MPhil Design Thesis by Tong Jiang

Self-Build: An Alternative to Rebalance Freedom and Power in Urban Redevelopment

Tong Jiang Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge Supervisor: Professor Koen Steemers January, 2021 Word Count: 14,159 A design thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the M.Phil Examination in Architecture and Urban Design 2019 - 2021 This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Professor Koen Steemers and for his invaluable guidance and support for this research. In addition, thanks also to my course director Ingrid Schröder, director of studies Benedicte Foo and Mike Tuck for their critical comments and encouragement. Here in Cambridge, I would like to thank my design tutors and fellow students who have offered insightful and supportive advice to my study; and thank my roommates and staffs in Lucy Cavendish College for their company and assistance in life during the coronavirus outbreak period. In China, I would like to acknowledge my friend Shuxian Li and her family for providing me with an opportunity to conduct ethnographic research in her house during the field trip, which helps to enrich this research significantly. Last but not least, many thanks to my family and friends for their generous support, encouragement and patience throughout all my life and study.

Figure 1:

Residential tower in the gated community

ABSTRACT The abstract space of capitalism, a standardised and static social structure, tends towards homogeneity, suppressing differences instead of accommodating diversity (Lefebvre, 1991). Using architecture as a means of power and control is evident in large-scale housing projects, where standardisation and scale of developments minimise diversity and cultural idiosyncrasies. This research proposes a new and challenging type of neighbourhood that focuses on decentralising decision-making processes, providing people with greater control over their built environment, which can contribute to the forms of neighbourhood that would be more complex, representative and richer in meaning. With this stance, this thesis looks at the self-build phenomena in China's complicated socio-political urban context, exploring its potential in democratic transformation in urban villages, before considering the degrees of freedom and dimensions of power inherent to the self-build process. Self-build is a means of independence to realise individual preferences (Schoenwitz et al., 2012), and utilised herein a vehicle to criticise and convert architectural culture. Learning consequences and strategies from precedents which range across time and geography, this thesis intends to reframe and formalise the self-build in China's urban redevelopment context through maintaining a certain degree of authoritative intervention, aiming to pursue a robust development of a dynamic and creative self-build community.

Figure 2:

Self-build homes between towers

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Context

Aims and objectives Structure

Methodology

CHAPTER ONE: HOUSING EVOLUTION IN THE CONTEMPORARY CHINESE URBAN CONTEXT

Introduction

Housing as Welfare (1949-1978) Commoditisation (1978-1988) Marketisation (1988-present) Conclusion

CHAPTER TWO: THE SELF-BUILD

Introduction

Urban Village

Values and Dilemmas of Self-Build Fieldwork

Proposition Conclusion

CHAPTER THREE: DEGREES OF INTERVENTION

Introduction

The Role of the Architect A Series of Scenarios:

Fully Spontaneous Self-Build Participation Half-Half Self-Build Fully Predetermined Building

Conclusion

CONCLUSION

FIGURES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION Context "The world which we saw around us, with all its relative economic lavishness and technical virtuosity, often seemed outside the control of its inhabitants, even alien to men. There was here an underlying and more basic theme: the necessity of making the dwelling environment a human world. This requires us to look at the city, its neighbourhoods and its dwellings, as not simply artifacts and as the format of human activity, but as the vehicle and expression of our human life." (Ward, 1976, pp. 78). As a developing country, China is embracing rapid growth that wraps together economic, political and technical progress. Taking economic development as the central task, the Chinese government advocates constructing housing towers in cities because of their speed and economic efficiency of accommodating a large population with standard living conditions. Under the socialist ideology, the state owns and controls a high proportion of dwellings in the urban areas where standardised living and abstract lifestyles are imposed rigidly (Jones et al., 2005). Driven by profit-generating, housing has now become a product of capitalist production and consumption, and an economic burden on most people, which has resulted in a significant mismatch between demand and supply (Liu et al., 2010). In fact, housing issues involve more than poverty or affordability. In a society dominated by economics, the quality of life is often defined by material things (Xue, 2014). As Ward states, "the mass designed and produced houses for mass consumers in the homogenised market is nothing more than assemblies of material goods" (Ward, 1976, pp. 79). Modernist housing generally addresses dwellers' physical health, takes people as prospective buyers who are helpless and inert, and neglects their capacity and desires to be engaged in shaping their environment (Ward, 1985). Although speculative developers in China have provided different housing models, all adhere to a common aesthetic; people have little choice but merely play prescribed roles in fixed positions and live in a uniform manner (Sennett, 2018). Freedom and the means of modifying a static form are needed as we experience an increasing awareness that "use-values lie in the relationships between people and things—and not 8

in things themselves" (Turner, 1976, pp. 154).

Figure 3: Towers are springing up in Chinese urban context.

A distinct and alternative neighbourhood emerged in the Chinese urban context with urbanisation gathering pace – the urban village. To some degree, it is an autonomous self-build community due to the dual structure of the urban and rural land policy, featuring informal construction and living environment (Hao et al., 2013). Essentially, the urban village presents an authentic diversity that meets the user's wishes: residents build, inhabit and transform various quality spaces, from interior to exterior, based on their everyday activities; its social and spatial uses are more flexible, creative, and productive; this is the polar opposite of those large commercial housing projects where services are arranged in a rigid and prescribed fashion. As a unique phenomenon, the urban village is capable of accommodating large numbers of migrants, and embraces social and spatial diversity, making it a significant role in the city. Meanwhile, the negative image of disorder and overcrowding gives the urban village a contradictory status. From the government' s perspective, redevelopment is of great urgency. Large-scale demolition and reconstruction are the norm and most redevelopment schemes have ended up as a means of capital exploitation. To seek a better model, this thesis reconsiders the selfbuild approach as a means of facilitating urban redevelopment; indeed, the underlying values of self-build are receiving widespread attention worldwide (Chan et al., 2003; Arroyo, 2013). Self-build is by no means a new concept in the history of human living, but it is attracting renewed interest in many developed countries as an opportunity to tackle housing problems (Caputo et al., 2019). It proves especially fruitful in addressing the affordable housing shortage in a capitalist market, which has achieved an impressive scale in contemporary Europe (Stevens, 2018). More importantly, individuals and groups devote their time, resources and social capital to obtain results that the state or the market cannot achieve or are reluctant to deliver (Hill, 2018). Self-build practice develops an environment where creative users can either create new space or bring new interpretations to an existing area (Hill, 2001). Self-build more or less represents an anarchist ideology that possesses a conflictual stance towards central authority, it can be perceived as a threat to normative values and social orders (Till, 2005). Thus, taking self-build as a redevelopment strategy for a large neighbourhood scale cannot be separated from strong political backing and appropriate power control. Figure 4:

