Home
News
In Focus
Business
Metro
Nation
World
Sports
Feature
Opinion
View more »Opinion Columns
Wan LixinOpinion deputy editor of Shanghai Daily
Forum emphasizes BRI cooperation between China and Arab countries
Rights to lower sleeper berths should be softened by empathy for fellow passengers
Sunday
- Subscribe
Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
Seeking better models for urban good life
By Wang Yong |
May 27, 2010, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
JUST as McDonaldization murders food variety, Manhattanization maims urban diversity.
While few dispute this simple truth in talk or in writing, many disregard it in practice, particularly in the case of urbanization of Chinese characteristics.
"Every city (in China) aspires to be another Shanghai, Guangzhou or Beijing, but Shanghai is not the model of a Chinese city," wrote a veteran reporter of the People's Daily yesterday.
"Every city planner in China had better understood this, especially when Shanghai is being glorified as the host of the World Expo," warned Ding Gang in his editorial, titled "Good life in monotony," published yesterday in the Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post .
He is half right in dismissing Shanghai as a model Chinese city. Looking at the well-lit Huangpu River at night last week, he lamented how similar it was to a night at Manhattan, along the Hudson and East rivers.
His German friends asked jokingly: "Why are Chinese people all over the country enthusiastically copying Manhattan?" He provided no ready answer in his article, but agreed that Chinese cities had lost their souls in the process of Manhattanization.
To be sure, Shanghai is not just about the well-lit Huangpu River and the towering buildings along it. Shanghai has a lot to offer other Chinese cities in their efforts to create better life.
For example, there are so many convenience stores in Shanghai that you don't have to drive for fresh food or other daily necessities. In Shanghai, you can have a much smaller carbon footprint than in many other cities, Chinese or foreign, Manhattanized or not.
And in the former French Concession area, myriad well-preserved old houses outshine a handful of skyscrapers. Cars often yield to pedestrians because there are much longer green lights than in most other commercial streets in the city.
But Ding had reason to be concerned about the Manhattanized part of Shanghai and the nationwide mania to copy that aspect of the city. "In many big cities in China, urbanization is synonymous with skyscrapers, as if you can't have a better city life without those monotonous monstrosities," he said.
He noted that even in Xi'an, capital of 13 Chinese dynasties spanning 1,140 years, skyscrapers and grand shopping centers are dominating downtown areas, overshadowing the ages-old walls that are the very attraction of the city.
"Chinese people are unrivaled in copying in the process of urbanization," he wrote sarcastically. "Every city is doing the same: pulling down old architecture, broadening boulevards (for vehicles and shops) and erecting fake old architecture."
Harsh in its criticism of Manhattanization, Ding's article hasn't mentioned why Manhattanization sneaked or even strode into Chinese cities, ancient and modern.
Who masterminded the Manhattanization of China, where thousands of years before Manhattan arose, many cities and their residents knew how best to live with nature?
Manhattan is not to blame. It's those Chinese city planners who hardly know what a better life is and who cannot possibly answer to criticism from observers like Ding.
In ancient China, an accomplished scholar-official would have to excel in four things: qin (a seven-stringed instrument similar to a Western zither), qi (go), shu (calligraphy) and hua (painting). A scholar thus educated would naturally revere nature and tradition.
In China's officialdom today, none of these traits is required. They are at most personal hobbies.
In many Chinese cities nowadays, an official's first and foremost "accomplishment" is increasing GDP.
This drive, however, often comes at the expense of nature, tradition and sometimes the lives of ordinary people who die defending their homes from bulldozers because officials virtually "gave" their land to developers.
There is a consensus that the performance review system for Chinese officials is partly to blame for many officials' zeal for GDP growth at whatever cost.
Yes, it's a systemic problem. But what about the systemic problems with the education and selection of Chinese officials? How can those people so susceptible to the superficial GDP-driven "glory" of Manhattan be elected as officials?
While few dispute this simple truth in talk or in writing, many disregard it in practice, particularly in the case of urbanization of Chinese characteristics.
"Every city (in China) aspires to be another Shanghai, Guangzhou or Beijing, but Shanghai is not the model of a Chinese city," wrote a veteran reporter of the People's Daily yesterday.
"Every city planner in China had better understood this, especially when Shanghai is being glorified as the host of the World Expo," warned Ding Gang in his editorial, titled "Good life in monotony," published yesterday in the Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post .
He is half right in dismissing Shanghai as a model Chinese city. Looking at the well-lit Huangpu River at night last week, he lamented how similar it was to a night at Manhattan, along the Hudson and East rivers.
His German friends asked jokingly: "Why are Chinese people all over the country enthusiastically copying Manhattan?" He provided no ready answer in his article, but agreed that Chinese cities had lost their souls in the process of Manhattanization.
To be sure, Shanghai is not just about the well-lit Huangpu River and the towering buildings along it. Shanghai has a lot to offer other Chinese cities in their efforts to create better life.
For example, there are so many convenience stores in Shanghai that you don't have to drive for fresh food or other daily necessities. In Shanghai, you can have a much smaller carbon footprint than in many other cities, Chinese or foreign, Manhattanized or not.
And in the former French Concession area, myriad well-preserved old houses outshine a handful of skyscrapers. Cars often yield to pedestrians because there are much longer green lights than in most other commercial streets in the city.
But Ding had reason to be concerned about the Manhattanized part of Shanghai and the nationwide mania to copy that aspect of the city. "In many big cities in China, urbanization is synonymous with skyscrapers, as if you can't have a better city life without those monotonous monstrosities," he said.
He noted that even in Xi'an, capital of 13 Chinese dynasties spanning 1,140 years, skyscrapers and grand shopping centers are dominating downtown areas, overshadowing the ages-old walls that are the very attraction of the city.
"Chinese people are unrivaled in copying in the process of urbanization," he wrote sarcastically. "Every city is doing the same: pulling down old architecture, broadening boulevards (for vehicles and shops) and erecting fake old architecture."
Harsh in its criticism of Manhattanization, Ding's article hasn't mentioned why Manhattanization sneaked or even strode into Chinese cities, ancient and modern.
Who masterminded the Manhattanization of China, where thousands of years before Manhattan arose, many cities and their residents knew how best to live with nature?
Manhattan is not to blame. It's those Chinese city planners who hardly know what a better life is and who cannot possibly answer to criticism from observers like Ding.
In ancient China, an accomplished scholar-official would have to excel in four things: qin (a seven-stringed instrument similar to a Western zither), qi (go), shu (calligraphy) and hua (painting). A scholar thus educated would naturally revere nature and tradition.
In China's officialdom today, none of these traits is required. They are at most personal hobbies.
In many Chinese cities nowadays, an official's first and foremost "accomplishment" is increasing GDP.
This drive, however, often comes at the expense of nature, tradition and sometimes the lives of ordinary people who die defending their homes from bulldozers because officials virtually "gave" their land to developers.
There is a consensus that the performance review system for Chinese officials is partly to blame for many officials' zeal for GDP growth at whatever cost.
Yes, it's a systemic problem. But what about the systemic problems with the education and selection of Chinese officials? How can those people so susceptible to the superficial GDP-driven "glory" of Manhattan be elected as officials?
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
