OUR GENERAL APPROACH TO URBAN WORK

OUR GENERAL APPROACH TO URBAN WORK*

December 20, 2015

Urban work is a systematic undertaking. It requires us to adapt to evolving circumstances, satisfy new requirements of reform and development, meet changing public expectations, uphold the people-centered development philosophy, and build better cities for the people. These are the clear goals. At the same time, we should pursue intensive urban development – limiting the overall size and capacity of cities, upgrading cities on the basis of making full use of existing resources, and improving the quality of urbanization. We should base urban development on the national conditions, respect, adapt to, and protect nature, ameliorate the urban eco-environment, take a holistic approach, and aim for breakthroughs in key areas. These endeavors are critical in making our cities more sustainable and more livable. 

First, we should observe the laws that underlie urban development. Urban development is a natural historical phenomenon and follows its own laws. Although we have built a clearer understanding of objective economic laws since reform and opening up, we have not done so concerning urban development. The root cause of the various problems that have arisen in our urban development is our inadequate understanding and observance of its laws. 

One, urban and economic development complement and reinforce each other. Urban economic growth can create more jobs and attract more people to cities. A more powerful economy and higher labor productivity increase incomes and boost consumption and investment. This in turn stimulates the economy. Therefore, we should not start a “blind urban sprawl campaign” that takes no account of the level of economic development. Initial progress has been made in curbing the construction of excess roads and plazas. However, a new round of building new urban districts is rising to the extent that the planned construction areas, in some cases, are up to one thousand or even several thousand square kilometers. As has been reported, the planned construction area of new districts in cities at all levels amounts to 73,000 square kilometers, while the built-up area currently measures 49,000 square kilometers. This level of expansion appears to have no connection with reality. I think there is a need to remind relevant departments and local authorities of this issue. 

Two, urbanization involves the flow of rural residents to cities and the conversion of agricultural land for urban construction in proportion to a city’s scale. Therefore, land use must be compatible with population size. If a city ignores this and designates a disproportionate amount of agricultural land to urban construction without granting urban residency to the rural population concerned, newly-built housing and infrastructure will lie unused, a reasonable rate of return on investment will be impossible, and agriculture will be undermined. Cities have come into being due to greater division of labor, and they serve as a platform for multiple functions. An urban population comprises individuals from all types of employment. If a city prioritizes high-caliber talent and white-collar workers but neglects blue-collar workers, this will create an imbalanced social structure, undermine some of its capabilities, and even hamper its normal functioning. 

Three, a city’s scale should align with its carrying capacity of resources and the environment. Excessive industrial concentration and unregulated expansion of urban functions will result in undesirable population density and the use of more cropland and ecological land. If a city has a population and economic scale that exceeds its carrying capacity of water resources, the city has to resort to overexploitation of groundwater or diversion of water from other regions. This imbalance disrupts the equilibrium between eco-environmental conservation and urban construction, inevitably leading to reduced environmental capacity and heavier pollution. 

The laws underlying urban development are not limited to those I have mentioned above, and I have listed only the most relevant ones here. We must understand, respect and abide by these laws, and based on this, draw up correct guidelines, and act accordingly.

Second, we should adopt a holistic approach to urban work and give overall consideration to a city’s spatial configuration, scale, and industrial structure. This approach must be followed in line with local realities, resource endowment, and cultural characteristics to ensure a city’s overall development during its rapid growth, as international experience proves. The spatial configuration and scale of a city should be designed and its functions defined in conformity with the National Plan for Major Function Oriented Zoning, and the National Plan for New-type Urbanization (2014-2020). In addition, they should be in alignment with three strategic initiatives – the Belt and Road Initiative, the coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, and the Yangtze River Economic Belt.