Urban village, Banqiao village, Guangzhou

Aims and objectives With this background premise, this research aims to maintain the independent spirit of self-build while blending it with authority intervention, mainly exploring the following research questions: 1. How can self-build be harnessed to establish a new neighbourhood in the context of urban redevelopment? 2. How can participatory frameworks be formulated to balance the degree of individual freedom and authority intervention? Structure This dissertation is therefore structured into three chapters. In chapter one, historical research based on China's urban context, from 1949 to today, demonstrates the significant changes of housing perception across various periods and shows how social and political factors contribute to the contemporary housing issues. This chapter introduces key housing typologies to understand the role of politics and design with respect to social and spatial outcomes, and concludes with a critique of market-based mass housing projects, leading to a discussion on the nature of the new neighbourhood in the subsequent chapter. Against this backdrop, chapter two firstly looks at the informal selfbuild community of the urban village, which is treated as an unexpected product – a result of socialist legacy – seeking to deliver an alternative insight of the potential solutions it can offer to the urban housing problems introduced in the preceding chapter. A study of self-build theory combines detailed observations conducted through field research, bringing forward a new neighbourhood model proposition, that self-build is a way to achieve diverse lifestyles and is a redevelopment strategy that rebalances power and freedom. Finally, building on the self-build premise, chapter three establishes the need for defining the scope of individualist behaviour and authority intervention in order to achieve a viable development strategy at a sufficiently large scale. A series of precedents related to self-build, with different degrees of freedom, are introduced. Consequences and strategies drawn from these cases provide lessons and possibilities that serve to enlighten and influence future development. Figure 5:

A normal afternoon in the urban village

Methodology This thesis adopts a combined methodology to advance the research, including historical and academic (theoretical) research, practical fieldwork, and case studies. The research firstly examines the modern housing patterns informed by social, political and economic agents through historical investigation and interviews. Subsequently, all knowledge derived from academic literature related to self-build is utilised to form a theoretical foundation for a design proposition. Following five-months of field research, the qualitative analysis of this thesis develops according to the experience and findings gained throughout the period. In 2020, I spent five months conducting fieldwork research in the city of Guangzhou, focusing on the study of a contemporary urban residential community situated within an urban village. During this period, methods involving observations, interviews, taking photos, drawing and mapping were employed to explore the physical and psychological features of dwellings and build up a comprehensive understanding of selected sites and occupants. Instead of focusing on mass interviews or collecting quantitative data at a large scale, this research is based on detailed observations of one typical self-build house in an urban village, adopting an ethnographic approach to closely participate in and observe homeowners' and tenants' lifestyles in the house and the community. Through two weeks of in-depth engagement with a specific family, I carefully documented the physical modifications made to the house which displayed their evolving life patterns over time, presented in the form of photography, recorded interviews, drawings and annotated plan layouts of the housing and its environment. This experience provided the opportunity to get in touch with villagers (homeowners), village cadres, migrants and contractors, whose everyday practice and lifestyles constitute the unique society in the urban village, but are often invisible in redevelopment schemes and debates. All the information gathered serves to enhance an understanding of the prevailing housing culture and reveals how self-build values are interpreted and what dilemmas are present in the context of an urban village.

Finally, drawing insights from international and domestic precedents, this research discusses and proposes a series of scenarios for the selfbuild neighbourhood; each case introduces a level of intervention and a scope of individual freedom, providing a strategic response to and scenario for a particular circumstance. The aim of this theoretical thesis is not to propose a definitive solution, but to suggest a number of selfbuild prospects at a neighbourhood scale that respond to different stakeholder interests in different settings.

CHAPTER ONE HOUSING EVOLUTION IN THE CONTEMPORARY CHINESE URBAN CONTEXT

Figure 6:

Popular high-rise apartments in Guangzhou

Figure 7: Historical timeline of housing evoluton in China urban context.

Introduction Housing is not merely a physical landscape to satisfy our needs for shelter from the weather. It constitutes space encoded with various social, political and cultural significations; it is the physical representation of (and arena for) complicated social relationships (Pow, 2009). The built environment not only reflects economics or politics; beyond these, forms which are made to manifest in the built environment are the result of the creator’s will (Sennett, 2018). Following an assessment and critique of housing development, this chapter chooses three types of housing, representative of discrete and significant stages of housing development in China, explaining how the ideological process might influence the outcome of space as well as the change of psychological and ideological processes of builders and inhabitants. The social and political background set herein provides an understanding of the origin of contemporary urban housing challenges in China, and provokes a reflection on a new living pattern.

Figure 8:

Housing as Welfare (1949-1978)

Under the planned economy, people exchanged their allotted food stamps for food.

Prior to 1978, inspired by the Soviet Union, China was ideologically communist with the rhetorical claim that social inequality and class exploitation would be eradicated by transferring private ownership to public ownership (Wu, 1996; Wang & Murie, 1999). As the land reforms aimed at achieving these goals were completed in 1952, the state had achieved extensive control over urban land. Based on this form of public ownership, the state implemented a planned economy and undertook full responsibility of resource distribution (Lee, 2000) (Figure 8). Welfare housing is a form of housing allocation unique to the planned economy period in China. Under the socialist paradigm, housing provision is a responsibility of the state, and allocated housing comprised part of the remuneration package to people and workers (Wang & Murie, 1998; Lee, 2000) (Figure 9). According to their position within the hierarchy, length of service, age, family composition and other considerations,

Figure 9:

urban residents would be assigned to corresponding housing units.

