Cities for the People: A Philosophy to Guide Modern Urban Development

At the Central Urban Work Conference in 2015, it was stressed that cities must be built “for the people.” President Xi Jinping then proposed in 2019 that cities should be built both “by the people and for the people.” Ten years later, at the Central Urban Work Conference in 2025, the goal was set of building modern people-centered cities that are innovative, livable, beautiful, resilient, culturally rich, and smart. These milestones illustrate how the philosophy that cities are for the people has steered the course of urban development in the new era.

I. Understanding the philosophy that cities are for the people through the evolution of modern urban development

The great arc of modern urban development in the People’s Republic of China since its founding in 1949 embodies the critical transformation in the philosophy that cities are for the people: from practical exploration to a systematic theory taking root in practice.

In the early years of the People’s Republic of China, the CPC shifted the focus of its work from rural to urban areas. During that period, urban development was subordinated to the urgent imperatives of national industrialization, with industrial development taking precedence in resource allocation. As urban spaces were reorganized around the work-unit system to facilitate production, walled compounds became the basic cells of urban life. Under this production-first logic, daily life was shaped by the needs of production, with consumption amenities and public spaces compressed to some extent. Nevertheless, this approach helped lay the spatial foundations for China’s industrial system in a relatively short period, thus accelerating the process of socialist industrialization.

After the launch of reform and opening up in 1978, China embarked on the largest and fastest urbanization drive in human history, unleashing unprecedented vitality and potential in its cities. As land and housing reforms progressed, urban development entered a phase of rapid expansion. New urban areas were built as old ones were renovated, bringing significant changes to the urban landscape and construction intensity. Through sustained, large-scale construction, housing shortages that had long constrained urbanization were effectively alleviated. The supply of residential areas grew markedly, living conditions and environments improved steadily, and hundreds of millions of migrant workers moved from rural areas to cities to work and live and gradually realized their dream of settling down there. The rapid development in this period helped generate substantial material wealth, strengthen urban functional systems, and effectively address people’s basic material needs for modern life. Moreover, this phase generated the strong momentum needed to advance urban development in the new era. However, as the expansion-oriented mode of development began to face diminishing returns, problems gradually emerged, including tightening resource and environmental constraints, homogeneous cityscapes, and the erosion of local cultural identity.

An aerial view of Zhegong New Village in Hangzhou, the city’s first resident-led housing renewal project featuring demolition and rebuilding on the original site, February 25, 2025. Since the 18th CPC National Congress of 2012, China has delivered over 68 million government-subsidized and urban-renewal housing units, helping more than 170 million people in need realize their dream of living in safe, decent homes. PEOPLE’S DAILY / PHOTO BY LONG WEI

Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, President Xi has clearly articulated the philosophy that cities are for the people, highlighting the need to ensure that cities are built by the people and for the people, to promote people-centered new urbanization, and to implement whole life-cycle management throughout the process of urban planning, construction, and governance.

Under the guidance of this philosophy, China has made globally-recognized historic achievements in urban development. The share of permanent urban residents in the total population climbed from 53.1% in 2012 to 67% in 2024. The strategic urbanization framework—consisting of two horizontal axes (the east-to-west land bridges and the Yangtze River basin areas) and three vertical axes (China’s coastline, the Beijing-Harbin and Beijing-Guangzhou railways linking the country’s far north and deep south, and the Baotou-Kunming Railway, another north-south railway line in western China)—has basically taken shape. China has also established the world’s largest housing support system, building more than 68 million units of government-subsidized housing and resettlement housing in rundown urban areas. Moreover, the historical and cultural roots and everyday vitality of cities have been preserved thanks to a multi-tiered arrangement, while ecological restoration projects have brought the return of lucid waters and lush mountains.

Chinese cities have made solid strides in optimizing structures, shifting to new drivers of growth, improving quality, advancing the green transition, promoting cultural continuity, and enhancing governance. Cities around the country are thus evolving into the key pillars underpinning people’s aspirations for a better life.

The philosophy that cities are for the people transcends the instrumental rationality that once dominated the production of physical space. In essence, it represents a profound transformation in the relationship between cities and their residents. By re-envisioning space as socially produced, it has brought about a shift in urban development from the accumulation of material value to people-centered advancement. By redefining the goals, operational mechanisms, and governance models of urban development, this philosophy effectively integrates the advancement of people’s wellbeing with the transition to a new development model and the modernization of governance. As a result, China’s cities have become highly integrated and distinctive fields of practice for Chinese modernization.

Under the guidance of this philosophy, modern urban development in the current era is moving beyond mere physical construction to a new stage characterized by the integration of well-rounded individual development and social progress, thus giving shape to a new form of urban civilization.

II. Problems and challenges in modern urban development

Today, China is undergoing a sweeping and far-reaching transformation in urban development. It is moving beyond the extensive mode of large-scale expansion toward a new intensive mode centered on the upgrading of existing stock. At this stage, cities face a higher demand in development due to social production advancements, demographic shifts, the imperative to preserve historical and cultural heritage, and the demands of urban governance. Building truly modern cities, therefore, will require tackling a series of deep-seated problems and challenges head-on.

