a whole works with the traditional urban fabric, developing and reacting with this structure of fine urban grain instead of working against it. The form of the city becomes more engaging and navigable as these porous neighbourhood blocks provide a more intimate experience; creating a possibility to weave through the city as opposed to being constrained by a monumental grid of towers and roads. This approach to design makes the pedestrian the key component as opposed to the focusing on the car, which is ultimately a positive response.

Following on from this, in terms of the residents, the scale creates an immediate connection to the neighbourhoods internal environment. The lanes are essential to this type and in particular enhance this previously mentioned idea of ’belonging’, as the scale they are at not only allows people to interact but physically forces them to - which could be seen in a positive or negative light. This intimate spatial quality that is created can be attributed to both the human scale and high density of these neighbourhoods. The lanes span only two or three metres in width and are flanked on either side by rows of three-storey houses. This creates an almost suffocating environment to be in, as there are many people walking and chatting; people riding bicycles passing through; objects, such as tables and chairs reducing the already limited space; and lanterns and clothes hanging from bamboo poles above. However, this should not be seen as something to avoid but rather something that should be celebrated (and possibly recreated) as this quality of space and interaction is the street culture that Shanghai is beginning to lose. These places vividly appeal to all the senses as you can hear things happening, smell people cooking and feel a breeze passing through. The lanes are essentially an extension of the living space, creating a blurring of interiority and exteriority within the neighbourhoods. This advances the aforementioned idea of the ground floor of the block being a semi-public space, by adding another level of complexity to it which demonstrates that this type has a great deal of rigour to it. Continuing in this analysis of the quality of space it is worth mentioning the visual elements of the neighbourhoods. Although the physical appearance of the building is not necessarily essential to the ‘abstract concept’ (as the focus is on the social structuring of the neighbourhoods) there are principles that should be at least acknowledged. The use of brick in the houses and gateways evokes a feeling of security and solidity that backs up previously mentioned ideas of safety. The ornament and detail in this brickwork and gateways demonstrates the identity and pride of the neighbourhoods and again this idea of ‘belonging’ that is so important. These are just minor points but they constitute to the success of the whole.

The density may not be as extreme as the high-rise towers but is of a level that makes them self-sustaining places that support a community that is diverse, complex and has many levels of interaction to it. This allows these neighbourhoods to support small shops and business, like cobblers or barbers, and really emphasise the economic success that this social structuring can create. This could be defined as a bottom-up approach to urbanism that focuses on building communities rather than houses in order to create a more successful urban environment. This goes back to Bracken’s previously mentioned idea that it is the people and their networks that make cities, not the buildings and streets (Bracken 2013 p.139).

The Future of Lilong HousesAs stated the intention of this research was to explore a counter proposal to the current rapid high-rise development in China. By rigorously analysing the lilong neighbourhoods and thinking of them in the form of an ’abstract concept’, there is the potential to apply this framework and develop it into a new low-rise high-density urban form that tries to resolve the architectural and social issues that this research has outlined. It is clear that the social structuring of the neighbourhood is the most important quality and this should be translated in this new design. Like Arkaraprasertkul (2009 p.23), I agree that that the ‘spine and ribs’ formation should be maintained as this has proven to be successful and efficient in promoting a vibrant social environment since the typology‘s inception. Arkaraprasertkul (2009 p.24) suggests that a higher density can be achieved through modern construction techniques meaning that the intermediate floor depths can be reduced which will allow more floors, possibly four or five storey, at roughly the same height. This idea is a step in the right direction; however the main challenge will be; establishing a density that is not so high that it will detract from the intimate social environment through overcrowding; but at the same time high enough that the neighbourhoods become economically viable to developers. As a result of more storeys Arkaraprasertkul also suggests “elevated corridors” to provide access to these new floors (Arkaraprasertkul 2009 p.25). Once again this is a step in the right direction, however this may have its downfalls as the scale begins to become distorted and the intimacy of the lanes becomes muddied through the vertical expansion.


This was just a short analysis of what Arkaraprasertkul has proposed in order to demonstrate that there is an opportunity to further develop the lilong typology. It will require much further investigation into what makes them so successful in order to create this new low-rise high-density housing; but this research has begun to uncover and understand how the qualities outlined in the ‘abstract concept’ may be transformed into a physical design.


Conclusion

It is undeniable that the lilong neighbourhoods have had a massive influence on the urbanisation process in creating modern Shanghai. The argument that this research aimed to provoke was; with the current trend of building high and fast having a detrimental effect on the architectural and social quality of the city, can lessons be learned from the lilong neighbourhoods, as an abstract concept, to try and create a more successful urban environment in Chinese cities.