In the era of welfare housing, people lined up at the entrance of the Bank waiting for house allocation. Houses were not such an expensive product as they are now; The price of a suite is similar to that of a set of high-end electrical appliances.

Fundamentally, occupants just need to pay a very low rent to live in an allocated house, resulting in an income which was far less than the cost of construction and maintenance undertaken by the state. Consequently, urban residents relied heavily on the government or institutions to offer them housing, although it was quickly realised to be beyond the state’s capacity to construct and provide adequate dwellings to satisfy housing demands of a rapidly growing population (Zhou & Ronald, 2017). 20

Thus, in the late 1960s, a multitude of tube-shaped buildings emerged as a product of housing allocation scarcity (Ayong, 2010). It was a type of collective dormitory housing constructed by enterprises or institutions for their employees to live in transitionally, while they await their apartment allocation. The building is characterised by a long corridor connecting many single units, with two ventilated ends, thus being called a tube-shaped building. Generally, each unit is less than 20 square meters, functioning as a bedroom and living room, without private bathrooms, kitchens, sewers and heating systems (Qiu, 2020, p. 13). Several households have to share one bathroom and communal facilities at the end of the corridor (Figure 10). Tube-shaped buildings were regarded as non-standard social housing, but it had precipitated an exceptional collective lifestyle and social culture, which become the characteristic of an era (Ayong, 2010). Despite tube-shaped buildings being replaced by contemporary modern housing complexes, the life of that period is vividly solidified in the collective memory of the residents. Mrs Song, a teacher in a university who used to live in a tube-shaped building with her family and relatives during childhood, excitedly shared with me her experiences of collective life in this kind of building: “As I remember, in the corridor, an old desk was placed in front of each room, on top of which were cutting boards, pots and pans, etc., and next to the desk was a coal stove. This was our kitchen. At mealtime, the narrow corridor was filled with cooking noise, the smell of food and the soot from the burning coal stove. Though the life in tube-shaped housing was inconvenient, for example, I had to queue for ages waiting for the communal toilet every morning; it was still a happy and memorable time. We were close, physically and mentally. I played with my friends on the staircase, we ate together, did our homework together, and went to school together. Because of the configuration of the building, if there was a new resident, we can also get acquainted quickly. We lived like a big family.”

Figure 10: Tube-shaped building photography

Communal facilities: toilet bathroom ater room laundry room garbage courtyard

Corridor and staircases

Housing units

Figure 11: Tube-shaped building plan

An experience full of life can be drawn from her recollections. People lived tightly in this crowded space, with living space around 4 square metres per capita. There were only essential items like bed and chairs inside each room; other items and facilities were placed in the narrow, shared corridor where almost half of a household's everyday life items were stored. Yet it was this space that gave people opportunities to constantly meet and interact with each other. The tube-shaped building presents a lifestyle defined by everyday activities of its residents; it is lived, concrete and subjective. As scholar Chen Pingyuan notes, “[the] tube-shaped building is more than a form of architecture, it is a way of life, a reflection of the culture in the times” (Chen, 2010; Bao, 2011) (Figure 12-15). The design of tube-shape housing decides its occupants' inevitable encounters, thus facilitating an intimate and equitable collective lifestyle. At that time, people only sought to meet their most basic needs of life as they wait in line to be allocated housing according to their qualifications. Public ownership makes housing a social welfare rather than a capitalist product, which to a large extent benefits urban residents. However, with retrospect it can be seen that its implementation lacked a realistic strategy at the primary stage of socialism, as China had not yet escaped widespread poverty (Wang & Murie, 1998). Serious consequences associated with this system were also apparent: insufficient investment for constructing and maintaining housing and other infrastructures; a severe imbalance between housing supply and demand; corruption in housing distribution among authorities, to name a few. These problems damage social productivity and people’s living and risk leading to social instability (State Council, 1978). Tube-shaped buildings, as transitional housing, have served several generations during their fairly long waiting times, yet no matter how much nostalgia and praise is given to the harmonious lifestyle and friendly neighbourhood relationships such housing facilitated, it is undeniable that the lack of privacy and poor living conditions were unable to meet people’s aspirations of a better-quality life. During these formative decades of communist experiments, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Cultural Revolution, during which all aspects of national development were impeded, the demands of the ideological zeitgeist changed, and thus alternatives to housing provision were called for.

Figure 12: Tube-shaped building life, cooking

Figure 13: Tube-shaped building life, dinning

Figure 14: Tube-shaped building life, communal bathroom

Figure 15: Tube-shaped building life, corridor

Commoditisation (1978-1988) The call for revitalisation was made when Deng Xiaoping returned to power. Reformers assumed that the character of the welfare housing system was to blame for the housing shortage, and the most effective way to solve this was to increase rents and to encourage citizens to purchase housing from the government (Zhou & Logan, 1996). As the Reform and Opening Up policy was initiated at the end of 1978, approaches and policies were applied aimed at encouraging housing commodification, which was deemed to be one of the solutions to urban housing problems as well as the driving force for future economic growth (Fabre, 1990). The introduction of economic reform enabled state-run enterprises and institutions to enter the nascent housing market and play an increasing role in housing production. The state was no longer the only housing investor and provider in China’s cities, and accordingly, the nature of housing gradually changed from a social welfare to a commodity (Wang & Murie, 1998). This is the first step of reform and transition, and while we must remember that during this period housing provision and development still remained liable to decisive state intervention, the engagement of enterprises and joint-venture companies facilitated substantial progress in terms of housing quality and quantity. Between 1979 and 1985, enterprises and institutions accounted for 60 to 80 per cent of housing investments. These contributions went to the central government for urban housing construction (Real Estate Management Department of Ministry of Construction, 1995).

bedroom

kitchen

living room

bedroom

kitchen

bedroom

living room

Figure 16:

Typical unit building plan, each unit is equipped with independent toilet, bathroom, kitchen, living room, bedroom and balcony.