A city cluster is a high-level spatial configuration that takes shape when urbanization enters a mature stage. It functions as an important growth driver of the national economy, a strategic field of global competition, and an essential platform to plan and coordinate the spatial configuration, scale, and industrial structure of cities. We should take city clusters as the base and elaborate their spatial configuration to build compact and green city clusters with high efficiency and minimum waste of resources. We should establish a system of coordination between city clusters. This will serve as a new platform on which to build cooperation and interaction in industrial division of labor, infrastructure, and eco-environmental conservation and governance between cities across different regions. Through this platform, we can also remove administrative barriers, eliminate market segregation, and ensure the free flow and optimal distribution of factors of production. If conditions allow, city belts can be developed along trunk lines and coastlines. In view of the overall requirements of the national territory spatial planning strategy, all cities should accurately define their functions, draw on each other’s strengths, and work closely to create a new pattern of transregional coordinated development.

In line with the National Plan for New-type Urbanization (2014-2020), we should optimize and upgrade eastern city clusters so that they can continue to take the lead in institutional innovation, technological progress, industrial upgrading, and green development, and more rapidly acquire new leadership in global competition. With a sound focus on appropriate planning and layout, we need to foster a number of city clusters and leading regional cities in central and western regions, and promote the interconnected development of leading cities and port cities in border areas. To promote industrial clusters, population clusters, and new drivers for economic growth and opening up in central and western regions, we should encourage labor-intensive industries with the appropriate market and profit profile to relocate there, and attract migrant workers to return home from the east or those who live nearby. This is how we deliver the fruits of urbanization to people in central and western regions right at their home.

All city clusters should draw on the useful experience of the coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region and abandon the mindset of limiting themselves to their own little world. In line with their designated roles and functions, megacities should relieve themselves of the non-essential ones in an orderly way. Large cities should set practical instead of grandiose development goals, or they will become overextended and end up with urban maladies. They should better drive the development of neighboring small and medium-sized cities and refrain from siphoning off their resources. Large and medium-sized cities must avoid impeding the progress of districts, counties, and small cities, or exploiting them by treating them as “cash cows” or “money trees”. Cities at all levels should decide and cultivate their own leading industries and distinctive businesses that can leverage local resources and geographic advantages. For closer cooperation between industries across small, medium-sized, and large cities, and small towns, they should build an industrial framework based on complementary strengths, effective collaboration, and division of labor, and establish a transregional benefit-sharing system regarding investment, GDP and taxation. At the same time they must encourage transregional industrial division of labor, industrial integration, and joint development of industrial parks. They should establish cooperative innovation systems and build open and efficient innovation resource-sharing platforms, in order to achieve coordinated development through coordinated innovation. 

With modern technologies such as the internet and high-speed rail, it is time for cities to cooperate with each other and progress side by side, and the key here lies in commitment and willingness to act together, and in effective measures to deliver.

No matter how urbanization proceeds, there will always exist a large rural population. Agriculture, which is paramount to national food security, should therefore be consolidated as the foundation of our economy. This calls for synchronic advances in urbanization and agricultural modernization, and a balanced focus between work related to cities and work related to agriculture, rural areas, and rural people. Industry should help agriculture, and cities support rural areas. We should implement the policy of giving more, taking less, and easing control to increase rural incomes. We need to double our efforts to integrate urban-rural planning, infrastructure, and basic public services, and to increase the capacity of cities to support and lead rural areas. In this way, we can establish a new framework for urban-rural integrated development.

Third, we should integrate planning, construction and administration to make urban work systematic. To achieve this, we need to develop systems thinking, analyze the elements, structures, and functions that constitute a city and conduct in-depth research on key issues bearing on urban development, and on this basis formulate an overall plan to make progress on all fronts. Early-stage issues and problems should be addressed promptly to avoid subsequent troubles and challenges which will otherwise be hard to reverse or resolve. 

