Urban[sch]isms

3. General objectives of the project

3.1. Modification of the socio-economic model

The “traditional” urbanization model [Img. 01] advocates for transformation of society on the basis of primary production from agricultural through industrial into post-industrial. It follows the logic of economy and capitalism and could be argued is a linear progression model where agricultural production is replaced by industrial and sequentially by services and tertiary sector production. The leap from one stage to the next only happens when the current mode of production is not economically suitable anymore, thus, a more profitable one is needed in order to sustain its development. In the case of peri-urban industrial areas of Dongguan, this has not yet happened; the industrial production is still the main vehicle for development, hence no need for establishing a new one.

There are many repercussions of this kind of urbanization; the particularly obvious one is pointing out that the agricultural and industrial stages' social and spatial structure is really poor. The farmer's and worker's financial situation is not sufficient enough for development of sophisticated leisure and services. Another serious problem is the monofunctional orientation of areas, thus being economically and spatially unsustainable. For example, car industry in the United States until the late 1970s gave rise to a vast amount of industrial cities, of which Detroit is the most famous one. When the car industry crashed, the repercussions on the social and spatial strata were devastating.

The self-organized “Darwinist” model of urbanization will always face this kind of problems, it will always be unsustainable as it evolves naturally and it favors the fittest on the basis of capitalism and economical drive.

By understanding this process, a different kind of urbanization model can be envisioned that accommodates for better social and spatial conditions, thus enabling a more sustainable development strategy.

This sustainable model has to start to blur the sharp boundaries between phases and work against the short-sighted economical drive [Img. 02 & 03]. By dissolving the boundaries, different phases of the model start to mix and interact, which creates a model of better spatial and economical sustainability and social inclusion. This is done through means of tying the now separate production of different stages into one interdependent loop where each stage contributes to the final product of the other stage or, in turn, use the product of other stage. By doing so, the linearity of urbanization model, where the next stage occurs when the previous one ends, is broken. This model argues for a dynamic and interdependent side-by-side development of three basic production sectors, wherein the different mix ratios of sectors determine the modal tendency of a specific organization.

For this model to be applicable in this case study, definition of the programs of each sector that are able to permeate other sectors and connect to them is needed. In the cases of agriculture and industry, that would translate into production of industrial crops which could be used in industry instead of production of food. The argument works also in the other direction; production of industrial goods that use industrial crops, such as bamboo or industrial hemp, can replace traditional resources usually imported from elsewhere.

The biggest social, spatial and sustainable gain happens by introduction of the tertiary sector into the mix [Img. 03]. By adding the educated and economically better situated class, an environment that is economically more capable is generated; therefore, it brings about better service sector and consequently better amenities and open spaces. This is in turn beneficial also to lower classes. The most suitable program for the integration of tertiary sector is R&D (research and development) geared toward innovation. By dealing with the industrial and rural environment, this innovation has to be accordingly targeted; it should focus on research of industrial crops, agricultural cultivation and industrial production techniques.

The romanticism of the outlined sustainable model can not be disputed as there are numerous obstacles that must be overcome.

The more apparent drawbacks are as follows:

• Spatial proximity of sectors from economical point of view is irrelevant as the contemporary technological advancements in transportation and communication can more than compensate.

• Higher educated classes have little interest in living in peri-urban areas and mixing with the workers.

•R&D and science parks need premier research universities as innovation generating institutions (Walcott, 2003: 176), something that production oriented areas like Dongguan chronically lack.

• The only input to R&D comes from educated classes, thus the importance of the worker class is diminished.

On the surface, it seems that the presented model is indeed hopelessly idealistic, but the switch from capitalistically based “natural selection” model to a sustainable one requires acknowledgment of more profound benefits that are not immediately visible, such as:

• Innovation works best if it is recognized that knowledge is imbedded in the culture whereby the cultures are regional and specific.

• By retaining agriculture and industrial production in the mix, crucial inputs are retained in the form of skills that inform the innovation environment geared towards research of these sectors.

• Retaining agriculture reduces food miles.

• By dispersing the focus from one sector onto three, area gains in economical sustainability as an urban form; new fabric has more flexibility. This flexibility comes from retaining differentiation that can battle the forces of global economy and balance itself without depending on other areas.

• By bringing workers and farmers into the R&D process they are being educated, thus helping the local economy.

• By relocating R&D into economically less desired environments, the costs and living expenses are much lower which should benefit the middle class.

• Furthermore, preserved natural environment of semi-rural areas has a quality of nature which is alluring to the middle class as it represents a luxurious living ideal opposed to the completely built up urban agglomerations, such as Shenzhen, that lost this quality.

Even with all of these benefits, it should be taken into account that R&D in this kind of environment could not be expected to produce great breakthroughs right away. It is rather a long term strategic investment. Nevertheless, informed rationale would seem to favor the latter over the former model of urbanization.

All of the mentioned benefits can largely be seen to happen through setting up policies, as this course of action is the easiest way to render the problem of implementation resolved. Nevertheless, policies tend to get implemented in a variety of ways, meaning, they do not always achieve the desired goal. Therefore, the challenge is to employ the design of built space as a carrier of implementation of sustainable urbanization model. In this aspect examination of tools and mechanisms needed for construction of the sustainable model is in order.