With greater levels of investment and high-quality living standards being introduced, the unit building gradually became more akin to apartment-style residential dwelling popular during the 1980s, which refers to the housing type of residential building with private kitchens and toilets in each household, marking a clear departure from the tubeshaped buildings necessitating communal use (Bao, 2011) (Figure 16). These unit buildings are built according to repeating grid patterns, with roads directly connected to them, yet in their early stages, when the subdivision of residential planning was not sound, they presented an embryonic form of a modern housing unit. Most of them comprised of masonry-concrete structure with prefabricated porous slabs, in which room layouts are limited by load-bearing walls. Yet these apartments were built to relatively high standards: there are a number of suites in each floor equipped with bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms, kitchens, balconies and so on (Qiu, 2020, p. 21) (Figure 17). The improvement in housing conditions is followed by a shift in people's living habits: more and more people moved into relatively spacious, well-appointed housing units with good privacy to enjoy convenience and material comforts, but correspondingly, concerns of social alienation emerged.

Figure 17: Unit building type

In the late 1980s, Mrs Song’s family moved out of the tube-shaped building when they were allocated an apartment in a unit building. Compared to their previous collectively-lived lives, their everyday life stories in the new housing became flat and seemingly less significant. She said: “We were happy about our new lives in new housing, which was objectively better than where we used to live. But we also felt awkward for not being able to name our neighbours after a few years’ of living there. It was common that neighbours were no different from strangers. When the door is closed, we barely crossed paths in life; everyone was used to being on their own. In this building, there was an absence of cohesion, not to mention the sense of collective belonging.” Neighbourhood alienation is a universal issue of modern housing, but such a social problem does not slow down the relentless pace of modernisation. For China, various tests and experiments on housing reform were performed in many cities and towns during these ten years, many yielding excellent improvements in quality of life. Several achievements were identified by the Ministry of Construction. First, housing space per capita in urban areas grew from 4 square metres in 1980 to 7 square metres in 1990; general housing conditions were improved and resultantly, residents enjoyed better housing than ever before. Second, the property sector became a significant part of the national economy. In 1990, there were 8,700 enterprises engaged in housing development, creating more than 2.4 million jobs and contributing 50 billion yuan in annual output (Ministry of Construction, 1993; Wang & Murie, 1998). These successes furthered the state’s determination of housing reform and precipitated a process of rapid urbanisation and modernisation. The housing commodification process successfully transformed, and subsequently turned housing into a better store of wealth.

Figure 18: In 1981, the first commercial residential community in Panyu District, Guangzhou city.

Figure 19: In May 1989, the Panyu District Government, together with several Hong Kong companies, formed the Panyu Luoxi New Town Real Estate Company Limited to take the lead in developing Luoxi New Town, making it a satellite city of Guangzhou. 93 blocks of commercial housing were completed by the end of 1991, covering an area of 220,000 square metres.

Marketisation (1988-present) In 1988, the Land Use Right Transfer legislation was recommended by the Chinese National People’s Congress, aiming at legalising the paid transfer (sale) of the usage right of state-owned land (People’s Daily, 14 March 1998) Normally, the land use right (equivalent to a leasehold in the UK legal system) for residential purposes is 70 years (State Council, 1990), and at the end of the contract, the land and all its attachments will automatically return to the state, without any compensation to the inhabitants. In other words, ultimate land ownership is still retained by the state, while the right to use the land for a finite period can be sold and purchased. This change meant that the prohibition of the sale of land use (and thus, speculative real estate development) was lifted, and the state withdrew from its responsibility of housing distribution (Wang, 1990). This dramatically altered residents’ concept of housing consumption (Zhou & Li, 2020). It was a sign of the end of the welfare housing system, and the dawn of housing privatisation. This shift in policy has given rise to numerous private property companies and a rapidly booming housing capital market. In 2003, the State Council officially proposed real estate as a pillar industry to drive economic development.

Figure 20 (left): The real estate market boomed.

Figure 21 (right):

Tower typologies are common seen in cities.

Since urbanisation resultantly accelerated during the 1990s, people poured into the cities like a flash flood, instead of a slow, gradual increase. As the rapid growth of urban populations and mass migration flooded major cities, the high-rise building became favoured because it can save land, costs less to build, and provides housing quickly. Towers are inventions for conserving land and concentrating services and can offers economical cost reductions through repetition (Milgrom, 2008). In addition, housing privatisation gives developers new possibilities to initiate projects that can optimally serve for capital accumulation, standardising procedures to operate efficiently and economically (Turner, 1976), this way, eighteen to thirty-four storey buildings, where each unit is identical to the ones above and below, are commonly seen in Chinese housing estates (Figure 20); furthermore, they propose a mid-class privileged lifestyle through territorial exclusion – gated communities, where non-residents are denied access, symbolises the civilised, urban ‘good life’ (Pow, 2009). Catalysed by state policy and the flourishing commodified housing market, privatised gated communities with various high-rise apartments started springing up and dominating urban residential landscapes (Figure 21). Housing development has thus made substantial progress since reforms began. By the end of 2018, the national construction industry has completed a total output value of 23.5 trillion yuan (£2.6 trillion GBP), with an average annual growth of 13.4% (Economic Reference, 2019). This represents excellent momentum in macroeconomic and political terms, as it promotes national economic growth and is also capable of meeting immediate housing demand among the population.