I have said on several occasions that when we evaluate the work of a city, we must first look at how its urban planning has been done. Scientific planning maximizes efficiency, inappropriate planning maximizes waste of resources, and reckless planning must be avoided. To create a sound plan, we must give full consideration to multiple factors such as the primary roles and functions, cultural characteristics, construction, and management of a city. In planning urban development, we should take public sentiment into account as well, and engage all stakeholders, including the targeted enterprises and public institutions, construction contractors, engineering administration departments, and local residents. To facilitate urban construction and management, we should accommodate the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders so that all parties will more willingly implement the plan and practical issues will be better solved. For example, when planning to upgrade outdated underground pipe networks, planners should ensure a well-designed layout for utility tunnels to prevent a tangled web of pipelines beneath the surface, which would contrast with the well-equipped facilities above ground, and to save the trouble of repeated ground digging for repairs. A second issue is the waterlogging that has been afflicting our cities in recent years. In response to this, planners should work harder to improve drainage and to build sponge cities, making full use of environmental spaces – mountains, rivers, lakes, wetlands, farmlands, forests and grasslands – and reducing the coverage of concreted areas. In this way, urban ground surface can better retain water, percolate water, and reserve water resources. Traffic congestion is another increasing problem that afflicts big cities. To deal with it, we should develop new concepts, and build road networks with a rational design and distribution of expressways, arterial roads, sub-arterial roads, and branch roads. In order to accomplish the set goals, departments in charge of planning should actively participate in the entire process of building and managing cities, and intensify supervision and scrutiny.

The problem is not that our cities develop unplanned, but that we neither give adequate consideration to future development nor set high standards of green development when drawing a blueprint. Many urban plans fall behind the realities on the very day when they are given the stamp of approval. The mandatory regulations stipulated in urban development plans are for the most part toothless and ineffectual, exercising no supervision over or inflicting weak sanctions on any breach of the rules. Public participation can rarely be seen in the process of making plans, and poor transparency often renders public scrutiny over the implementation of the plans in progress impossible. Far too often, the will and preference of officials in charge prevail over serious planning, and this breeds rampant corruption. We should faithfully observe the following points for better urban planning: (1) apply innovative concepts and methods in urban planning and strengthen its rationale and guiding role; (2) ameliorate urban design and support urban renovation; (3) make the planning process more transparent, regulatory plans more detailed, and compliance compulsory; (4) prevent unstructured urban planning that fails to provide a solid base for the construction of infrastructure and other engineering projects; (5) strengthen planning and control to achieve good visual impact, harmonious plane layout, landscape consistency, and sustained cultural continuity. 

Urban planning should be tailored to local realities. In other words, urban planners should make best use of all favorable conditions their city can offer. They should preserve the local environment, cultural heritage, and architectural styles that have been a tradition particular to a given location. Once a plan is ratified, we should ensure that it is consistently implemented and not replaced with a new one when a new local leadership is elected.

At the very heart of urban planning are city residents. Therefore, meeting their daily needs, ensuring their wellbeing and access to medical services and elderly care, and enabling them to enjoy a happy life should be our overriding concern. The quality of urban management and services is an important criterion to judge whether urbanization is proceeding well and whether residents are enjoying a contented and convenient life. Urban management and services have an important influence on every aspect of daily life. For example, it matters to people whether the sewer works well when they use toilet in the morning. It matters to them whether water supply pipes function well to flush the toilet and whether tap water is up to standard for washing up. It matters to them whether their breakfast meets food hygiene standards. It matters to them whether rubbish collectors are available in residential compounds so that residents can dispose of rubbish anytime at their convenience. It also matters to them whether they can take an easy bus or subway ride during rush hours, whether there might be traffic jams, whether public transport transfers are convenient, and whether they risk having their carry-on items stolen on a bus or subway ride. And it also matters to them whether they can sleep well without being disturbed by noise. So it is the case that urban management and services, especially in big cities, affect the lives of locals from daybreak till well into the evening hours. As to preschool, school education, medical care, and cultural activities, they are all equally dependent on management and services. Public suggestions and complaints about urban life are mainly targeted at management and services. The top priority for city management is to serve the people wholeheartedly and to provide them with refined urban management and good public services. We must dismiss the attitude that highlights only material factors but lacks the human touch. In urban work, we must steadily improve urban management and services as a top priority and thoroughly alter the old model of management that lacks attention to details, so that people can lead more convenient, more contented, and more comfortable lives.