The issue of whether or not Chinese cities are urbanising ‘too fast’ was always intended to be a rhetorical question to instigate the discussion that there are issues with the current process. Although a rapid pace is required to meet the soaring demands for housing it was argued that the repetitive high-rise tower blocks were insufficient in generating a social and architectural environment that was to be conducive to the city’s urban quality. This gave reasoning to explore lilong neighbourhoods as they create an extremely successful social-spatial environment and has also been part of Shanghai dwelling culture for over a century. This investigation demonstrated how resilient the type has been and how it had adapted to the pressures of urbanisation up until the 1980s. However these neighbourhoods are now being demolished to give way for much higher density high-rise developments. This prompted the discussion whether or not these areas should be demolished and what could actually be gained from their preservation. It was important to understand this idea of preserving or demolishing the neighbourhoods and the consequences of doing so as this part balanced the argument and demonstrated that the preservation of the houses are not so simple. Ultimately, it makes no sense to preserve the physical façade of the houses as this was not the essence of lilong. What needs to be preserved is the social-spatial and cultural environment that is the main driver of this typology. This proved that the social sustainability of the area was even more important than the physical preservation which gave grounding to analyse the lilong neighbourhoods as an ’abstract concept’. Which serves as a process to extrapolate the key ideas of there areas in order to produce an new urban form that would try to solve the issues Chinese cities are currently facing. This research has identified and analysed most aspects of the lilong neighbourhoods and they can be distilled down to key components; a spatial hierarchy, collective community, density and scale, and quality of space. It is these elements that should be the main emphasis when trying to create and advance this typology in modern Shanghai and other Chinese cities.

However there are still questions over the extent in which architecture can foster a particular set of social relations, such as community spirit. Are these social relations of lilong even relevant to contemporary society where knowing your neighbour and street culture is not as important as it was, say 60 years ago? An interesting point is that the social element of the lilong was never a designed or considered factor, the form originated through the confinement of space and it was the plasticity of the Chinese residents that gave rise to this ‘lane culture’. There is a chance that a contemporary development of the lilong, such as the ‘abstract concept’ I propose, may lead to a romantic reinterpretation of what the lilong neighbourhoods once were. This would be unacceptable as the as this is what this research has argued against. Ultimately more investigation needs to be conducted that specifically uses first-hand information from lilong residents in order to fully understand the positive and negative elements of living in these areas; and to determine whether Shanghai should embrace the lilong as its main urban form.


Acknowledgements

I would especially like to thank my supervisor, Penny Lewis, for the support and guidance throughout writing this dissertation.

The opportunity to go to China was also extremely valuable to this research, so thanks to those who were involved in making that possible within the university and those at XJTLU in Suzhou.

Special thanks must go to my fiancé who’s support, encouragement and proof-reading was vital when this task seemed impossible and also to my parents.


References

Arkaraprasertkul, N., 2012a. Urbanisation and Housing: Socio-Spatial Conflicts over Urban Space in Contemporary Shanghai. Aspects of Urbanisation in China: Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guangzhou. Ed. G. Bryne Bracken. Iias Series. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.

Arkaraprasertkul, N., 2012b. Moral global Storytelling: Reflections on Place and space in Shanghai’s Urban Neighbourhoods, Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies, 8:3, pp. 167-179

Arkaraprasertkul, N., 2009. Towards Modern Urban Housing: Redefining Shanghai’s Lilong, Journal of Urbanism, 2:1, pp. 11-29

Borden, I., Ray, K. R., 2006. The Dissertation: An Architecture Students Handbook, 2nd edition, Oxford, Architectural Press.

Bracken, G., 2013. The Shanghai Alleyway House: A vanishing urban vernacular. London, Routledge

Chen, X., de’Medici, T., 2010. The Instant City coming of Age: Production of spaces in China’s Shenzhen’s Special Economic Zone, Urban Geography, 31:8, pp. 1141-1147

Chen, Y., 2007. Regeneration and Sustainable Development in China’s Transformation - at the ENHR International Conference on Sustainable Urban Areas, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Available: http://enhr2007rotterdam.nl/documents/W19_paper_Chen.pdf [Accessed 14th April 2013]

China Urban Development, 2011. How Chinese Mega-Cities have avoided Problems of other Developing Countries. Available from: http://www.chinaurbandevelopment.com/?p=629 [Accessed 14th November 2012]

Denison, E., 2008. Architecture in China and the Meaning of Modern. Architectural Design: New Urban China Issue. 78:5, pp. 118-123

Fairs, M., 2012. Architects in China are Lost. Dezeen. Available from: http://www.dezeen.com/2012/11/16/architects-feel-lost/ [Accessed 20th November 2012]

