I saved for last in my series here the project that is currently widely considered to be the best prospect for actually completing an eco-city in China. The project is officially known as the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City (SSTEC) and is being constructed under the joint oversight of the Singaporean government and the Chinese government as the second in a series of joint projects between the two nations (the first was an eco-industrial park in Suzhou and the next is an eco-city outside of Nanjing). As I will demonstrate in this post, the developers of SSTEC learned from the failures of Dongtan and Huangbaiyu and have worked hard to ensure the success of the eco-city. As you read, I encourage you to think about some of the issues regarding governance and stakeholders that I brought up in my other case studies in the context here of Tianjin before reaching my own discussion toward the bottom. If you choose not to, I at least hope you enjoy my narrative and analysis and as always, please remember that these are my own thoughts and I am happy to discuss or respond to any comments or questions.
The Sino-Singaporean Saga
Tianjin’s eco-journey actually begins hundreds of miles to the south in the city of Suzhou, not far from Shanghai. My avid readers will remember Suzhou as one of the two cities I highlighted in my post about ancient Chinese gardens. For those unfamiliar with it, Suzhou is known throughout China for its cultural and historical gems. It is littered with gardens which have been gorgeously preserved and restored to represent models of the Chinese philosophy of man as a part of nature. However, contrary to this harmonious perspective, modern day Suzhou is an agglomeration of superblock housing and industrial centers [1]. Its proximity and connectivity to Shanghai provided a natural magnet for industry, and the designation of special economic zones in the 1990s and 2000s by the government incentivized further Suzhou’s development of industrial centers. These zones were essentially land set aside with different building and land use codes and preferential tax policies used to attract foreign, and often heavily polluting, investments [2]. In an attempt to balance the garden history of Suzhou with the modern-day economic prowess of the city, the Chinese government teamed with the Singaporean government to create an eco-industrial park. Singapore was chosen for its software and management knowledge with successful economic development in the Southeast Asian climate. After an initial tough period in which the project sustained losses, the project became profitable in 2001 and several years later, the Chinese government decided to partner once again with Singapore in 2007 for a more ambitious project: an eco-city [3].
In April 2007, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Singaporean Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong formally agreed to build an eco-city in China and later that year, on November 18, the framework agreement was signed between Mr. Wen and Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Nearly a year later, on September 28, 2008, the project broke ground with a ceremonial laying of the foundation stone at a ceremony in the selected site of Tianjin [4].
In this new project, the governments jointly set out several objectives. First, they did not want to build on a “greenfield” as with all of the urban sprawl in China, they felt a more sustainable alternative was to develop a piece of land previously considered waste. Second, the city was to be in an up and coming area of the country—no more rural villages trying to achieve sustainable targets; this was to be a model for the urban growth that China anticipates in the coming decades. Finally, the city was to develop economically with proven targets and not feature “zero taglines” –zero waste, zero carbon, or zero energy. Instead, the city was meant to provide a livable, economically feasible model for city development reliant on proven strategies and products [5]. The ultimate goal was to create a replicable model and process for more ecological development in China. By incorporating these three guidelines, they expected to address issues of urban sprawl that could plague the country in the next 20 years.
Multiple city candidates were considered for development of the eco-city based on the industrial and brownfield criteria laid out by Singapore and China. As mentioned in my previous post, Tangshan was one of these candidates. Ultimately, however, the project went to Tianjin as part of the comprehensive Tianjin-Binhai New Area development about 40 km east of Tianjin proper. The new area is meant to be the third growth pole of China following in the footsteps of the economically liberal policies of Shenzhen and the Shanghai Pudong New Area. Incorporating oil, chemical, steel, and other heavy industry with service and high-technology sector development, the new area had set as a goal to become the leader in industrial and economic productivity and growth in China [6]. With the eco-city as an integral part, the TBNA could add “environmental services” to its litany of expected tenants. To add to its attractive economic development plans, Tianjin was perfect for the eco-city from a reclamation standpoint. The site chosen was at the outlet of two heavily polluted rivers which had created a hypersaline marshy area and destroyed local wetlands. As Goh Chye Boon, the President of SSTEC, the master developer for the eco-city, said, “The first time I saw the site, I didn’t know if I was supposed to sell the land or the water” [7].