First, high-quality economic and social development, particularly the leap in new quality productive forces, has made it necessary to upgrade and reimagine the way cities supply space and organize functions

Traditional manufacturing, exemplified by the steel, cement, and textile sectors, has been defined by large-scale standardized factory complexes that are concentrated on contiguous tracts of industrial land. It is this model, coupled with local governments’ reliance on land-based revenue, that has in effect fueled unchecked urban sprawl. This is in stark contrast to the spatial needs dictated by new quality productive forces, which are epitomized by fields such as new-generation information technology and artificial intelligence (AI). Such sectors require flexible R&D spaces that spark innovative thinking, open innovation platforms that facilitate cross-disciplinary exchanges, and high-quality residential areas that help attract and retain talent. These spaces feature a distinctive set of qualities: They must be compact yet sophisticated, highly integrated, strongly interconnected, and rapidly evolving. This fundamental transformation—from “hard” to “soft,” from “scale” to “precision”—requires that in practice we must systematically coordinate the regional layout, promote integrated land use, ensure spatial diversity, and demonstrate greater flexibility in the organization of functions.

Second, demographic shifts are diversifying the demands placed on urban functions and reshaping spatial needs in cities

On the one hand, population aging is becoming increasingly severe. By the end of 2024, people aged 60 and above accounted for 22% of China’s total population, while those aged 65 and above made up 15.6%. This intensifying trend has placed greater pressure on urban public services, with demand surging for such facilities as eldercare and community healthcare. On the other hand, the housing needs of all city residents have evolved. Established residents living in older neighborhoods are confronted with problems such as aging infrastructure and a lack of public space— issues that impact living comfort and convenience. Meanwhile, newer residents and young people, who represent the vitality and future of cities, face difficulties such as unaffordable housing. Furthermore, these cohorts have diverse demands regarding work-living balance, social interaction, and personalized living experiences. These layered structural tensions must be urgently addressed through systematic solutions that are guided by more refined and targeted urban development strategies.

Third, the historical and cultural heritage of cities is, in practice, at risk of being hollowed out and stripped of its authenticity

Some regions are still trapped in a shortsighted mindset and the extensive model of wholesale demolition and reconstruction. Destruction under the guise of renovation severs the urban roots and social fabric that define a city. The result is that cities are stripped of the very spirit that makes them livable and the physical spaces that anchor their collective memory. Such an approach not only disregards the interests of longstanding residents but also drives up costs for newcomers and young people trying to put down roots. In addition, creeping homogenization is draining city landscapes of their authenticity. Some development projects, instead of meaningfully engaging with local culture, opt to blindly replicate the same commercial models because of an overemphasis on short-term gains. This result has been “all cities with the same view,” as historic districts are reduced to little more than fake antiquities devoid of vitality. As a consequence, the key question is how we can integrate our historical heritage with the fabric of modern life and new quality productive forces, or in other words, how we can preserve our roots while meeting people’s aspirations for a better life. Getting this right has become the true test of whether urban development is of good quality and embodies human warmth.

Fourth, the gap between urban governance capacity and public expectations constitutes a deep-seated challenge in the modernization of urban governance systems

Modern cities are defined by high density, high mobility, and rapid change, and yet governance in some domains still relies on outdated models of experience-based decision-making and reactive response. Efficient coordination and collaboration mechanisms between cities, regions, and departments remain in short supply. On top of this, data barriers have given rise to information silos, all of which has left authorities slow to detect risks and unable to effectively conduct early warning and prevention. Such governance pressures cascade through the system, exacerbating the already heavy workload at the primary level, where—as the saying goes—“a thousand threads must be drawn through the eye of a single needle.” Ultimately, the warmth of a city is determined by the meticulousness of its urban governance. Only by overcoming the chronic problem of extensive management through precisely targeted policies and bridging the “last mile” in service delivery can the defining quality of a people’s city—the wellbeing of its residents—truly shine through.

While acknowledging these problems and challenges, it is also important to recognize that China possesses numerous advantages and favorable conditions for modern urban development. The CPC’s centralized, unified leadership provides the fundamental institutional guarantee for urban development. It enables the coordination of resource allocation and policy orientation at the highest level, which ensures that overarching plans are translated into systematic institutional arrangements across various levels. In addition, new quality productive forces are being integrated into the urban development process at an accelerating pace. New technologies, such as AI, digital twins, drones, and city brains, are steadily expanding the capacity of cities for perception, analysis, and governance, and providing crucial support for precision planning, refined construction, and efficient governance.

III. Ensuring the philosophy that cities are for the people takes root and delivers results

The development of modern cities constitutes a complex systemic project that concerns every dimension of economic and social development. It bears on the sense of gain, happiness, and security of hundreds of millions of people, on the profound transformation of China’s economic and social development model, and on the overall progress of our endeavor to modernize China’s governance system and capacity. Keeping this in mind, it is necessary to focus on the following tasks.