However, with this stellar growth comes various critiques of the capital housing market (Deng, 2017). As Harloe contends: “Housing privatisation involves a profound shift in housing consumers' attitudes, from those associated with property rights under socialism - linked to considerations of security of tenure and the ability to pass tenancies on to family members - to those associated with capitalism, in which housing is seen as a commodity with value in the market and a source of income and wealth” (Harloe, 1996, p. 18). When housing is perceived as a product, its function as a speculative profit-generating asset class will race ahead of its intrinsic value as habitation itself. Developers have no incentive for innovation and future updates, but their primary aim is to get their housing stock sold as soon as possible at the max price. Once the users’ personal circumstances change, they have no alternative but to move. This will maintain demand and increase activity in the housing market (Schneider & Till, 2005a). The scarcity of land in cities leads to massive demand for housing, but the forests of the new high-

Figure 21:

rises of contemporary China are only partially occupied, with many still

Screenshots of gated communities which dominate the main housing market in cities.

standing empty; meanwhile, the unaffordability of housing sweeps aside the majority of people who have a true demand of housing, i.e. for the purposes of habitation (Sennett, 2018) (Figure 22). Furthermore, values imparted in developer-led housing projects have a powerful influence on people's well-being. Maxwell highlights that advertisements propagated by developers mainly emphasise factors such as security, privacy, convenience, luxurious lifestyles, social homogeneity and exclusivity. Spaces pre-set by the will of top-down designers and developers are commodified, leading consumers to believe that through purchasing a property in a particular estate, they are able to live in that fantasy promised in the brochures (Maxwell, 2004) (Figure 22). The ability to purchase an exclusive lifestyle in new housing projects is the basis for lifestyle differentiation and social status distinction, fuelling the narrative of housing being indicative of upward social mobility. Under a prescribed environment where personal

Figure 22:

modifications are not allowed, people are merely passive spectators

Screenshots of housing advertisements. Factors like luxurious living standards, good accessibility to pubilic transport, high security and privacy are emphasised. Housings are in extremely high price.

(Linn, 1969). Thus, the vast scale and homogeneity of centralised housing models cannot reflect the diversity of lifestyles and even leads to the ills of isolation and social disconnection (Figure 21). In this way, the shape of individual interests, aesthetic sensibilities, lifestyles and identities are imposed, being territorially and architecturally predetermined (Pow, 2009) (Figure 23).

Conclusion This chapter introduces the background of modern housing evolution in urban China, detailing the evolving housing conceptions and dilemmas by illustrating particular forms of housing in specific time periods. In earlier times, some slab-based mass housing developments were built for particular state enterprises, where people lived in a kind of vertical collective community, with communal toilets and kitchens. By 1990s, privatisation become the norm and shared spaces disappeared; the understood concept of a dwelling came to refer to an individual apartment rather a collective building, a change in concept which contributed to the real estate boom thereafter. Indeed, after the turn of the millennium, prevailing high-rises serve as a tool of capitalist power, insofar that housing becomes abstract units for trade, the value of which are dictated by the developers. Nevertheless, different forms of order have been imposed in response to the needs in different eras; however, each form remained insufficient in solving the entire set of problems it sought to resolve (Sennett, 2018). Urban China favours tower blocks programmes that rely on large government and private constructions within an economic-led development framework. These residential projects mean that both government and private developers can maximise their profits, but consequently express less consideration for social needs. However, this economic growth strategy may aggravate social and environmental problems such as shortages of affordable housing, the deterioration of social-spatial polarisation and urban disparity and the lack of diversity. Therefore, in seeking a more socially cohesive and empowering form of urbanism, a new type of neighbourhood that can provide better urban development alternatives is called for.

Figure 23: Exquisite model made by developers displays a 'good' life.

CHAPTER TWO THE SELF-BUILD

Figure 24:

Urban village photography

Introduction In China, the concept of self-build not only refers to people who are involve in all design and planning procedures and who undertake much of the actual construction work themselves, but can also refer to projects whereby people have complete control over their housing, even without engaging in the physical construction of the space. Here, self-build primarily refers to the informal neighbourhoods established in urban villages, which form a unique and contradictory phenomenon in urban China. Incidentally, the institutional dichotomy of the rural and urban zoning system, as a result of the socialist legacy, has set the manifestation of self-build efforts in China apart in comparison to other countries (Zhou, 2014). This chapter looks at the economic, political and social potential of self-builds in the urban village, presenting a theoretical study and field research, analysing its benefits and dilemmas, before proposing self-build as a strategy to provide alternative housing models to meet current housing challenges.

Urban Villages Traditionally, before state assistance became national policy in 1949, people were living in self-built houses in a more or less rural

Figure 25: Farmers gathered to celebrate the promulgation of the outline of land law, with a banner saying 'land to the tiller'.

environment. Following the land reforms of the early 1950s, urban land came under state ownership while rural land is owned collectively by rural villages. Under communist ideology, the core of the land reform movement in the rural area was per the maxim, 'land to the tiller' (Figure 25), meaning that individual villagers would be equally allocated plots of collective land for farming and housing with unrestricted tenure (Zhang et al., 2003)(Figure 26). As a result, rural villages are seen as selfgoverning communities with their own rules beyond urban authority's control. Such dual land structure becomes the key to the formation of the contemporary urban village and informal self-build housing in China's urban context.

Figure 26: Farmers with land and house ownership certificates in hand.

In the cities, rapid urbanisation requires land for new construction. As a rule, land acquisition generally involves agricultural land instead of built-up village housing, which, to a great extent, can avoid huge compensation expenses and a burdensome resettlement of villagers. In this practice, villages adjacent to the city were territorially encompassed by urban fields, forming a distinctive neighbourhood – the urban village (Figure 27). It emerges as a kind of geo-social landscape where the internal organisation is autonomous and based on the original rules of villages, whilst being spatially and socially affected by urbanisation. It can be regarded as a mixture of rural and urban society occupying a complicated and contradictory status within everexpanding urban boundaries (Zhou, 2014). Urban villages commonly appear in big Chinese cities, especially those which are experiencing rapid development. In the past three decades, the urban sprawl of the Guangzhou metropolis, for example, has converted agricultural land

Figure 27: The formation of an urban village.

to urban construction on a massive scale; urban territorial growth has resulted in 272 urban villages coming into being (Guangzhou Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources, 2019). Even though urban villages are usually perceived as by-products of rapid modern urbanisation and economic growth, they are distinguished from slums in other developing countries by their living conditions, their exceptional locations and their legal status protected by land ownerships recognised by the government (Figure 26). As this process continues to emerge in China, urban villages located in downtown areas play similar residential functions as developerled communities, but with highly distinct characteristics. Based on their land ownerships, villagers realised their advantages in the city when their farmlands were taken away: they built their houses layer by layer to accommodate migrants and themselves as their fortunes allowed with time. According to villagers' needs, sometimes they will hire a contractor; sometimes, they are their own builders. The majority of houses are built up to comprise four to five layers, with a reinforced concrete frame structure, and local, durable and affordable materials. Not only that, many households are equipped with necessary facilities that provide improved living standards relative to many underdeveloped areas, such as drinking water, electricity, heating, flush toilets, and sewer drains (Zhang et al., 2003). Without the predominance of large developers, indigenous villagers can offer adequate housing with comparatively low rents to outsiders.