Goh Chye Boon
With the site chosen, SSTEC set out immediately to clean up the area so it would be ready for development as soon as possible. Simultaneously, the master developer needed to lay the foundation for what an eco-city actually meant in the context of Tianjin. After examining more than 12 eco-city concepts in multiple countries and consulting with foreign experts from Singapore, Norway, and other nations [8], the joint Chinese-Singaporean team at SSTEC laid out the following strategic areas for the eco-city to address:
- · Green buildings based on a new green building standard system that would address the needs of Tianjin and apply smart design and appropriate technology to improve performance
- · Green transportation network with buses running on clean energy and vehicles separated from people
- · Green energy supply that would reduce the carbon intensity of GDP in the city and utilize renewable sources
- · Strengthen ecological restoration and protection with wetlands and extensive green coverage
- · Focus on creating a low-carbon industrial system
- · Build a “harmonious and easy-living new community” with a cellular neighborhood concept [4]
While these goals are fairly well-aligned with those of previous eco-city attempts in China and worldwide, the difference in Tianjin would be how they were executed. As the master planner, SSTEC had no control over the architectural design of the buildings or the ultimate programs of the buildings beyond the initial zoning. To overcome this challenge and ensure that the ultimate developments met the goals of the eco-city, SSTEC used two methods, the first of which would be familiar to readers of my posts on Dongtan and Tangshan: key performance indicators integrated into the master plan. By writing these indicators into the master plan, SSTEC could ensure that partners would be contractually bound to achieving sustainable standards. Furthermore, it provided a metric by which to judge SSTEC’s own contracting for central environmental services for the eco-city. In total 24 KPIs were developed for the city [9]:
- · 100% potable tap water
- · 50% non-traditional water resource use (includes greywater, rainwater, etc.)
- · Less than 120 L/day/capita domestic water use
- · Meet Grade IV Standard for surface water quality
- · Zero loss of natural wetlands
- · Local plant index greater than 0.7 (fraction of native plants as part of total)
- · Green space greater than 12 m2 per capita
- · Ambient air quality must meet Grade II greater than 310 days/year
- · Noise pollution must meet respective functional area standards 100%
- · Domestic waste generation less than 0.8 kg/day/capita
- · Greater than 60% overall recycling rate
- · 100% non-hazardous waste treatment
- · Less than 150 tonnes CO2/million US$ GDP
- · Greater than 90% green transportation trips by 2020 (buses, walking, biking)
- · Free recreational/sports facilities within 500 m walking everywhere
- · 100% barrier free accessibility in the city
- · Greater than 20% renewable energy use
- · Greater than 20% public housing provision
- · 100% green building in accordance with SSTEC standards
- · Greater than 50 researchers/engineers per 10,000 labor force
- · Employment housing equilibrium index greater than 50%
- · 100% service network coverage
The other strategy that SSTEC employed was creating partnerships that extended beyond just contracts with developers in the usual tender and bid manner. Goh Chye Boon described the process as a series of meetings with the developers to discuss strategies and methods for achieving green buildings in the eco-city and meeting the targets. Initially, he said, some were reluctant or unsure of how to meet the targets, but by gathering everyone in the same room, soon the ideas were flying and developers saw that they could not only meet the KPIs and SSTEC green building standards, but even exceed them [7]. In his mind, creating these partnerships was key for the success of project. While Mr. Boon was out networking and attracting tenants to the city, SSTEC was busy developing an on-site showroom and , following in the footsteps of Dongtan, putting up five symbolic wind turbines at the gate of the eco-city site next to the Rainbow Bridge.
To model a functioning city, the Tianjin site was planned out to include several business zones spread along the axis of the city to create three major nodes for residents. The city has an eco-industrial park, an eco-business park, and a national animation studio as well as a central commercial zone and residential neighborhood blocks complete with services integrated into each block [10].
Perhaps the most impressive plan presented for these multiple nodes was that of the central business district. This was the only part of the city designed in concept by SSTEC for tender to architectural/engineering firms to tune up. The idea that SSTEC came up with was one of an eco-CBD or, as Goh Chye Boon described it, a CBD based on a tree. Rather than put parks in the city, the traditional model, he decided that we should put the city in a park. To this end, in the final design roads were banished to subterranean routes beneath the CBD while the buildings rose out of a green space with trees, grass, flower beds, and water features that spanned multiple levels. Buildings rise in steps away from the central axis with parks on terraces staggered around the main green area. Sky bridges may connect buildings as well, adding a connectedness reminiscent of tree branches completing the organic theme that permeates the space [11].
