RETHINKING PUBLICNESS: MAKING PUBLIC SPACE IN AN «EXCELLENT GLOBAL CITY» AND THE RHETORIC AND REALITY OF PEOPLE-ORIENTEDNESS

3.1. Note on methodology

The paper presents partial findings from a larger PhD research project that discusses the role public space development plays in mediating between Shanghai’s visionary development narratives and citizens’ everyday use of space in the context of the city’s envisaged transformation into an «excellent global city». The regeneration of Huangpu River waterfront public space is used as one of the case studies because it has been one of the city’s most important spatial transformation projects in the past two decades, and the recent creation of continuous public space along both riverbanks is perceived as an important step to build a world-class waterfront and contribute to the city’s «excellent global city» vision. Therefore, this case is suitable for exploring the interconnectedness of public space development, the publicness of space, and the city’s visionary narratives. The project did not follow the conventional paradigms of public space studies that are «either behavioural, describing the numbers and kinds of people who use the space, or architectural, describing the physical characteristics and architectural history of the built environment» (Low, 2000: 38Low, Setha (2000). On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.7560/747135 ), but instead adopted a process-oriented approach (van Melik and Spierings, 2020Van Melik, Rianne and Spierings, Bas (2020). Researching Public Space. From Place-Based to Process-Oriented Approaches and Methods. In Vikas Mehta, Danilo Palazzo (eds.). Companion to Public Space. London: Routledge, pp. 16-26. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351002189-2 ) that focuses on the complex rationales, mechanisms and practical processes that shape public spaces.

Empirical fieldwork was conducted between March and September 2019. Qualitative data were produced from the review of official policies, planning documents and media reports that help set the overall urban context for the case study and provide insights into the discourses around the recent waterfront public space development; from semi-structured walk-by observation (Carmona and Sakai, 2014Carmona, Matthew and Sakai, Aya (2014). Designing the Japanese City - An Individual Aesthetic and a Collective Neglect. Urban Design International, 19 (3): 186-98. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2013.29 ) and mini-tour observation (Spradley, 1980: 79Spradley, James P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.) that reveal the local context, spatial features, and primary user activities of public spaces in questions; and from semi-structured interviews with design and planning practitioners, developers and academics. The data were then coded and analysed with the social production/social construction of space framework (Low, 2000Low, Setha (2000). On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.7560/747135 , 2017Low, Setha (2017). Spatializing Culture The Ethnography of Space and Place. London: Routledge.). The social production of space seeks to untangle how the material settings of public spaces come into being through a series of socio-economic, cultural, and political processes, whereas the social construction of space explores «the transformation of space through language, social interaction, memory, representation, behaviour and use into scenes and actions that convey meaning» (Low, 2017: 7Low, Setha (2017). Spatializing Culture The Ethnography of Space and Place. London: Routledge.). This paper uses the media discourse on the projects to understand the social construction of the waterfront public spaces, more specifically what issues are problematised and what actions are framed with special meanings in the urban transformation context.

3.2. From comprehensive development to making public space

Merely two decades ago, the Huangpu River waterfront was almost completely inaccessible to the general public. Historically, the river, hailed as Shanghai’s mother river, not only gave the city easy access to the vast hinterland region but also became «the “gateway” to Shanghai, through which the world began to know Shanghai and Shanghai began to head to the world» (Chen and Zhao, 2003Chen, Bin and Zhao, Yanxin (2003). Zonghe Kaifa Chengxiao Mingxian, Huangpu Jiang Liang’an Bian Mei Le Bian Lv Le [Huangpu River’s Banks Become Prettier and Greener Thanks to the Comprehensive Development]. Dongfang Wang [Eastday]. Available at: http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-12-17/15271365045s.shtml [published on 17 December 2003; accessed on 8 December 2019].). Despite the river’s central location in Shanghai and its prominence as the city’s economic lifeline, the riverfront, occupied by factories and warehouses and thus heavily polluted and segregated from the rest of the city, had never been public or attractive. By the end of the 20th century, the waterfront was still almost completely industrial (Figure 1), with a few exceptional public spaces such as the historic Bund and the Lujiazui Riverside Avenue built across the river to commemorate the Pudong Development.