Buildings with a short lifespan are an affliction common to many of our cities. At present, most of the buildings that are being or have been demolished in many cities were constructed in the 1980s. Improperly planned or badly designed buildings of today will be pulled down in the future too. Safety in our cities is a matter of concern, with occasional heartbreaking tragedies such as sewer drowning accidents, building collapses, and major fires that have caused casualties. In some locations, we have seen jerry-built constructions leaning over, crumbling, or even collapsing, resulting in considerable distress for people. With the continuous expansion of urban areas, urban management will become more complex as risks in society will increasingly be concentrated in large cities. In recent years, a series of major accidents have exposed loopholes in our urban management. These accidents include the oil pipeline explosion in Huangdao District of Qingdao City, the New Year’s stampede at the Bund in Shanghai, and the massive warehouse explosions at Tianjin Port. Therefore, we must diligently strengthen the prevention and control of urban safety and security risks. How can we assure the people of a better life if we cannot manage their safety and security concerns? Various factors contribute to the frequency of major accidents, including irrational planning, poor construction quality, and problematic management follow-up. Some accidents result from natural calamities, and others from human negligence; some are caused by technological limitations, and others by shortcomings in systems.

In this respect, we should learn from our ancestors as well as from foreign countries with advanced experience. I mentioned at the Central Conference on Urbanization in 2013 that ancient builders of the Great Wall were required to inscribe their name on every brick they made to ensure quality control and accountability. That is why we can still admire the majestic ruins of the wonder today. In Paris, many streets and houses designed and built in the Napoleonic era still maintain their vintage character. 

Whenever it comes to planning, construction, or management, we must put safety above all else, tighten controls on safety and quality, and prioritize safety at every link of the chain of urban development. This is an uncompromising principle. In the process of planning and construction, we must intensify enforcement of the regulatory standards and requirements concerning safety, fully implement responsibility for quality in engineering, and clearly define the quality and safety responsibility of the five primary parties in charge of contracting, surveying, design, construction, and supervision. We must strengthen supervision over quality and safety throughout the whole process of engineering construction and implement a lifelong safety accountability system. We should tighten safety supervision over the use and operation of residential buildings, bridges, curtain walls, and tunnels. In particular, we must conduct a thorough overhaul of old buildings in cities in order to eliminate potential hazards, adopt rigorous measures to make any necessary rectifications within specified deadlines, and take strict precautions against major accidents such as collapses. We must improve the urban emergency command system for earthquake resistance, flood control and drainage, firefighting, and geological disaster response. We must also improve the urban lifeline system, strengthen the construction of disaster prevention shelters, reinforce the capacity to resist natural disasters, handle emergencies, and manage crises, and thus form an all-weather, systematic, and modern safety guarantee system for cities.

Fourth, we must take a coordinated approach to the major driving forces of reform, technology, and culture to boost the sustainability of urban development.

Urban development needs this triad of dynamics to keep its vitality. 

Some problems of urban management arise mainly from imperfect institutional mechanisms, and it is therefore necessary to solve them through deeper reform. At present, owing to shortcomings in system design, urban management in some cities is disorganized, and there is confusion concerning powers and responsibilities among different government agencies. For example, as the responsibility for urban road cleaning, green belt cleaning, and sewer dredging rests with different government agencies, sanitation workers sweep a heap of garbage on the road into a green belt nearby, landscaping workers dump it into the sewer, and city workers draw it out and put it at the roadside. In the end, the garbage “takes a round tour” from one place to another before finding itself back where it started. No one is held accountable by law-enforcement staff as they could not assign the blame. This sounds like a joke, but it is actually happening around us.

Urban reform, though all-inclusive, should currently be concentrated on planning, construction, management, and household registration. A coordinated approach is required to all types of spatial planning based on major function-oriented zoning and integrated master plans. We must improve the management system and mechanisms of the construction market, and impose severe penalties on any breach of the law and regulations, strictly punishing lawbreaking firms and holding individuals to account in accordance with the law. At present, administrative law enforcement regarding urban management involves 908 items in 27 categories that fall into the scope of duties of more than 20 departments at the central level. The central government has formulated programs requiring that all local governments vigorously promote reform. We must extend reform of the urban management system, clearly specifying the departments responsible both at the central and provincial levels and defining the scope of management, the extent of authority, and the responsible subjects. We should promote comprehensive law enforcement by the planning and construction administration departments of local governments at city and county levels, and advance the delegation of law enforcement and the localized management of matters relating to law enforcement.

