Introduction
From leading the world in innovation with the invention of gunpowder, paper and print, to being forced into modernity by foreign colonizers; China’s modernization path has been long and winding. From the very concept of China trying to keep up with western ‘modern’ nations, ‘progress’ invariably became a constant debate between various opposite concepts due to the difference of philosophies. However, even for a country so richly historic, Andrew Boyd points out that Chinese culture, and therefore architecture, is more remarkable for its continuity than it is for its antiquity. This is especially relevant considering that, having changed so fundamentally economically, politically and architecturally during the 20th century, China appears to maintain recurring themes that seem essential to the Chinese urban fabric and transcend the different voices that dispute within its cities; an example of this is the recurrence of walls throughout its history. This essay takes walls as a starting point of the wider conversation that Chinese modernization became. To better understand the importance of the wall in China, this essay will first give a short introduction to their role and symbolism, then cover different approaches taken in the dialogue between tradition and progress: preservation, destruction, repurpose and the creation of new traditions; furthermore, recurring patterns such as cellular living and work
spaces, and centric urban planning will also be discussed. To do so, due to being both the historic centre of China and a leading modern megacity; Beijing provides the ideal case study for how a city with a deeply-rooted cultural and urban tradition confronts the challenge of modernizing. The scope of this essay covers four main epochs relevant to the historical analysis of the wall: Feudalism, defined as the feudalist and isolationist system held by numerous dynasties pre-1911; the Republic, the short democratic period between 1911 and 1949, characterized by its western yet volatile political system; the Maoist regime from 1949 to 1976, which saw the emergence of communism and gave the grounds for China’s economic growth; and finally modern times, loosely placed between 1976 and the present day. Due to their historic value and intrinsic symbolism of the Chinese culture, walls embody their traditional philosophy, thus the way modernity interacts with them becomes crucial as a consequence of the blurring identity of nations in modern globalization.
Brief summary of the importance of the Chinese wall
Emerging from the need for order, security and even authority, the idea of a wall became inseparable to that of the city, so far as sharing the same character ‘cheng’. However, as cities grew, the walls became not just a symbol of protection, but they served to divide the city into wards and control patterns of residence, in this way also becoming a tool for segregation. City walls defined the urban layout and their demolition during the early years of the Maoist government, marked a watershed in the city’s fabric. Moreover, whilst not entirely identical, the traditional courtyard house is yet another reoccurrence of the wall typology (Figure 1). This can be seen in the layout of the buildings looking in, arguably a materialization of the feudal value placed on the community over the individual, and isolationism. In this context, the Chinese wall can be considered an emblem of the Chinese societal traditions and even a representation of their traditional urban philosophy.
Figure 1: Representation of a traditional Chinese courtyard house
Preservation
With the fall of feudalism and rise of the republic in 1911, government officials and city planners of the republic aimed to create a new national identity and tell their own narrative. This understandably became a pattern present since the overthrow of the imperial monarchy, considering the following governments did not want to be in any way associated to the dynastic system; as Yue Dong argues, “To live on in continuity would imply stagnation (...) yet not being able to claim a past would indicate lack of ‘civilization’”.3 This suggests however, a superficial approach to history, casting it as unrelated to the present. In this way, modernization, like history, became selective, only China could tell its own story.
In 1928, the capital was moved to Nanjing, leaving Beijing to restructure its entire urban fabric due to the lack of income it was previously maintained by. Reformers opted with making Beijing (or as it became known, Beiping) a modern city of tradition, in this way attracting foreign investment, and both national and international tourism. To achieve this, preservation of its old monuments became the core of urban development. However, this conservation was selective, at the core of the project was the mentality of “frame the past, repair it, and preserve it”.4 Imperial sites were preserved as Chinese emblems and crumbling structures were repaired with innovative materials that the 20th century had to offer. It is notable to highlight that all monuments and historic structures preserved during this period are still standing today.5 Unfortunately, walls did not fit in the frame of this conservation because of their intrinsic connection to the feudal past the Republic was trying so hard to separate itself from, thus they were mostly demolished.
Destruction
With the fall of the Dynastic government in 1911, the walls were perceived as shackles of the old imperial system, vestiges of a feudal system. Consequently, the first few years of the republic saw many of Beijing’s walls destroyed to liberate confined spaces. If changes were made during the Republican period however, the pace only accelerated with the rise of communism. Back to being a capital city in 1949, Beijing had to lead the way in modernization and the walls were seen as the physical barrier to the future.6 Not only did the symbolism of walls as hierarchic remnants clash with Maoist ideals, but they also “blocked traffic, wasted land and limited urban development”.7 Thus, many agreed that keeping them was not only useless, but even harmful to the communist ideals and China’s road to modernity.8 These advocates for their demolition argued that the remaining city walls had finished their ‘historical task’ to protect the city and they were now remainders of the feudal division between urban residents and peasants.9 The destruction of these city walls marked a critical moment in Beijing’s urban fabric, however, with the fall of the great city walls, smaller scale ones took their place.