Freidman, J., 2006. Four Theses in the Study of China’s Urbanisation, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol 30, pp. 440-51

Howarth, D., 2012. China Needs to slow Down. Dezeen. Available from: http:/dezeen.com/2012/10/05/china-needs-to-slow-down-says-beijing-design-week-creative-director-aric-chen/ [Accessed 20th November 2012]

Huang, L., 2000. Housing Development in the context of modernisation, urbanisation and conservation of Chinese traditional cities: Beijing, Shanghai and Suzhou. Thesis (DDes). Harvard University

Huang, T. M., 2004. Walking between Slums and Skyscrapers: Illusions of Open Space in Hong Kong, Tokyo and Shanghai. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press.

Jacobs, J., 1970. The Economy of Cities. New York, Vintage Books.

Jacques, M., 2012. When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order. UK, Penguin.

Jun, J. & Xiaoming, K., 2008. The Taxonomy of Contemporary Chinese Cities, Architectural Design: New Urban China Issue. 78:5, pp. 16-21

Koolhaas, R., 1994. Delirious New York. New York, The Monacelli Press Inc.

Koolhaas, R. et al., 2001. Great Leap Forward. Koln, Taschen.

Lu, J., Rowe, P.G. and Zhang, J., 2001. Modern Urban Housing in China: 1840-2000. Munich, Prestel.


Mee, K.N., 2002. Sustainable Urban Development Issues in Chinese Transitional Cities: Hong Kong and Shenzhen, International Planning Studies, 7:1, pp. 7-36

Miller, T., 2012. China’s Urban Billion: The story behind the biggest migration in human history. London and New York, Zed Books

MVRDV, 2012. The Vertical Village, Rotterdam, Nai Publishers

Qinggong, J. & Wenlei, X., 2012. Shanghai’s Shikumen. Shanghai, Tongji University Press

Ren, X., 2008. Forward to the Past: Historical Preservation in Globalising Shanghai, City & Community, 7:1, pp. 23-44

Rowe, P.G., 2005. East Asia Modern: shaping the contemporary city. London, Reaktion Books

Ruan, X., 2006. New China Architecture. Hong Kong, Periplus.

Shiwen, S., 2008. The Institutional and Political Background to Chinese Urbanisation. Architectural Design: New Urban China Issue. 78:5, pp. 22-28

Tuhus-Dubrow, R., 2009. Learning from the Slums. Boston Global. Available from: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/01/learning_from_slums/?page=1 [Accessed 14th November 2012]

Wang, Y. P., 2012. Driving Force: Urbanisation in China. Real Estate Research Quarterly, vol.4, pp. 30-38.

Weiwen, H., 2008. Urbanisation in Contemporary China Observed. Architectural Design: New Urban China Issue. 78:5, pp.26-31

Williams, A., 2012. As China is getting bolder the West is losing confidence. Future Cities Project. Available from:http://futurecities.org.uk/2012/09/03/as-china-is-getting-bolder-the-west-is-losing-confidence/#more-1996 [Accessed 9th November 2012]

Williams, A. & Donald, A., 2011. The Lure of the City: from Slums to the Suburbs, London, Pluto Press

Wu, W, & Gaubatz, P. 2012. The Chinese City. New York, Routledge.

Xiaodong, L., 2010. The Celebration of Superficiality: Chinese Architecture since 1979, The Journal of Architecture, 5:4, pp. 391-409

Xue, C.Q.L., 2006. Building a Revolution: Chinese Architecture since 1980. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press.

Yu, K. & Padua, M.G., 2007. China’s cosmetic cities: Urban fever and superficiality, Landscape Research, 32:2, pp. 255-272

Yu, K., & Li, D., 2011. The negative approach to urban growth planning of Beijing, China, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54:9, pp. 1209-1236

Yung, E. H. K., Chan, E. H. W., Xu, Y., 2011. Sustainable Development and the Rehabilitation of a Historic Urban district - Social Sustainability in the Case of Tianzifang in Shanghai. Available from: http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com [Accessed 23rd January 2013]

Zhao, C., 2004. From Shikumen to New Style: A Rereading of Lilong Housing in Modern Shanghai, The Journal of Architecture, vol. 9, pp. 49-76

Zhongshu, X., 1992. Hanyu da Chadian (The Great Chinese Vocabulary Dictionary), Sichuan, Sichuan Dictionary Press p. 217; p.1531

are chinese cities urbanising too fast?

Documents

chinese cities

chinas cities

shanghais population

chinese city

industrialised asian

chinas development

lowrise lilong housessource

chinas diverse