The late 1990s saw significant changes in the global economic structure and Shanghai’s development aspirations. Against the global backdrop of de-industrialisation and rise of the modern service sector, Shanghai started to relocate textile, manufacturing and shipping industries out of the central city so that these traditional industries could have ample space to upgrade, thus enabling Shanghai to «go beyond itself and keep up with the world» (Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development, 2007: 10Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development (2007). Huangpu Jiang Liang’an Kaifa [Development of Huangpu River Banks]. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.). Following the gradual industrial relocation, the land could then be released for higher-value uses, making the waterfront one of the last prime locations which, through good renewal efforts, could turn into «one of the biggest highlights of Shanghai’s central city construction and the finishing touch in the transformation of the old city» (Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development, 2010: 24Shanghai Muncipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development (2010). Chong Su Pujiang: Shijie Ji Binshui Qu Kaifa Guihua Shijian [Rebuild Huangpu River: A World-Class Waterfront Planning Practice]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press.).

In January 2002, to give the river back to people, the Shanghai municipality announced the commencement of the Huangpu River Comprehensive Development and subsequently published the 2002 Optimisation Plan for Both Banks of the Huangpu River. The objective was to change the land uses of the waterfront from primarily industrial to a mix of residential, commercial, cultural, and recreational uses. The 2002 Optimisation Plan also designated several core areas to be developed as the immediate focus of the comprehensive development and envisioned a series of improvements regarding open space, flood protection, historic preservation and transport system reorganisation (Yu, 2002aYu, Sijia (2002a). Yingjie Shen Cheng Binjiang Kaifa Xin Shidai - Huangpu Jiang Liang’an Diqu Guihua Youhua Fang’an Jianjie (1)[Embracing a New Era of Riverfront Development in Shanghai - An Introduction to the Optimisation Plan for the Huangpu River Area (1)]. Shanghai Chengshi Guihua [Shanghai Urban Planning Review], 1: 16-27., 2002bYu, Sijia (2002b). Yingjie Shen Cheng Binjiang Kaifa Xin Shidai - Huangpu Jiang Liang’an Diqu Guihua Youhua Fang’an Jianjie (2)[Embracing a New Era of Riverfront Development in Shanghai - An Introduction to the Optimisation Plan for the Huangpu River Area (2)]. Shanghai Chengshi Guihua [Shanghai Urban Planning Review], 2: 22-29.).

The comprehensive development did not progress smoothly in the initial years. As the 2002 Optimisation Plan was a citywide strategic land use plan devised at the municipal level, the actual (re)development of each waterfront land parcel, especially regarding its functions and design details, was conducted at the local level. Each local district would make its own detailed plans for the waterfront that solidified its agreements with the private developers but didn’t always safeguard the public interest (Xiong, 2005Xiong, Kui (2005). Chengshi Guihua Guocheng Zhong Quanli Jiegou de Zhengzhi Fenxi - Jiyu 20 Shiji 90 Niandai Shanghai Chengshi Guihua Zhidu Yu Shijian de Yanjiu [A Political Analysis of the Power Structure in the Urban Planning Process - A Study Based on the Urban Planning [PhD thesis]/ Tongji University, Shanghai. Available at https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/thesis/ChJUaGVzaXNOZXdTMjAyMTEyMDESCFcxNjU3MTE2Ggh6cnhudHBydg%253D%253D ). Many new developments did contribute pieces of public space, but collectively they were disconnected, inaccessible, and poorly managed to different extents. In addition, land transfer from existing landowners and users to the local governments was an onerous task and progressed variously in different local districts. In this regard, the preparation for the 2010 Shanghai World Expo played an important role in smoothing administrative procedures, striking compensation deals, and thus accelerating the land reclamation process. However, it only put off problems to a later day rather than effectively solving them (Chen, Tu, and Su, 2014Chen, Yawei; Tu, Qiyu and Su, Ning (2014). Shanghai’s Huangpu Riverbank Redevelopment Beyond World Expo 2010. In Proceedings AESOP 2014: Annual Conference “From control to co-evolution.” Utrecht/Delft, The Netherlands: Authors version. AESOP.), and the de-industrialisation of the waterfront would take a few more years to complete.