Like all new cities, the Tianjin eco-city will open in stages, the first in 2011 and the last planned for 2020. The full range of KPIs and sustainability targets will not be achieved until that time, allowing for the developers to assess and reassess their options between now and then to implement the most feasible, most appropriate solutions for achieving the targets. The final city will be 30 km2 and house 350,000 people with the first phase comprising 7.8 km2 and 105,000 people. Currently, just over 2 years after the start of construction, things seem to be on target with work feverishly pushing forward on residential developments in the pilot area, infrastructure including roads and solar-powered public space lighting, and the animation and digital design center nearing completion. Agreements have been signed with Hitachi, EnVision Wall, Sunway City, and others to move into the eco-city and for some, including notably Siemens and Philips, to provide technology for the development in a collaborative partnership that simultaneously serve to demonstrate the tenants’ products and help the city achieve its targets [12]. Hopes are high that the eco-city will remain on target and be the first such project to accept residents next year.
Eco-City on Display
My primary introduction to the eco-city was the China (Tianjin Binhai) International Eco-City Forum held in Tianjin on September 28 and 29. As part of the forum, I not only got to hear prominent Singaporean and Chinese leaders speak about it but also to visit the site and some of the surrounding area. Before discussing my thoughts on the project itself, I want to highlight some of my thoughts and impressions surrounding just this experience so as to put the city a bit more into its proper context.
If, like me, you take the train to Tianjin to visit the eco-city, you arrive not in the Binhai new area but in the town proper among the residential superblocks and hazy air that I discussed in my post on the city. From there, you hop aboard the light rail, the fastest in China and are whisked quickly out of the city [13]. Soon the city falls away behind you and you are left with a view of fields and poorer houses for the workers toiling in the fields. The light rail makes several stops in this area, each with perhaps two mid-rise buildings and a few shops and then a return to the rural scene. Finally the train arrives in the Binhai New Area where you depart to the site of a currently desolate industrial area filled with broad streets 12 lanes wide with a fence in the middle. Even in the mall at lunchtime you can count the passersby on two hands. For those who are unfamiliar with the culture, malls at lunch are typically packed with workers from nearby businesses flooding the cheap food courts.
At the conference, to which we were taken by shuttle bus, I learned the reason for this desolate appearance. An opening film about the Binhai New Area depicted the city as an industrial powerhouse replete with every type of heavy industry and warehousing you could imagine, all divided into large zones. Fly over images of low-rise, low-density industrial parks separated by broad streets give way to a shipping hub, pharmaceutical base, and a high-technology park full of two-storey buildings. Finally, the fly-over reaches one of the smallest areas set up in the northern end of the development—the Tianjin Eco-City. Here, the scene changes to one of green corridors and taller buildings, mostly mid- to high-rise. The narration accompanying the images paints this as a picture of the compilation of new industries in Tianjin. The 9 new areas are anchored by a specific type of industry, notably in the north the “ecological” industry.
Following the video, I was treated to a number of speeches by Chinese and Singaporean officials which highlighted the contrast of the project’s focus for each. The Singaporean ministers all spoke of the concrete reductions to be achieved by the city, lauding the targets and strategies set to create a lower impact urban development. From the Chinese side, the rhetoric was all about a harmonious society and a circular economy without any hard numbers being presented. This should not be surprising given that these two phrases permeate Chinese policies and speeches on the environment. In policies, lack of numbers can somewhat be excused on the basis of the policies being national while targets must be regional, but in this case, the targets are set and well-known so to omit them shows instead a focus on the concepts rather than the actual technologies [14].
After the conference had ended, an exhibition continued at the Binhai Exhibition Center showcasing eco-friendly technologies in China and the developments that would be present in the new eco-city.
I wandered this exhibition for about an hour and once again was surprised by how few people were present. This is in part because the residential phase of the Binhai New Area is lagging behind the development of the industrial sectors and perhaps partly because of the distance between Tianjin and Binhai (an hour by light rail). Yet the Chinese ministers would have you believe that this conference was a key event and if true, why weren’t there more people at the exhibition? Judge for yourself the attendance—the parking lot is shown below.