At the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee in 2015, we decided that one of our major goals in achieving all-round moderate prosperity is to increase the ratio of people who are registered as permanent urban residents. In advancing urbanization, we should give top priority to the establishment of a system for granting permanent residency to those who can maintain a regular job and life in the city. I emphasized the importance of this task at the Central Conference on Urbanization in 2013. Now it is time to make solid progress. At present, the number of new rural migrant workers is falling fast, so it will be very difficult to gain comparative advantage in the future simply through an increase in the labor force. As a result, it is imperative to make efficient use of the available labor force, for example to extend the employment of rural migrant workers who would otherwise leave the city at about 40, so that they can work in cities for 20 more years. This will reduce the pressure of pay rises and increase the number of highly skilled blue-collar workers, thus helping to increase their lifelong earnings. As reform of the household registration system involves many parties whose interests will be affected, we need to carry out research with a strategic view on how to grant urban residency to those who have moved from rural to urban areas. We should integrate and improve support policies involving land use, government funding, education, employment, medical services, elderly care, and government housing support. All provincial authorities and central departments must work harder to implement reform plans quickly and speed up the pace of granting urban residency to eligible rural migrant workers. It is important to achieve the goal the Central Committee has set – by 2020, about 100 million people will acquire urban residency, including those who have moved from rural to urban areas and other types of permanent urban residents. Land quotas for urban construction should be aligned with urbanization and linked to the scale of the registered population. Concurrently, we must have deeper reform of the rural property rights system, ensuring that farmers who have been granted urban residency fully enjoy the rights to contract and utilize farmland, to secure a residential plot, and to share earnings from collective operations. We need to incentivize migrant rural people to apply for permanent urban residency. We can do this by delinking the change of their household registration from their entitlement to the above rights.

Deeper urban reform also means that we should carry out reform in many related fields such as urban culture, science, and technology. We must improve the environment for innovation and business startups, making innovation the key driving force of urban development. Particular attention should be given to supporting and improving the layout of urban service infrastructure such as the internet and cloud computing, so as to increase connectivity and capitalize on new drivers of growth. To improve urban governance and services, we must accelerate the building of smart cities, break through data-sharing barriers and “isolated islands of information”, and integrate the new generation of information technology such as big data, the internet of things, and cloud computing with urban management and services. We should build more digital platforms and comprehensive databases for urban management, integrate their functions, and develop smart applications to better serve the people. In this way, we can realize in advance the goal that science and technology make our life better. 

City architecture is the crystallization of human labor and creativity, recording the progress of human civilization. Architecture has life. Every building is a poem, a picture, or a musical note. Every building has endured the test of time and has a story of its own. The unique feature of a city is in fact how well it combines the urban image and spirit. It manifests a city’s culture which has come into being as a result of years of interactions between the local environment, economic and social factors, the local residents, and their work and daily life. It is the culture that lends taste and charm to a city. 

Chinese civilization dates back more than 5,000 years, and Chinese cities have been one of the major carriers of this civilization. Cities built in ancient times are a vast repository of wisdom, ideas, concepts, theories, principles and techniques of urban development. The system of planning and building walled cities was established as early as the Zhou Dynasty (1046-256 BC), and the layout of state capitals and other cities was required to observe the norms of etiquette. Chinese architecture, which has been of great influence since ancient times, is one of the three major world architectural systems, the other two being European and Islamic architecture. Compared with the other two, Chinese architecture has a longer history, features a more comprehensive system, and attaches more importance to nature and human life. Even today, we can still learn a lot from the concepts of ancient Chinese urban construction.