By late 2014 and early 2015, the reclamation of waterfront land parcels was considered basically completed. At that time, there was a growing recognition of the need to improve the quality (rather than the quantity or velocity) of urban regeneration against the national call to «build harmonious, liveable, energetic and diverse modern cities» (Huang, 2016Huang, Qi. 11 January 2016. Da Chengshi Ruhe Pojie ‘chengshi Bing’ [How Are Big Cities Solving the ’Urban Disease’]. Xinmin Zhoukan [Xinmin Weekly], pp. 18-23.). Locally, the Shanghai 2035 Masterplan that was to provide the guiding principles for the city’s development in the next two decades was being drafted. Although the master plan was not officially published until 2018, its «excellent global city» vision had already been widely circulated in the years leading up to its publication and guided relevant urban regeneration projects at that time. Following this vision, the municipal Three-Year Action Plan for the Construction of Public Space Along Both Banks of the Huangpu River (2015-2017)³Huangpu Jiang Liang’an Diqu Gonggong Kongjian Jianshe Sannian Jihua (2015-2017) [Three-Year Action Plan for the Construction of Public Space on Both Banks of the Huangpu River (2015-2017)]. Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development, 2014. Available at: zjw.sh.gov.cn/zjw/xwfb/20180911/17519.html published in 2014 considered making high-quality waterfront public spaces a prerequisite for making a world-class waterfront, which would, in turn, contribute to Shanghai’s «excellent global city» vision. Hence the cited Plan specified that, by the end of 2017, all the public spaces along both riverbanks, altogether 45 kilometres in length, should be basically completed and, more importantly, connected in order to «build a relatively complete waterfront public system and create high-quality spaces that are pleasant, full of culture and ecologically sensitive»⁴Ibidem.. To meet the project deadline, public space construction would precede other profit-oriented property developments as the basis for the future regeneration of the wider waterfront area.

3.3. Connecting the waterfront with three paths

The connection of public spaces along the east and the west banks of the river underwent slightly different processes, one of the major reasons being the different administrative settings. The east side of the river, often called the East Bund in the connection project, was under the jurisdiction of a single Pudong New Area District, so the development of waterfront public space was achieved in a relatively holistic way with a single planning blueprint. In contrast, four district governments were responsible for improving the public spaces on the west bank of the river (the Puxi waterfront), and there was limited coordination between districts and no comprehensive plan comparable to that made for the East Bund (Figure 2).

The East Bund connection started in early 2016 with a so-called three-in-one participatory call for design proposals (Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development, Shanghai Urban Planning and Design Research Institute, and Shanghai East Bund Investment Group, 2017Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development, Shanghai Urban Planning and Design Research Institute, and Shanghai East Bund Investment Group (2017). Dong’an Manbu: Huangpu Jiang Dong’an Gonggong Kongjian Guantong Kaifang Jianshe Guihua [East Bund Open Space]. Shanghai: Tongji University Press.). First, an international conceptual design competition was open to design teams around the world to «seek experiences and guidance from prior works of other countries on standards, principles and concepts»⁵International Design Competition for Open Space Leading down the East Bund of the Huangpu River 2016. Shanghai Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau, and People’s Government of Pudong New Area District of Shanghai. Available at: https://www.supdri.com/2035/index.php?c=article&id=244 . Second, a young designer competition combined with public consultation, primarily in the form of questionnaire interview, was open to students and young professionals around the world and Shanghai residents to showcase the wide scope of the participation, to publicise the event, and to «strike a chord with everyone» and «demonstrate collective wisdom»⁶Ibidem. Finally, drawing on inspirations from the aforementioned design competitions and public events, the Shanghai Urban Planning and Design Research Institute made the so-called «parallel design» as the final conceptual blueprint of the connection project, which was then made into the East Bund Open Space Plan, essentially a land use adjustment plan that amended the land use along the river to ensure the continuity of public space.