From this exhibition, I joined up on a site visit to the Tianjin Eco-City which involved us being herded into two vans and driven to the site—no public buses or light rail run out here. They are supposed to, but that is in the later stages of development for the area. The industrial parks will likely open before the Binhai bus routes are complete. The site itself is quite a distance from the main part of Binhai and en route you pass more and more warehouses set back from the road by broad lawns that must consume quite a bit of water in an area, Tianjin, where water is in extremely short supply. The site itself is currently not much to behold. Past the five windmills lies a field of cranes and half-finished buildings reminiscent of many parts of China, with the visitor left to take SSTEC on their word that the construction is being handled in an eco-friendly manner. Personally, I believe that SSTEC is doing all it can to oversee the environmental management of the construction and am optimistic that it is being done in an ecologically friendly manner.
China’s First Functional Eco-City?
The hopeful feeling that permeated the eco-city forum was that with construction already underway, this would be China’s first functional eco-city. It would be built, surpassing Dongtan in that regard, and lived-in, surpassing Huangbaiyu. The reason for this success, according to Goh Chye Boon, was that the eco-city was creating and selling not just green homes but a complete lifestyle. He beamed as he spoke these words and detailed a proposal to offer discounts to new residents who simultaneously purchased an apartment in the eco-city and an electric car [7]. Yet in my mind, this hope was not unprecedented—after all, were not Dongtan and Huangbaiyu surrounded by as much, if not more, enthusiasm and excitement? And yet they still failed at different stages of development. So the question is can Tianjin be different?
To examine this question, let’s start with the plan. As I listed previously, SSTEC first identified 24 KPIs that will govern how the outside developers will build. This combined with the requirement of meeting the green building standards developed by SSTEC is a step above the level of construction of Huangbaiyu. That project was plagued with failures in the implementation level in part due to a lack of firm development plans, measures, and accountability in both costs and construction quality. By using the KPIs and green building standards developed by SSTEC, developers in Tianjin are accountable for the projects. And further, since SSTEC is the master developer and point of sales for some of the spaces and apartments, there is essentially a qualitative KPI in place to ensure affordability—another problem that plagued Huangbaiyu. This is not to say that there will be no cost overruns or that some areas of performance or quality may not suffer, but merely that the existence of this framework offers opportunities for checks and corrections in the construction process that create the possibility of achieving sustainable targets.
The other aspect of the plan itself that could prove beneficial for its success is the commitment that Goh Chye Boon repeated several times to a city with no “zero” taglines. He and the rest of the SSTEC team are not focused on creating a city with no footprint—they acknowledge that challenge as economically infeasible given the current state of technology. Instead, the goal is to create a better city that is profitable and economically viable from day one. Residents should not have to sacrifice their quality of life to make ends meet. In fact, the vision of SSTEC is quite the opposite—the eco-city would be a failure if it does not enhance the quality of life of the residents [10]. This commitment to a holistic perspective that accounts for the human and economic sides of the city as well as the technical and environmental means that the city is likely to have more support from its constituents and will be more attractive to potential investors and buyers. Cost is often a sticking point with environmentally-minded projects, so to ensure that costs will be minimized while maintaining a higher quality of environmental standards can help promote the city. It will also ensure that the development is available to a wide range of occupants from the very wealthy to the lower middle class. In fact, this is one of SSTEC’s goals and part of the reason for being careful about cost. To create a model of a city, they goal is to have all levels of social strata present including those in need of public housing [15]. Keeping this goal in mind can help ensure that costs do not rise above certain levels and will ensure that SSTEC and its partners are constantly seeking better, more cost-effective solutions to challenges that may arise. Hopefully, the cost challenges do not ultimately trump the environmental goals, but with a realistic perspective already in place with the KPIs and green building regulations, it does not seem that this will be the case.
Perhaps one of the most important factors that may contribute to the success of this project is the diverse network or stakeholders that support the project. I have discussed this with regard to each city in my previous three posts in an attempt to show how a diverse and extensive network of stakeholders at every economic and political level can contribute to, but not necessarily ensure, a project’s success. With Tianjin, this network is very strong and spans across many levels of stakeholders in two different countries. The partnerships are built on a strong background of a successful partnership and are part of an ongoing, cooperative agreement. With this in mind, let’s examine the levels of stakeholders and see how they can contribute to the city’s success.