It is true that we need to draw on other counties’ experience in urban development, but we should not abandon the great traditions of our own culture. At present, there are a lot of urban development and construction projects which are ill-planned and have caused damage to urban culture. In recent years we have seen very rapid development of Chinese cities. In the process, some local governments have failed to give proper attention to shaping the unique features of their cities, and have had a poor understanding of how to keep alive our cultural heritage. It is a common practice for some government officials to encourage the creation of cultural landscapes just to serve as achievements to their credit during their tenure. This is short-sighted and improper, and has made cities look weird, disorderly, and featureless. The phenomenon has been described by some experts as straying further and further away from Chinese culture and traditions and becoming ever more flashy and Westernized. We must put an end to it. 

In recent years, we have been encouraging our people to have confidence in Chinese culture. However, cultural confidence is not an abstraction. What is important is that we should display our confidence through actions. We have inherited a great historical and cultural legacy from our ancestors, which we should pass down to our offspring intact. Cities carry the culture of a nation as well as its memory. The history and culture of a city are the source of its worth and appeal. The ancients observed, “Things on earth may differ in nature and way of existence and development, but they all know that they should keep their roots.” It is precisely due to this awareness of the importance of roots that Chinese civilization has survived and developed till today. However, too many of our construction projects today display an ignorance of our culture and our history or belittle them. As a result, in developing our cities, some of us have taken misguided actions that sever the lifeline between past and present. 

I once said that in building our cities we should ensure that the residents have clear visibility of lucid waters and lush mountains in the vicinity of their homes, and our urban construction should arouse in residents an attachment to their hometown. To foster such a feeling, we should protect and keep alive our fine traditional culture, ensuring that the history of each city will continue and the cultural heritage of Chinese civilization is maintained. In this connection, further efforts should be made to protect the cultural heritage that has been handed down to us, which includes cultural relics, historical sites, renowned historical and cultural cities, towns and villages, streets and districts with historical significance, historical buildings, remains of industrial sites, and various forms of intangible cultural heritage. Irrational practices like pulling down genuine historical sites and building fake ones must be stopped. Equal importance should be attached to the protection of both ancient buildings and modern buildings, of individual buildings as well as unique streets and districts and their original layout, and of fine examples of Chinese architecture as well as unique folklore and residential housing typical of local dwellings. 

A nation is always in need of a spirit, so is a city if it hopes to thrive and prosper. The spirit of a city is a vivid expression of its unique features. It is thus important for every city to build on its own historical and cultural legacy and the trends of the times to cultivate a spirit of its own and establish a unique and inspiring image. 

Fifth, we should balance the needs of work, life, and the eco-environment to make cities more livable. The ancient Chinese said, “A city is for accommodating people.” So, in urban development we should take into consideration the internal relationships between work space, living space, and eco-environmental space. We should endeavor to make the first compact and efficient and the second livable and comfortable, and to populate the third with lucid waters and lush mountains. 

For years, we have not given due attention to the establishment of a livable environment when setting guiding principles for urbanization. Greater emphasis has been put on construction than on management, on growth rate than on growth quality, on immediate results than on future impacts, on development than on protection, on work on the ground than underground, and on new districts than on old ones. Now our people have very high expectations of a livable environment. To meet these expectations, we should make it our central task to build a more livable environment and work harder to turn our cities into beautiful homelands where different groups of people live together happily, and humanity and nature coexist harmoniously.

The configuration of functional zones within a city should be well planned and refined. Different functional zones for residence, business, administration, cultural activities, and other activities in a city should mix and integrate. A balance between working and housing zones should be gradually achieved based on environmental improvements, and land redevelopment and revitalization; unnecessary relocations and commutes should be reduced. It is of the essence to highlight the major functional zoning with different functional zones sharing the same piece of land. Urban space should not be divided irrationally into several large but mono-functional and isolated areas such as central business districts, residential quarters, shopping areas, science and technology parks, and university towns. Rather, our urban planning should keep the residents’ workplaces and schools as near to their homes as possible and shorten the distance of their commute as much as possible. Our cities should not be an agglomeration of several isolated enclosures encircled by countless walls or fences. Instead, we should increase accessibility and microcirculation capacity by adopting modern and rational safety and security measures and building fewer and fewer enclosed residential quarters. The design of urban grids and roads should be people-friendly. They should not serve only the needs of drivers, but also the residents. Our  city blocks should be comprehensive and multi-functional – they should be convenient enough for people to exercise, go shopping and dining, and take their leisure. 