Figure 28: Urban village photography

Moreover, urban villages usually possess good accessibility to urban workplaces and large shopping malls because of their geographical advantages relative to downtown areas, providing convenience to connect living and working spaces. A combination of many favourable factors has attracted millions of migrants to shelter themselves in such neighbourhoods, which, in return, acts as motivation for the formation of the informal self-build community. Consequently, due to the urban village's political status, where direct management is in lieu of government intervention, an informal self-build housing community is spontaneously formed. The urban village is a concrete representation of self-build activities, as well as a portrayal of the political, socio-spatial outcome (Figure 28). Urban villages used to be regarded as transitional neighbourhoods resulting from an excessive urban sprawl. However, as these informal enclaves grow, they attained important roles in the city, significantly influencing government planning, housing, and lifestyle. Today, urban villages are considered as a problem, as well as a solution. Evolving from the rural village, the urban village preserved its original

Figure 29: Overcrowded living environment

organisation, namely the village committee and economic administration (mainly in the form of a cooperative), and remains responsible for internal management and development, but in loose governance structures with unclear and ambiguous rules (Liu et al., 2010). Driven by rental income, illegal space appropriation has become rampant: villagers add as many layers as they can onto their existing houses with less care about surrounding environments (Figure 29). As a result, the overall impression of urban village is characterised by narrow roads, tightly-packed buildings, poor ventilation and lighting, and a filthy living environment. Nevertheless, behind these negative images, the positive role of the urban village in the city is profound. It has a great capacity to house millions of temporary inhabitants that incidentally relieves pressures on government to develop social housing programmes (Liu et al., 2010). In a wider economic context where urban housing supply and modes of living are limited by the delivery of speculative construction, the urban village provides alternatives of

Figure 30:

diverse and inexpensive lifestyles, benefiting people who live within it as

Life, small familyled businesses provide inexpensive consumption.

well as those outside (Figure 30).

However, regardless of its benefits, the phenomenon of the urban village is inevitably diagnosed as urban pathology and criticised by government, media and even academics. They see the core of the problem as the dual structure of land ownership (Li et al., 2014) whereby villagers have converted their land ownerships into opportunities in the rental housing market, illegally constructing multiple storeys over their existing houses to accommodate migrants, resulting in excessive density, a deteriorated living environment and social disorder (Zhou, 2014) (Figure 31). Hence, calls for renewal of the urban villages tend to evoke a desire to improve the city image. The conventional strategy taken by the government is, firstly, to centralise the collective land ownership from the village, nationalising it into urban land. The next step follows the marketisation process as detailed in the previous chapter; ultimately, these unique neighbourhoods will be cleared and replaced by orderly, exclusive, and homogeneous residential communities (Figure 32). In this process, the grassroots communities seldom get their voice

Figure 31:

heard, especially those migrants who have no negotiable terms in hand,

Lirendong village, an overcrowded urban village that will be demolished and transformed in the next few years.

and who gain nothing but eviction (Zhang et al., 2003). Although the transformation of the urban village has proved successful in terms of economic growth and city image, the adverse consequences of this strategy invoke us to rethink the approach, in search for a better alternative method of regeneration. As Roberts defines, regeneration is “a comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change.” (Roberts et al., 2000, pp. 17). This thesis considers that the nature of regeneration is a dynamic rather than static process, where the self-build is able to play a more positive, autonomous role. The following parts of this chapter aim to facilitate a thorough discussion of self-build, learning its relative merits from theories and experiences drawn from the fieldwork research.

Figure 32: Exhibition: future transformation of Lirendong village, held by developers.

Values and Dilemmas of Self-Build Values of Self-Build Self-build is mostly associated with an anarchist ideology that challenges the political authority and social hierarchy (Bower 2016). It emerges a new set of values to the meaning and interpretations of home. With the context of market-based, housing is usually regarded as a disposable commodity or a physical construction that symbolises status. By contrast, self-build embrace libertarian values by a rejection of standardised housing types and lifestyles (Turner, 1976). The norm of a good house is not necessarily described as a house with higher quality in a material term, but people's perceptions of 'good', which vary with their priorities or financial status (Bower, 2016). Another significant value of self-build is about empowerment, insofar that the dweller is in control. Modern large-scale housing projects reflect a bureaucratic and political process which effectively excludes homeowners from being involved in the production of their own homes; yet the practice of selfbuild empowers dwellers by providing greater choice and freedom to build their homes in the way people want, to live and express according to their preferences. In this way, “When dwellers control the major decisions and are free to make their own contributions to the design, construction or management of their housing, both the process and the environment produced stimulate individual and social well-being. When people have no control over, nor responsibility for key decisions in the housing process, on the other hand, dwelling environments may instead become a barrier to personal fulfilment and a burden on the economy” (Turner & Fichter, 1972, pp. 241).

Figure 33: Almere Poort is a project built on council land as part of the city plans to provide affordable housing for low-income households of €20,000 a year. They are buit on 250 acres of council land. The aim is for Almere to eventually have 3,500 self-built homes.