Perhaps it is easiest to begin at the top where it is evident that the project is supported by governments strongly in both countries. The presence of both Premier Wen and the Singaporean Prime Minister at the signing and groundbreaking ceremonies is indicative of the level of backing this project has from both nations. Furthermore, numerous government officials were present at the conference I attended to offer their words of encouragement for the initiative—another sign that this is tied not just to one department or office but to many. As part of a broader scheme for improving the overall economy of the Beijing region, a priority that is likely omnipresent in the minds of the Central Government officials tired of seeing the financial power of their nation concentrated in the somewhat rival south, the eco-city is likely to draw the support of the national and local governments. With government officials’ promotion and tenure tied to economic indicators in China, the goal of the eco-city to create a cluster of environmental industries would draw the attention and support of many. On the Singaporean side, the prospect of advancing the ability to build self-contained, self-sustaining cities has implications as well. For the landlocked and environmentally conscious nation and its city, creating ways of accommodating nature and a growing population on a resource-constrained space have future implications politically and socially. Furthermore, without resources for factories or industry, partnering with its large neighbor gives the nation economic support and an advantage to companies looking for new homes or expanded spaces. As a further proof of the Singaporean government’s support, Goh Chye Boon, the leader of SSTEC, was previously a government official responsible for bringing F1 to Singapore [16].
As final proof of the two governments’ commitment to the project, Mah Bow Tan, the Minister for National Development, Singapore, said himself that the difference between Tianjin and other Chinese eco-cities was that “none of them has this collaboration. Even some of the cities may have collaboration with foreign government, foreign participation; but I don’t think it’s as deep or close as the Tianjin Eco-city or the collaboration between Singapore and China. In the case of Singapore, we have put in a lot of resources from different ministries and agencies into this project. We want to make sure this project succeeds” [17].
Moving down the government levels, there is also strong support for this project from the Tianjin city government for many of the same reasons that the central Chinese government supports it. As a part of Tianjin’s municipal area, the creation of a cleantech cluster in the Binhai New Area has economic implications for the city which please the government officials there. The Binhai development is a feather in Tianjin’s cap and for the city, at least according to the writers at Time Out Beijing, a way to compete with its bigger brother to the east [18]. Though the eco-city may not be the primary development in the new area or the largest, it is one of the high-tech developments that the central government is especially courting in an attempt to diversify the economy in the direction of services and knowledge-based enterprises. Therefore, local officials looking for promotion have an incentive to ensure this project succeeds at least economically. From the Singaporean side, some of the arguments about the national government’s support can be extended to the city official level simply by virtue of the fact that Singapore is based around a central city and really does not have multiple large cities as China does that could individually support the project.
Outside of the government, the first level of support to consider is the economic, and here the Tianjin eco-city excels. Let’s first consider the developers. One of the main things that Goh Chye Boon mentioned regarding the developers was that before any plans were drawn, he sat down in a room with many of them and discussed the green building regulations. In an attempt to assuage fears of high costs, he laid out the guidelines and held an open forum to see how the guidelines could be met while still ensuring a cost-effective development [7]. The reason for this is that developers, especially in China, see green buildings as an unknown cost and quickly price the construction higher leading to more expensive final products. Yet for the eco-city to be successful, this fear would have to be avoided. What happened instead, as Goh Chye Boon describes it, was not that developers backed away from the green standards for cost reasons but instead they embraced them. With their rivals sitting across the table from them, each participant wanted to buy-in to the project and not just achieve the minimum, but out-do their neighbor and be even better [7]. By fostering this engagement where developers saw green as a way to differentiate their product rather than force increased prices, buy-in was achieved to where the first stages appear to be on target for completion date, cost, and expected green building ratings. The developers no longer see the project as scary or expensive, but instead are looking at it as a boon to their own firm and a way to enter into a new market in a race against their competitors. Thus they have incentive to perform up to the standards they have laid out for themselves and to ensure success of their portion of the eco-city.