The most representative image of the East Bund public space connection is the so-called three-paths system which includes a strolling path, a jogging path and a cycling path that are standardised and supposedly run uninterrupted for the entire 21-kilometre waterfront (Figure 3). The three-paths system strategy was employed to bridge the many so-called bottlenecks along the waterfront, i.e., those areas that, for various reasons, existing public spaces were not connected or new public spaces were needed to open up the waterfront. The design idea originated from the international conceptual design competition for the East Bund. In the competition brief, the focus of the project was generally and vaguely outlined, among other things, as «opening segmented space» and «linking up bottlenecks with surrounding area»⁷International Design Competition for Open Space Leading down the East Bund of the Huangpu River 2016. Shanghai Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau, and People’s Government of Pudong New Area District of Shanghai. Available at: https://www.supdri.com/2035/index.php?c=article&id=244 . The winning team of the international competition who came up with the concepts of three paths drew inspiration from the early public consultation and designed the paths as a carrier of new functions and activities to connect the waterfront public spaces.

At the Puxi waterfront, a similar system was implemented on top of the renovation of the existing public spaces, but the uninterruptedness of the three paths was difficult to achieve here given the lack of an overall plan or compulsory guidelines to coordinate design details such as the paths’ location, width, and material (Figure 4). Another difficulty lies in the complexity of stakeholders and unresolved land issues. The Puxi waterfront was historically more developed than the Pudong side with more complex existing stakeholders and project conditions. After the 2010 World Expo, some land transfer issues were only partially resolved, and by the time of the public space connection project, these problems resurfaced to hinder the connection progress and contributed to a different picture of waterfront public space.

The transformation of the waterfront does not stop at the completion of the continuous paths. First, similar connection strategies are being applied to the banks of Suzhou Creek, another important river in the city, to revitalise the riverfront, and work is underway to further open up and connect the public spaces beyond the original 45-kilometre scope. Second, a new Three-Year Action Plan (2018-2020) highlights the need to not only connect but to enrich the waterfront by turning the paths into places and creating a public space network that stretches from the waterfront to the urban hinterland⁸See Huangpu Jiang Liang’an Diqu Gonggong Kongjian Jianshe Sannian Jihua [Three-Year Action Plan for the Construction of Public Space on Both Banks of the Huangpu River (2018-2020)]. Shanghai Municipal Leading Group for Huangpu River Development, 2018. Available at: http://jsjtw.sh.gov.cn/zjw/xwfb/20181121/38865.html . Finally, the waterfront public space transformation has been established as a model to promote the people’s city ideal. In early November 2019, during his inspection of the Yangpu waterfront, a section of the Puxi waterfront, President Xi emphasised that the people should be placed in the centre of urban development and that public space should be expanded to serve the people’s needs for relaxation, exercise and recreation. Since then, the motto «a people’s city is built by the people; a people’s city for the people» began to widely circulate and subsequently becomes the ideological guiding principle for all kinds of ongoing urban transformation projects to demonstrate their people-orientedness (XinhuaNet, 2019XinhuaNet (2019). Xi Jinping: Renmin Chengshi Renmin Jian, Renmin Chengshi Wei Renmin [Xi Jinping: People’s City Is Built by the People, and People’s City Is for the People]. Xinhua News. Available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2019-11/03/c_1125186430.htm [published on 3 November 2019; accessed on 12 May 2020].).

4.1. Localised publicness

Ideally, public spaces, as places where people’s daily life unfold, should embody qualities such as being physically open and accessible, and inclusive for different social groups. These qualities are captured with various publicness models discussed earlier, and I term the aggregate of these features localised publicness because it is often used for describing to what extent a geographically defined site is public or not. But localised publicness is not necessarily site-specific and could be used to more broadly denote the processes through which space becomes available for a variety of sometimes conflictual uses by heterogeneous groups of users. Seen in this way, localised publicness does not automatically lead to unhindered accessibility or universal inclusiveness desired by advocates for public space. Indeed, as have been elaborated by many previous studies, physically open and publicly accessible places are not necessarily public, and it is necessary to investigate what is underpinning a specific notion of public.