Given such considerations, self-build can be seen as a powerful presence, embodying a tremendous process of self-identity and selfactualisation of people (Benson & Hamiduddin, 2017). Politicians may prefer unified and consistent facades to present a civilised image of the city, but the uniformity may become repressive (Habraken, 2008). For example, if houses are built identically, it requires an act of courage to change elements, such as colour and material of windows or doors, because any change seems to be offending the initial consistency. However, it is easier to alter when these elements are already different at the initial stage, if the individual wishes to have a distinct facade of its own (Jones, 1987). Therefore, the value of self-build allows buildings to grow and change, stresses that variety outweighs specificity, and accepts distinctions rather than erasing them (Milgrom, 2008). Thus, the end-result is greater correspondence with the actual needs of selfbuilders. Moreover, the lack of aesthetic consistency of the resultant buildings does not matter, because the happiness derived from escaping from the rigid and repetitive forms overrides such concerns (Jones, 1987). Eventually, complexity and diversity imbued into the built environment will emerge from homeowners’ needs and desires (Figure 33). Achievement and a sense of pride and capability increases (Turner, 1976) as the building stands as a living reminder of their efforts. In brief, in the post-industrialisation era where physical and social problems related to housing become acute, self-build was emphasised in developed countries as a wider solution to three main housing dilemmas (Dotson, 2015). First, self-build projects are cost-saving relative to speculative development in the housing industry; they liberate people from capitalist exploitation and thus respond to the issue of housing affordability of the poor (Nederhand et al., 2016)(Figure 33). Second, there is potential to facilitate higher levels of social engagement for residents during the self-build growth process. This will ultimately lead to a more integrated society, as demonstrated by higher levels of contact and strengthened social links between residents (Lloyd et al., 2015). Third, self-build provides creative approaches to housing design and construction that manifest in varied and distinctive housing features, where dwellings closely suit residents' needs (Lloyd et al., 2014; Caputo et al., 2019). Apart from housing crises, the practice of self-build can contribute to individual and social well-being: personalities, needs, and a sense of independence will be motivated by the process of self-build (Schoenwitz et al., 2012).

In a sense, self-build housing in China's urban village shares certain parallels with the benefits of self-build advocated by developed countries. On a strategic scale, recognised as migrant enclaves, selfbuild housing in urban villages indeed copes with massive urban migration and provides housing at an affordable price (Zhou, 2014), and thus takes responsibility of delivering social housing which is theoretically supposed to be shouldered by the government (Nederhand, 2016). Furthermore, these informal habitations, which are in some ways socially ostracised, actually express user and social values that are not defined by economic and political quantification (Benkler, 2016). Previously, most migrants have low levels of education and employed in low-paid occupations. However, currently, migrants were not always homogeneous in terms of social backgrounds and professions, or even income levels in urban villages (Zhang et al., 2003). As for home-owners, their housing qualities differ based on their economic capacity; they have their own specific and realistic approaches to adapt the space to various populations' needs (Liu et al., 2010). Thus, these informal selfbuild communities are not just the consequences of poverty but also of various social groups' engagement, resulting in a complicated social format and complex social relationships.

Figure 34: A life of togetherness

Dilemmas of Self-Build Nonetheless, the dilemmas of self-build cannot be ignored, either theoretically and practically. As mentioned before, self-build is challenging and is rooted in an inherently anti-authority stance, especially when it is advocated to be applied in a neighbourhood or even over a larger scale. This can be evidenced by the term 'informal' that is often used to describe the urban village. Politically, self-build in the urban village is informal in the sense of not under rigid and centralised control. Socially, the practice is informal due to its instability, that tenants and workers come and go, temporarily live and leave. Economically, the flexibility of self-build housing to accommodate changes over time would depress the capitalist housing market by eating into its sales (Schneider & Till, 2005). All these factors contribute to the reason why the government considers urban villages as potential threats. Thus, efforts made to set up a legitimate self-build community would be a brave attempt because it cannot be achieved without strong political support. In practice, at a community scale, the process of building a pure selfbuild neighbourhood would be problematic (Caputo et al., 2019). Selfbuild is biased insofar that it encourages power decentralisation and freedom to act, but the characteristic of excessive individual freedom which underwrites the gains also supports chaos, malice and crime (Benkler, 2016). Slums in many developing countries are a good proof of how selfishness and the dark side of human nature floods in the absence of regulation and restraint. Likewise, the quality of buildings is also a concern, and a material risk. Issues related to self-builders are their non-professional practices: sometimes they may make unwarranted assumptions, and overemphasise trivial demands rather than a vital one. Further, their aesthetics towards appearances are often superficial (Jones, 1987). Lacking government and professional intervention, selfbuild housing communities will necessarily feature spatial congestion, poor structures, high population density and low safety standards. Here in China, land and finance are not key dilemmas in the initiation of selfbuild; the question goes to how the villagers make the best use of their resources within their capacities, considering the whole neighbourhood rather than individual interests. Figure 35:

Spatial congestion, high density, overcrowded and disorderly of living evnironment

Fieldwork Characteristics of self-build, as discussed previously, were comprehensively observed through my participant observation during my fieldwork research at Lirendong urban village in Guangzhou. Lirendong is one of the typical urban villages in Guangzhou city, located in the development zone within Panyu district, enclosed by the commercial plaza, financial streets, recreational places, skyscrapers,

Figure 37: Urban village life, restaurant.

Figure 38: Urban village life, textile factory.

and developer-led gated communities (Figure 36). According to the village committee, this 4.1 square kilometre village is home to 5,632 indigenous villagers and more than 30,000 migrants as of 2015. The overall village is a veritable migrant enclave which looks extraordinarily

Figure 39: Urban village life, Public spces.

crowded, but the inside reveals vibrant expressions of life: inner streets are lined with groceries, shops and service outlets; the functions of houses vary from residence, business, commerce, storage and even textile factory; office workers, vendors, students, couriers, landlords and people in various professions occupy streets, parks and other public spaces interwoven in harmony. It presents a multifarious neighbourhood revealing a rich tapestry of characteristics (Figure 37-39).

Figure 36 (left): The general layout of Lirendong village. urban land, with residential, commercial and recreation zones.

collective land, urban village.