We should promote regional coordination by overcoming the limitations of individual cities and creating a pattern of coordinated development among cities of all sizes under a framework of city clusters and metropolitan areas

Looking at the evolution of major cities around the world, city clusters and metropolitan areas have become the core spatial forms through which modern development is advanced, with cities such as London and Tokyo having already moved beyond the path of individual city sprawl. To advance modern urban development, we must look beyond the administrative boundaries of individual cities, break down regional barriers through integration, and promote the orderly, free flow of production factors such as capital, labor, and technology. We should prioritize the integration of public services such as eldercare, medical care, and education, and see that administrative boundaries are dissolved, so residents in surrounding areas can share equally in the modernization gains of central cities. This will ensure that imbalances and inadequacies in development are effectively addressed.

At the same time, approaches must be tailored to local conditions, with clearly defined missions and responsibilities for cities at different tiers. For megacities and super-large cities, the core mission lies in optimization and quality enhancement. They should leverage their unique advantages to boost global competitiveness and drive stronger growth in surrounding areas, while also focusing on resolving housing difficulties for new citizens and young people and achieving a leap in new quality productive forces. Small and medium-sized cities should, based on their respective natural endowments, improve livability to attract industries and talent. County seats, meanwhile, should serve as the pivotal link in urban-rural integration, remaining at the center of China’s urbanization endeavors and strengthening weak links in public services. Through the collective momentum generated by city clusters, we can achieve intensive and efficient land use, industrial transformation and upgrading, and shared economic growth.

We should improve living environments by making the construction of good houses the foundation of modern urban development

As China’s housing sector enters a new stage characterized by both improving existing stock and pursuing new development, public housing demand has shifted from mere availability to quality. To adapt to this transition, a similar shift from quantity to quality is required in the supply of housing. We must address demand for both first homes and improved housing conditions, ensuring basic living standards while also upgrading quality. Therefore, it is necessary to advance the supply of good housing through new construction and urban renewal to bring existing stock up to standard.

Furthermore, a full lifecycle development philosophy must be established. At the planning and design stage, efforts must begin with a detailed approach, emphasizing age-friendly, child-friendly, and barrier-free design. New building methods and green materials should be vigorously promoted in construction, and problems that have long troubled residents, such as water leakage and poor sound insulation, must be effectively addressed. For the operation and maintenance stage, digital home systems and smart property services should be introduced to allow technology to enhance the daily living experience. By building good housing that is safe, comfortable, green, and smart, we can deliver systematic progress in developing good neighborhoods, communities, and urban districts and make the transition from ensuring housing for all to ensuring quality housing for all.

We must prioritize preservation, establishing a protective framework that encompasses macro layout, intermediate urban fabric, and micro-level architectural forms

The soul of a city resides in its history and culture. Modern urban development, therefore, demands the continuous improvement of the systems for preserving and passing on this heritage.

At the macro level, the protection of renowned historical and cultural cities should focus on preserving the spatial layout. This involves strengthening the systematic management of a city’s natural landscape, traditional axes, and overall spatial forms, ensuring the coexistence of the natural environment and the cultural-historical context, while also maintaining the integrity of the cityscape as a whole.

At the intermediate level, the protection of historic streets and districts should focus on maintaining the urban fabric. Old cities must no longer be subject to demolition. At the same time, old city areas and their historic districts should be comprehensively surveyed to create a full inventory of the cultural heritage resources within old residential areas, neighborhoods, and factory zones. By drawing the strictest protective boundaries, we can prevent cultural fracture caused by excessive commercialization and preserve the genius loci of cities.

At the micro level, to protect historic buildings, we must resolutely abandon the extensive model of large-scale demolition and reconstruction in favor of organic renewal and adaptive renovation. This means preserving existing social ecologies and neighborhood structures and exploring an inclusive approach that ensures residents remain in place, cityscapes are preserved, and a city’s sense of home endures.

We should adhere to a systems-based approach by building a new framework for collaboration and participation that features sound diagnosis and targeted resolution of problems

We need to create new urban governance concepts, models, and methods to help boost the capacity of grassroots communities, which must, as the nerve endings of the urban governance system, function smoothly. Digital and intelligent diagnostic capabilities should be strengthened, and the focus of governance should shift upstream to identify problems at their source. Big data analysis and AI can be used to identify potential problems and determine governance priorities accordingly, thus facilitating a leap from experience-based to data-driven decision-making.

We should improve the closed-loop response mechanisms to fully integrate prompt complaint handling with evaluation and feedback. Taking public concerns as the starting point, we should shift the logic of governance from a reactive approach of handling issues one by one as they arise to a proactive approach of drawing broader lessons from individual cases and addressing problems before complaints are filed. By creating a virtuous cycle of planning, construction, evaluation, feedback, and improvement, we can ensure urban governance and social cohesion are mutually reinforcing.

Xiao Chaowei is Associate Director and Research Fellow at the Urban Renewal Research Center of the National Academy of Development and Strategy, Renmin University of China.

(Originally appeared in Qiushi Journal, Chinese edition, No. 2, 2026)