Here in the case study, localised publicness could not be achieved at the Huangpu River waterfront without first opening up industrial lands that have been previously inaccessible or unattractive for public use. As discussed earlier, the necessary first step of the waterfront transformation was to transfer the land use rights of the industrial lands to the government. The purpose was to better utilise the land resources and ensure subsequent developments suit the visions of the local governments and the municipal government. For the general public, this meant more physically and functionally open space. In the recent waterfront public space connection, not only were new public spaces created with the implementation of the three paths, but existing open spaces were also renovated to satisfy citizens’ needs for high-quality landscape and service facilities. In this sense, the waterfront public space transformation in the past two decades has indeed increased the localised publicness and showcased the people-oriented quality.

Despite these achievements, it should be noted that what public means here is always ambiguous. In the initial stage of the comprehensive development, the ‘public’ uses envisaged for the waterfront were not limited to public space but broadly included a variety of non-industrial uses such as residential, commercial, and cultural developments. There was no explicit emphasis on the quality or connectivity of waterfront public space, and the potential spatial consequences of the new developments were not addressed. Consequently, many new residential and commercial properties developed at that time privatised the waterfront to different extents. The subsequent explicit emphasis on public space further opens up the closed space and enables more citizens to access the waterfront. However, empirical evidence from fieldwork has shown that not only have the design elements of these spaces define certain desirable use patterns and suppress other more spontaneous uses, but the management practices, at the moment still evolving and ambiguous, also limit the potential changes and disruptions to maintain the intended order and image of the spaces (Figure 5). It is therefore debatable whether the public uses really made the waterfront more public or simply replaced the closed waterfront with alternative forms of closure, and whether the localised publicness analysed here has, to some extent, transformed the previously closed space into a closed space that is more ordered, regulated and tuned to specific visions for use and image-making.

4.2. Procedural publicness

Here, procedural publicness simply means opening up the decision-making process of making public spaces so that deciding the physical forms and meanings of the space becomes possible for more stakeholders especially those who are traditionally excluded from such processes. The value and importance of public participation have been widely discussed since decades ago, and recent studies are increasingly questioning whether the ideal of participation should be unproblematically accepted. Even so, the idea that space could be made public with public participation, or in other words given procedural publicness, is still worth discussing especially in the non-western contexts where civic participation cannot be taken for granted. While it is not the aim of this paper to discuss participatory practices in making public space in depth, it is also worth reflecting on whether the participation ideal primarily coming from the west could and indeed should be uncritically transferred to a different context.

In the case study, the primary methods for engaging the public include design competitions that arguably have greater relevance and appeal to professionals than the general public and questionnaire survey that is limited to particular projects, and could only reach a small sample. These events exemplify the people-oriented nature of the new public space connection project by partially publicising the previously closed planning process and highlighting the public procedure of creating public space, engaging the general public, and demonstrating citizens’ contribution to the design of the waterfront public spaces. Even so, it is debatable whether the potential of this procedural publicness is fully realised since, at the moment, the process is hardly participatory enough and the participation and inclusion in this case, as in similar development processes in the Chinese context, «refer to consultation rather than any real decision-making» (Samara, 2015: 2914Samara, Tony Roshan (2015). Politics and the Social in World-Class Cities: Building a Shanghai Model. Urban Studies, 52 (15): 2906-2921. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015582308 ) and «the actual rights and responsibilities among major stakeholders remain unchanged» (Xu and Lin, 2018: 1Xu, Zhumin and Lin, George C. S. (2018). Participatory Urban Redevelopment in Chinese Cities amid Accelerated Urbanization: Symbolic Urban Governance in Globalizing Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41 (6): 756-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1536420 ). On the one hand, in the particular case of the East Bund connection, while the international conceptual design competition to some extent informed the forthcoming statutory planning blueprint, the young designer competition was more a publicity event to showcase the public’s symbolic involvement in the project than a real case of participatory planning and design. On the other hand, despite participatory events such as the questionnaire survey, the overall planning concept for the waterfront has been largely pre-defined first by design briefs and then by professional expertise, and public inputs justified and partly influenced the design choices rather than determined the direction of action. In the subsequent detailed design phase for individual spaces, there was hardly any public participation or consultation. As a result, participation of such nature has simply been a case of consultation and placation where «citizens are enabled to partially re-arrange the deckchairs on a ship’s deck, but not to determine how the ship is run or its general course» (Cardullo and Kitchin, 2019: 8Cardullo, Paolo and Kitchin, Rob (2019). Being a ‘Citizen’ in the Smart City: Up and down the Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal, 84: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8 ).