Ensuring access to housing is the foundation of a livable city. In the matter of further reform of the urban housing system, we should guarantee the market’s primary role in meeting the multilevel housing needs of urban residents, place particular emphasis on meeting the housing demands of new urban residents, and focus on establishing a housing system that gives equal weight to housing purchase and renting. We should continue to improve housing security, promote the monetization of public-rental housing, and accelerate the renovation of run-down areas and dilapidated houses in urban neighborhoods. To encourage and support the participation of non-governmental capital in the renovation and transformation of old residential communities and run-down areas, it is essential to refine land, fiscal, and financial policies and implement supporting tax policies.

In the development of cities, our objectives should not be restricted to the economy, but extend to the eco-environment and harmony between humanity and nature. We should cultivate an awareness that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets, and strengthen our commitment to respecting nature, preserving historical heritage, and promoting green and low-carbon practices. The environmental capacity and the urban comprehensive carrying capacity should serve as the foundations for determining urban positioning and scale. Mountains, waters, forests and farmlands are integral components of urban life and should not be arbitrarily encroached upon or damaged. This logic was indeed recognized by our ancestors over two thousand years ago. As the book Guan Zi says, “When situating his capital, the sage makes certain it is placed on a level portion of land and, in terms of topography, selects a site that is rich and fertile and is at the foot of mountains, and bordered by a river or lake.” In reality, some of our picturesque cities, where people coexist harmoniously with nature, have been gradually built under the guidance of such philosophy. Let us take Hangzhou as an example. In the Tang Dynasty (618-907), Bai Juyi established guidelines for protecting the West Lake in his “On the Water Conservancy of the Qiantang Lake”. In the Five Dynasties period (907-960), Qian Liu continued the approach of conserving the West Lake. In the Song Dynasty (960-1279), Su Dongpo submitted a memorial to the imperial court, in which he highlighted the West Lake’s fivefold values and advocated lake dredging. It is precisely due to the continuous efforts to conserve and cultivate the landscape by individuals such as Bai Juyi, Qian Liu, and Su Shi that we have the present-day “paradise on earth” that the West Lake represents.

In urban development, we should embrace the beauty of nature by integrating the charms of mountains, rivers, and landscapes into the city. Our goal is to establish a complete eco-environmental network that integrates the internal water systems and green spaces of the city with the surrounding rivers, lakes, forests, and farmlands. It is essential to engage in active eco-environmental restoration to bring back lucid waters and lush mountains to the city. In the 1980s, countries like Germany and Switzerland introduced the concept of “re-naturalization” – restoring rivers to a state close to their natural condition – which serves as a valuable reference. We should end the indiscriminate alteration of nature such as filling rivers, lakes, wetlands, and paddy fields, or encasing natural rivers with concrete that turns the city into an impermeable “concrete slab”.

Urban development should be undertaken in a rational manner by drawing red lines to protect water bodies, green space networks, historic sites, permanent basic cropland, and the ecosystems, to manage infrastructure projects. This philosophy aims to prevent uncontrolled sprawl and promote a green, low-carbon way of life and work, as well as providing a sustainable model of urban development and operation.

Cities serve as centers of economic development, and it is natural to pursue economic gains. However, it is important to adhere to efficient development, embrace the concepts of “smart growth” and “compact city”, and appropriately delineate urban development boundaries, so as to shift the focus of urban development from extensive expansion to internal improvement. Currently 14 cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou, are in the process of delineating their development boundaries, marking a good start. In the future, development boundaries should be established in accordance with the specific conditions of each city. Permanent development boundaries should be designated for super-large and mega cities. Cities experiencing excessive strain on resources and the environment, regardless of their development potential, should also have permanent development boundaries. For cities with robust carrying capacity of resources and the environment and with great potential for development, a gradual approach may be adopted.