From a commercial perspective, the eco-city from the beginning sought to bring in numerous stakeholders from the clean technology and high technology fields to support the residential areas. To this end, even before development of some of these commercial spaces has begun, SSTEC began working hard to broker deals with firms interested in leasing in the eco-city. The deals they structured were often linked to provision of products for the city as well—Siemens and Philips, for example, are technology providers for the eco-city and will have headquarters there [19]. For others, the agreement was the ability to design a customized showroom and headquarters for the firm within the green building regulations. These deals have two distinct effects. First, they ensure tenant agreements are in place before the spaces are built thus minimizing the financial risk and therefore cost of the development. Second, they give companies added incentive to ensure success of the project. Visibility in the eco-city is a strong marketing tool and the opportunity for cleantech manufacturers to have a market right around their operations base could prove lucrative in the future. One window manufacturer who plans to move into the eco-city told me that he was hoping that by making his showroom using his product, he would have a good platform for selling it to later developments in the eco-city [20]. The combined CSR benefit of locating in such a green development and potentially lucrative customer base in the eco-city provide strong incentives for companies. Thus many have already signed agreements to occupy the eco-city.
The final layer of support for the eco-city currently comes from the NGO sector. World Wildlife Fund has exhibited a strong interest in the project and has provided support in planning and ensuring that the redevelopment of the wetland areas around the city is occurring with good respect for relevant environmental standards and ecological practices. The representative from WWF who spoke at the Conference expressed a desire to see this project as a model for Beijing and other cities which currently are taxing China’s environment and stressing already endangered populations of animals through a need for greater resources [21]. Therefore, WWF continues to provide support and marketing for the project and has helped guide SSTEC in developing some of its strategies and indicators.
With such a strong network of support for the project, the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City has many connections to help ensure its success should one or two back out. It is not dependent on a single government, a single architectural firm, a single developer, or even a single political department’s support. Instead it has multiple backers across all levels of government, public and private sectors, and even NGOs. GEMS has even signed on to provide world-class education to the eco-city which creates an even more enticing environment for prospective buyers. As I’ve said before, such a network will help the project succeed but that alone cannot ensure its success. Moreover, for Tianjin, what does “success” truly entail? This topic I will address in the next section.
A Model for Binhai?
I detailed some of my experiences in the Tianjin eco-city and surrounding area earlier in this post for a reason—to question the role of the Tianjin eco-city in the broader Binhai and Chinese contexts. Some of the leaders of the SSTEC project openly expressed at the conference their wishes that the eco-city should eventually “spill over” in a sense to the surrounding area and influence the practices there. Yet in 2020 when the eco-city is finally fully functional and has its renewable energy and other infrastructure built out, will it be possible to transfer some of these policies to Binhai?
Personally I am skeptical that this transfer can be achieved. If we fast forward to 2020, I believe we will see the entire Binhai area completed and those gorgeous broad 12 lane streets clogged with traffic. Some will use the bus system, but with such large avenues and great distances separating work and home, cars will likely be the norm. This urban planning model has been seen before in Beijing, where recent attempts to quell traffic conditions and expansion of the metro system have done nothing but slow the rise in demand for cars. So by the time the Tianjin eco-city is in a position to teach its surrounding area lessons, the patterns of consumption and transportation will be engrained in the pattern set forth by Beijing, thus making the task of conversion to a more ecologically-minded lifestyle gargantuan. Furthermore, the eco-city may not have many lessons to teach the Binhai area. It will have been a project built from scratch incorporating all of the plans for ecologically-minded, economically sensitive initiatives with no strategies or guidelines for retrofits—they would simply be unnecessary. But as I’ve already established, by the time the eco-city can teach lessons to the surrounding area, there will be little new construction and retrofits will be required. This is always financially more difficult than implementing environmental measures up front.
With this bleak picture for the potential role of the eco-city in the immediate community, does that mean it is not worthwhile? I would argue that it still does have potential value even in the local area. Though by 2020 the Binhai New Area will likely be completed, recalling all of the now sparsely populated stops along the Tianjin-Binhai Light Rail, I cannot help but wonder when that whole corridor will be developed. Some housing is already popping up on the horizon, but it will likely be at least 10 years before much of the construction is begun. Here then, the eco-city can have a profound impact. If the green building standards and practices adopted at the eco-city spread throughout the area, this corridor could be the greenest in China from a development perspective, and could provide the socially harmonious future Chinese officials seem so often to desire. By balancing the existing agriculture with ecologically-conscious development, this corridor could become a sample for many areas of China struggling with similar situations of urban sprawl encroaching on rural lands.
