Aside from being a very interesting new partnership that demonstrates the global awareness of the importance of China's development, the article highlighted a few issues that I discussed in my previous posts on China's eco-cities and raised some questions that I thought appropriate to share for your consideration. First, if you will recall in my "A Tale of Four Cities" series, one of the issues I stressed in each case study was the need for multi-level, multi-stakeholder engagement to ensure financial, political, and social support for a project. I mentioned in conjunction with Dongtan and Huangbaiyu how in each case a failure of support at one of the critical stakeholder levels had contributed to the downfall of the city. Well, this article supports my theories (which were based on observation, a summary of news stories chronicling the projects, and interviews) with a quote from smart housing expert Alan Kell who states that part of Dongtan's demise was the lack of support from the Beijing Central Government. If you will recall, the only Chinese government support came from a now disgraced minister in Shanghai who took the project under his wing. Without the backing of stronger political forces in China, once this minister fell from grace, the project was doomed.
In Huangbaiyu, one of the contributing factors I discussed was the monopoly control of a single Chinese commercial entity with little foreign or domestic support or oversight. Though not directly mentioned in the China Dialogue article as a source of the failure of this city, it appears that the UK has learned from this case as well by collaborating with multiple companies in England and China to make this new vision a reality.
And now for the thought-provoking questions. The article challenges the reader to wonder whether this commercial approach to low-carbon is the right one. The author argues that commercial interests are inherently driven to looking at profits and revenues and therefore are more likely to effect viable low-carbon cities rather than just demonstrations. Yet the level of commercial and political involvement is still a balancing act, especially around the issue of equity. If a city is left entirely commercial, and the developer has to recover his cost, then chances are he will target the up-scale market that can and will pay a premium for the glitz and glamor of living in an eco-city. Yet what fraction of the population is this? And how can we extend the availability of ecological housing and environmentally sensitive developments across the whole spectrum of consumers? Are eco-cities destined to remain just another way to segregate rich and poor? And finally, what exactly does the term "eco-city" mean? Is it only environmental or must it necessarily include economics and sociocultural factors as well?
I encourage you all to ponder these as I hope to provide some thoughts and answers from my trip in upcoming posts. Of particular interest to those considering this topic will be my next which will discuss my understanding of and thoughts on Abu Dhabi's Masdar City--a city simultaneously lauded for its environmentally progressive goals and derided for being, quite literally, a city on a pedestal. Stay tuned for that!
No comments:
Post a Comment