Urban infrastructure, including transport, energy, water supply and drainage, heating, and sewage and waste management, should be planned and constructed in accordance with the concept of green, circular, and low-carbon development. We should accelerate the development of low-carbon urban transport by expediting the construction of urban rail transit and intercity railways that are rapid and have high capacity, good energy efficiency, and low emissions, and gradually turn such systems into the backbone of passenger transport within super-large and mega cities as well as city clusters. We should support the energy-saving and low-carbon transformation of urban energy systems, increase the use of renewable energy, and encourage the development of distributed power generation systems. Existing lighting systems of buildings and cities should be retrofitted to be more energy-efficient. We should vigorously promote a circular economy, fostering the circular linkages of urban work and living systems. We should strengthen water recycling and develop ultra-low-energy building techniques to construct a set of demonstration zones approaching zero carbon emissions. We should implement waste reduction measures at source, enabling the full utilization of recyclable waste, increasing recycling rates, and reducing the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. There should be maximum afforestation of idle lands, barren hillsides, and contaminated lands on the outskirts of cities, thereby adorning the city with a “green necklace”.

Sixth, we should coordinate the efforts of the government, society, and citizens to generate enthusiasm on all sides for urban development. Urban development requires the adept mobilization of enthusiasm, proactivity, and creativity from various sectors, gathering positivity that drives urban progress. We should persevere in coordination and collaboration, making every effort to ensure the actions of the government, society, and citizens are aligned, so that the visible hand of the government, the invisible hand of the market, and the industrious hands of the citizens all operate in unison.

The government should adopt innovative ways of urban governance. Particular attention should be paid to strengthening meticulous and targeted management of cities to nip conflicts and issues in the bud. Urban governance should combine preventive and corrective actions with the emphasis on the former, integrate precautions with sanctions while giving priority to the former, and we should address both symptoms and the root causes of any problem with a focus on the latter. We must not always resort to mending the fold after the sheep have strayed, leaving ourselves swamped with problems that could have been prevented, because it is not too late to mend the fold, but it is even better to take precautions in advance. The government should allocate significant resources at the macro level and with the overall development in view, focus on ensuring essential public services, and organize the provision of public goods and services that fill in market gaps and meet the needs of society and citizens. We should leverage the impact of the government’s financial support and encourage non-governmental investment in urban construction, operations, and management.

As the real estate market undergoes adjustments, and urban land transfer revenues significantly decrease, it becomes essential to attract non-governmental capital to participate in urban development, which requires full utilization of market mechanisms. Encouraging various parties to participate in urban construction does not relieve the government of its responsibility. On the contrary, it actually raises the demands on the government. We should lower the threshold for non-governmental capital to participate in urban development, enabling it to enter and remain in the market. We should also improve the pricing policies for urban infrastructure service fees, allowing businesses to generate profits and gain returns. We should establish an open and transparent market order, facilitating organized participation of and fair competition between different market entities. And we should strengthen supervision to ensure the full implementation of our urban development approach and plans. 

Citizens are the main interested party in urban construction and development. It is important to ensure their rights to stay informed about, participate in, and oversee the decision-making process related to urban development, and encourage businesses and citizens to engage in urban construction and management through various means. In the process of co-building and sharing, a city government should shift from being a mere “oarsman” to a “helmsman”, working with the market, businesses, and citizens to manage urban affairs and undertake social responsibilities. Only by engaging all citizens in addressing together their practical issues of concern, big or small, in the neighborhoods or around themselves, and by transforming the relationship between citizens and the government from “you and me” to “us”, and from “you tell me what to do” to “let’s do it together”, can we truly achieve an urban governance based on joint contribution and shared benefits.

Civic virtues are determined by the ethic and cultural progress of local residents. A little progress in ethic and cultural awareness can bring a significant improvement in the city’s image. We need to recognize that in some cities, there are prevalent issues such as unauthorized construction, littering, queue jumping, and loud talking in public places, reflecting inadequate civic virtues among certain individuals. Cultivating and improving civic qualities is a long-term process, but it is essential to start with small matters and persevere in order to achieve lasting success.

∗ Part of the speech at the Central Conference on Urban Work.

(Not to be republished for any commercial or other purposes.)