For any optimists now holding fast to this thread of hope, let me add one more confusing factor, the impact of which only time can reveal. Reading carefully into the rhetoric of the Chinese officials at the conference, it seems that this project has more value to them for the economic boost it can provide by attracting high-tech and cleantech companies to the area. The prevailing economic push in China is to find products and services that it can bring to the area, learn from, and then re-export either under a national company or from a company newly located in the country. This has been the case with trains [22], glass [23], and a host of other products. Yet the eco-city itself uses all well-known products and services. China, therefore, cannot easily make money on exporting the eco-city as the knowledge for its creation does not truly lie in the country. Certainly it can co-opt the lessons learned from SSTEC to potentially export, but the reality is that such cities have to be so tailored to the local environment, that such exported projects may fail. However the companies that locate in the eco-city can export products, can create knowledge that will stay in China, and will tip the economic balance sheet in the favor of the Middle Kingdom. This is perhaps the greatest value the city ahs to China. Where this could play out in the future, however, will be dependent upon which way the government sees the economy as needing to grow. Currently the focus is on growth in the high-technology sector, but in 10 years that focus may shift and projects such as Tianjin, despite their potential for cutting long-term infrastructural costs, may no longer have the national appeal they do today. In China, money is still seen as the ultimate driver of action, and at the end of the day the green most in the country care about is not energy efficiency or saved water.
With these conflicting viewpoints on the potential of SSTEC, and eco-cities more broadly in China, in my next and final post on eco-cities in China, I will address a few of the issues that may both challenge and inspire eco-city project in the future in China and elsewhere. But with regard to Tianjin specifically, I encourage all reading to watch this project in the news as it grows and develops over the next 10 years. While not infallible, it has a strong network of support and a firm, scientifically-grounded plan for achieving its modest targets and thus has a good potential for success. It is yet possible, however, that unknown snags will delay or derail the project, so keep watching while at the same time, hope for the best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzhou
[2] “Challenges to the Sustainability of ‘Development Zones’: A Case Study of Guangzhou Development District, China,” by Siu-Wai Wong and Bo-sin Tang, Cities, Volume 22, Number 4, 2005.
[3] https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/16090/Han%20Minli%20-%20Revised%20Masters%20Thesis%20(Full%20-%20July%2008).pdf?sequence=1
[4] “Sino-Tianjin Eco-City: Full of Vitality for Sustainable Development,” in Journal of China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2010.
[5] Presentation by Goh Chye Boon, “Green Cities” Conference by the American Chamber of Commerce, Shanghai, September 16, 2010.
[6] “An Overall Description of Binhai New Area,” in Journal of China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2010.
[7] Presentation by Goh Chye Boon, Cleantech Focus of China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2010.
[8] “No Pattern to Be Copied Blindly in China’s Eco-City Construction,” Interview with Wei Jianguo, Secretary General of China International Economic Exchange Center and Former Vice Minister of the Ministry of Commerce, in Journal of China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2008.
[9] “Celebrating Eco Opportunities,” SSTEC Pamphlet, 2010.
[10]”Celebrating Eco,” SSTEC, http://www.tianjineco-city.com/pdf/sstecbrochure.pdf.
[11] Presentation by Goh Chye Boon, Cleantech Focus Breakfast, Tianjin, China, September 29, 2010.
[12] http://www.tianjineco-city.com/default.aspx
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binhai_Mass_Transit
[14] Presentations from the China (Tianjin Binhai) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2010.
[15] Conversation with representative from Keppel Corporation, September 29, 2010.
[16] “Dialogue with Executive Leaders: Look into Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City,” in China (Binhai Tianjin) Eco-City Forum & Expo 2010 Booklet, September 28, 2010.
[17] “When We Build a City, It Must Be an Eco-City,” in Journal of China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2010.
[18] Time Out Beijing, Tianjin Edition.
[19] Cleantech Forum Breakfast, MOU Signing Ceremonies, Tianjin, China, September 29, 2010.
[20] Interview with representative from EnVision Wall, August 30, 2010.
[21] Presentation by Isabelle Louis, World Wildlife Fund, at China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum, September 28, 2010.
[22] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704814204575507353221141616.html
[23] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575418680197041878.html
There is a chance you are eligible for a new government sponsored solar energy program.
ReplyDeleteClick here and find out if you qualify now!