4.3. Symbolic publicness

A particular layer of publicness to be highlighted in this paper is what I term symbolic publicness. Public space is, in addition to its desired spatial qualities, often seen as the embodiment of social values such as equality, welfare, civic responsibility, and so on. Consequently, and especially pertinent to the case study presented here, publicness goes beyond the localised spatial openness and procedures of participation. A more symbolic connotation which, on the one hand, highlights key decision makers’ commitment to safeguard these qualities of public space and serve the public and, on the other hand, promotes social values needed to steer the narratives on urban development and urban governance towards a specific direction, is assumed. This publicness is described as symbolic because the emphasis is put on the role of public space, with its materiality and associated discourses, in acting as the symbol of and communicating certain social values. The danger of this type of publicness is the seemingly unproblematic public value orientation, and it is necessary to discern who is promoting what social values to whom.

In the present case, the materiality of waterfront public space is given symbolic publicness, on top of localised and procedural publicness, when different aspects of this material transformation, irrespective of their actual impacts on people’s use of space, are framed with the people-oriented rhetoric beyond the utilitarian value of space. The overall transformation of the waterfront from industrial to public uses, despite the resultant problematic realities described earlier, has always been employed symbolically to demonstrate the people-oriented nature of this process. More recently, in connecting the waterfront public spaces, the uninterruptedness of the three paths and the visibility of the river from the paths were particularly emphasised by the decision-makers in the planning and construction processes because they considered that the uninterruptedness itself symbolised and materialised a commitment to the people-orientedness ideal. This insistence sometimes meant some extreme design measures. For example, at particular sections of the East Bund, the paths needed to be elevated and curved to bypass the unmovable exiting buildings and to guarantee the visibility of the river (Figure 6). Even though in the end, there are still areas at the East Bund where the view of the river is blocked, and at the Puxi side, the implementation of the three paths varied significantly at different locations, the three paths effectively act as the embodiment of the public and open quality of the new public spaces and symbolise the people-oriented quality of the recent progress of the waterfront development under the «excellent global city» vision.

Another way to give space symbolic publicness is storytelling, with narratives that turn material space into social realities for public discussion, highlight the zeitgeist, and promote desirable civic values and qualities. More specifically, two distinct stories -the story of from quantity to quality and the story of consensus- highlight how the recent public space connection along both riverbanks has been people-oriented and how stakeholders should play a part in public space projects and ongoing urban transformation as a whole. The story from quantity to quality establishes that the creation of public space is an advancement from the functional transformation in the past decades to a higher level comprehensive improvement that gives citizens more satisfaction and enjoyment. In other words, this story frames the de-industrialisation of the waterfront and the creation of public space as prioritising citizens’ everyday enjoyment over material development, thus accentuating the people-oriented nature of the waterfront development. At the same time, the story of consensus focuses on how different stakeholders have overcome various difficulties and contributed to greater public benefits during the waterfront public space connection. Around the time of the public space connection project, media reports were replete with stories of hard work and sacrifice of relocated enterprises, engineers and construction workers, and development companies and designers. On the surface, these are stories of difficulties and struggles, but ultimately, they convey the message of consensus and emphasise the public value of the transformation projects. In other words, the story of consensus demonstrates a collective recognition of the value of the public space transformations and emphasises the waterfront transformation as a true public effort accomplished by the people and for the people of the city, thus once again accentuating its people-oriented nature.