Collective Form for Post-Developmental Inner-city Regeneration
Abstract
The strong and rapid urban growth of China in the past decades was largely realised through territorial expansion and essentially building cities from the ground up, a condition known as a ‘developmental city’. Many expanding Chinese cities are developmental in character with imported types in vast quantity that are becoming the new dominant types. As outward expansion began to decline in recent years, the focus of development is returning to the city centre,with the risk of large-scaleerasure of existing urban fabric along with its history and social life. This paper explores the possibilities for inner-city regeneration through evaluation of current architecture types in the urbanised Chinese city centre of Ningbo, and the potential to engage in the developmental future. Typology is utilised as a tool of investigation to reveal the evolution of the idea of the city over time.Theaimistopoint towards an urban vision of the common good with a new collective form, which can then respond to the inevitable developmental forces through a theoretical position for regeneration rooted in urban social life.
References
[1] Harvey, D. (2005). Neo-liberalism with Chinese Characteristics. In A Brief History of Neoliberalism (pp.120-151). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2] Castells, M. (1988). The Developmental City State in an Open World Economy: The Singapore Experience. University of California, Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.
[3] Lee,C.M.(2016).Common Frameworks: Rethinking the Developmental City in China.Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Design. pp.16-33.
[4] Guney, Y. I. (2007). Type and typology in architectural discourse. Journal of Balikesir University. Vol.9, pp.3-18.
[5] Colquhoun, A. (1969). Typology and design method. Perspecta. Vol.12, pp.71-74.
[6] Vidler, A. (1978). The third typology. In Peckham, A., & Schmiedeknecht, T. (Ed). The rationalist reader: Architecture and rationalism in Western Europe, 1920-1940/1960-1990. (pp.221-227). London; New York: Routledge.
[7] Rossi, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[8] Lee,C.,&Jacoby,S.(2011).Typologicalurbanismandtheideaofthecity.Architectural Design.Vol.81(1), pp.14-23.
[9] Moneo, R. (1978). On typology. Oppositions. Vol.13, pp.22-45.
[10] Rossi, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[11] 宁波史志网 (2010Jun21). 宁波60年发展历程纪实 Retrievedfrom:http://www.cnbsz.org.cn/cat/ cat96/Con_96_7983.html
[12] Lü,J.,Rowe,P.G.,&Zhang,J.(2001). Modern Urban Housing in China, 1840-2000.NewYork:Prestel.
[13] 中囯建筑技朮发展中心. (1984). 浙江民居. 北京:中囯建筑工业出版社
[14] Yu, S. (2017). Courtyard in conflict: The transformation of Beijing’s Siheyuan during revolution and gentrification. The Journal of Architecture. Vol.22(8), pp.1337-1365.
[15] Zhao, C. (2004). From shikumen to new-style: a rereading of lilong housing in modern Shanghai. The Journal of Architecture. Vol.9(1), pp.49-76.
[16] Rowe, P. G., Forsyth, A., & Kan, H. Y. (2016). China’s Urban Communities: Concepts, Contexts, and Well-Being. Basel/Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
[17] Jacoby, S., Cheng, J. (2018). Collective Forms in China: People’s Commune and Danwei. 中国集体形制 New Architecture. 新建筑No.180
[18] Urban, F. (2012). Tower and Slab: Histories of Global Mass Housing. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: New York: Routledge.