Recurring Cellular Working/Living Spaces
With the fall of the city’s walls, there was an ironic rise of unit walls, to protect work units and define the boundaries that the joint state-private ownership had blurred; a clear resemblance with the original purpose of the city walls. Furthermore, the state encouraged work units to allow peasants to use their facilities with the ‘open door policy’, so even down to the urban-rural segregation, these barriers became symbolic miniatures of the walls previously torn down. To increase the irony to what seems like a crude joke, these walls were often built from portions taken off the main city walls due to lack of building materials.10 Moreover, it wasn’t just the walls themselves that made a reappearance. By enclosing the working space and looking inward, work units became a reiteration of the layout of the traditional courtyard house, a style that was mostly overlooked during the republic years when a more western, outward-looking layout was favoured.11 In this way, key aspects of collective-over-individual, the value of privacy and even segregation of rural areas in feudal Chinese mentality reappeared morphed with necessities that had arisen from the communist rule.
Repurposing
The destruction of the walls was not inevitable however, scholars like Liang Sicheng advocated for a more dialogical approach, the preservation of China’s cultural past, turning the walls and moats into ‘three-dimensional’ parks; with a width of 10 metres, the top of the walls was an ideal space for greenbelts.12 Furthermore, gate towers could be turned into museums, teahouses or reading rooms.13 Although the unfortunate decision to tear down the walls left a scar on Chinese heritage, other examples of repurpose of space were actually in the benefit of the city, even if it meant demolishing walls.
During the republican period, minor walls were admittedly torn down. This however, along with opening up the space, arguably improved the urban fabric of the city by turning imperial gardens into public parks. In this way respecting their space and heritage within the city and shifting the role of the individual from an imperial subject to a republic citizen, as Madeleine Yue Dong notes.
Concentric Urbanism, Should All Ancient Traditions Be Kept?
Because of its traditional axial layout and the different hierarchal circles contained within each other, from the Outer City into the Forbidden City, all separated by walls; the roots of modern Chinese cities were naturally centric (Figure 2). However, the value placed on self sufficiency over trade and commerce further highlighted this concentric layout. As Tom Miller suggests, cities were “built as producer centres rather than consumer ones”, where people’s life and work revolved around a ‘work unit’, thus leading to a centric urban fabric.15 As such, traditional Chinese urban planning dictated that markets had to be on the outskirts of the city, or next to the city walls, thus symbolically placing little importance on business. This was only exacerbated in the fifties and sixties by Mao’s anti-urban ideology, which kept China as a predominantly rural society. When the anti-urbanization ban was lifted in 1978 however, cities saw an unprecedented exodus of people from rural to urban settings, making the city, and specially Beijing, expand rapidly. This mass migration highlighted the problems with the central nature of the city and the lack of humanism in the city planning. The discussion of individual versus that of the collective is again relevant. The importance of society-over-individual roots back to feudal times when people were seen “only as a son or brother, not as an independent personality”, in other words, regarding them more as a part of a whole than as an independent individual, which also relates to Confucian filial piety.17 This collective mentality has reappeared in modern day Beijing in the shape of planning and architecture that does not have the users as a priority; for example, subway systems designed as more of an engineering project, stopping at given distances rather than where people need to go.18 Additionally, the centric layout of Beijing, combined with the rapid increase of suburban areas due to the sprawl of the city created a traffic issue, where the average travel speed is half to that of New York and Singapore.19 This talks of a city which is thinly spread and not very efficient, which arguably shows the need for reform in its traditional urban planning.
The careful balance between taking inspiration from ancient city planning and architecture, and building an innovative city prepared for the future is inherently an arduous task. However, some of the vestiges left from the imperial past, although often essential to Chinese outlook, were born from a pragmatism that does not apply to the modern era.
Creating tradition
When the plan to tear down the walls was proposed, the Chinese architect Lin Huiyin told the communist government “It will be an irreversible mistake, one day you will regret it, and you'll end up building a fake antique in its place”.20 Wide and well paved paths are the only sign left of the centuries-old walls that once stood there; a decision today’s municipal government acknowledges was short-sighted.21 And just as predicted, in 2002, the Chinese government announced the reconstruction of segments of these torn down walls. With no pragmatic nor historic value, it inevitably calls into question whether the funds allocated would not serve better to preserve the existing and crumbling historic structures in the city.
Conclusion
From the Great Chinese Wall, to the walls surrounding traditional courtyard houses, the need for a barrier to protect and define a territory is a constant throughout Chinese architecture; as such, it has become an emblem of their built tradition. After being forced to open up after years of isolation, it became clear that it was adamant for China to modernize. Thus, modernization did not come as a natural evolution as for many western countries, but rather as a shock that left the country wondering how to keep up with foreign powers whilst maintaining its ancient traditional identity. This essay has aimed to explore and inquire the effectivity of different approaches taken by Beijing’s authorities to keep a dialogue between its past and its future. Preservation, destruction, repurposing and creating new tradition have been the methods explored in this essay and whilst the level of success is questionable in all of them, the challenge is far from over. In a rapidly evolving world as the present one, dialogues such as the ones between old and new, west and east, individual and collective will only increase, in importance and number.
Comments