The self-build house where I conducted close research is a typical one: situated inland of the village, four storeys high, with a reinforced concrete frame structure, and homeowners (the family of a villager) and tenants (migrants) living together (Figure 40). This house was constructed around ten years ago with the help of the homeowner's relative, who works as a self-build contractor, and who designed and built it to suit the owner's requirements. In the context of this acquaintance relationship, there is no contract, design and construction

Figure 41 (right): Life illustrations of the self-build house.

drawings or official documentation given to the owner. Yet most commonly, homeowners live in the top layer as it has the best access to natural light among overcrowded buildings, and offers greater individual privacy. The rest of the house is usually rented out to tenants without specific and strict use; normally tenants will turn their rooms into a mixture of living and working space (Figure 41).

Figure 40 (left): Axonometric drawing of a particular selfbuid house where I conducted the research

Compared with the surrounding apartments in gated communities, this house is not in that sophisticated in its design, nor does it boast a fine finish, largely due to the owner’s budget. Yet when it comes to the topic of design and construction, it is worth considering the statements from the contractor who I interviewed with: “Most of my clients are these villagers who want to make a self-build house. They are frequently not sure of what they want but [have] an abstract idea of a house, for living and lease. In fact, I am not an architect, but I know how to build a house. The layout, the materials and the fit-up are constructed most economically based on our experiences. Moreover, I know their houses are not static, I mean, the house will not stand there in the same look or form permanently, because they will upgrade it when their funds allow them to seize a better life. Therefore, currently, we usually choose a reinforced concrete frame structure at the first construction because if they want to improve or transform it in the future, there is no need for reconstructing foundation and structure but just knocking down walls, which can save on budget.” His words reveal that the main form of self-build in the urban village is individual-led, assisted by family or friends, with specialist help that a family can collectively afford, but with high degrees of dweller control of living environments post-occupation as well as during the design stage. Their approaches adopted to keep the development of housing an ongoing process are similar to Habraken's 'support' theory, in that the support, both technical devices and social frames, “allow the provision of dwellings which can be built, altered and taken down, independently of the others” (Habraken, 1972, p. 13). The ability to alter the space's use or configuration provides choices for both landlords and tenants to update in response to obsolescence or based on their desires and preferences (Figure 42).

Figure 42:

Main structure and materials of a selfbuild house in the urban village.

The ability to adjust the space subtly changes the dweller' perception of housing, in that the house is more than a place to live in physically or a tool with which to make a profit; it contains a more subjective meaning, indicative of the relationships between people and things. This can be evident by the discourse of the motivation of current space use explained by the owner: "Before my dad passed away two years ago, the first floor was where my parents were living while me and my brother were living on the second one. The roof was used for gardening, airing clothes and keeping animals. And the ground floor was rent out for business. However, after my father's death, we decided to rent out the first floor, which contained my parents' memories, and my mom moved upstairs to live with us to avoid sadness." Such a sudden change of family composition compels the family to reconsider the space they are living in (Figure 43-45). When the first floor changed in function, from living to business, it corroborated that the designated spaces can be variable, coinciding with Lefebvre's theory that the user's space is not represented or conceived, but rather it is lived and subjective (Lefebvre, 1991). Similarly, the observed house's use and layouts also exemplify the flexibility of the space which reflects its adaptation to changing interactions between events, environments, and the use of space (DeGory, 1998). Despite the vitality, creativity and diversity demonstrated in the urban village, the space appropriations by villagers have appeared an out-ofcontrol phenomenon, resulting in an overcrowded and disordered living environment which shapes a disagreeable negative image of the urban village. Houses are spaced in an extremely narrow manner in order to maximise villagers’ profits, leading to most rooms in the house are poorly lighted and ventilated. In the absence of master planning, houses stand randomly in extraordinarily high density without proper utility distribution and road systems (Figure 46).

Before the change

After the change

Figure 43 (above): Take the second floor as example. Diagrams show the modifications made to the house when the family composition changed.

Figure 44: The balcony is currently used for kitchen.

Figure 45: The 'kitchen' is seldom used for cooking but storage.

Figure 46: Issues: unlcear road networks and disorderly pipings

Proposition By illustrating the prevailing housing forms and self-build homes in contemporary urban China, neither market-oriented gated communities nor unruly self-build communities are healthy for sustainable development. Lessons can thus be learned from their respective successes and failures. In terms of urban renewal, a pertinent question is “how we house ourselves, how we learn, and how we keep healthy” (Turner, 1976, pp. 4). Nevertheless, this paper still maintains a positive stance of self-build as a strategy and the spontaneous grassroots spatially-enhanced agency that derived thereof. This is not to say that housing should be entirely left to individuals or that centralised control should be abandoned; it is rather to reorganise central government aid and reset the government role, rendering it less authoritarian. More explicitly, this paper proposes new forms of collaboration between villagers and authorities that ensure healthy participation and cooperation, which can promote better policy coordination and innovation through integrating various actors' expertise and resources (Zhou, 2014). The interdependence of government policy and local grassroots practices can realise the freedom to produce autonomous heteronomous spaces, and the need for political frameworks that support and facilitate practices in a hierarchical but bottom-up way (Bower, 2016).

Figure 47: Models are used to illustrate the consequences of different agents taking full control of housing power.

Individual freedom In the absent of rules and control, dwellers have absolute control over their living space where they can realise their needs to most extent. There is no fixed structure, material, infrastructure, service and function.

Athority control Government is core investor. Housing is an object of product, with well-designed, well-decorated, ordered, good-quality and priviledged built environment, which is fully and uniformly predetermined by developers.

Regeneration is a process rather than a result. In this process, self-build act as an incomplete form where collaboration is facilitated by various agents who tend to adjust strategies to the evolving economic, social and political circumstances over time. The key is the redistribution of interest from which all involved agents, including politicians, developers, planners, land-owners and migrants, could benefit from in urban regeneration (Zhou, 2014). First, admittedly, government and professional interventions are necessary. The purely anarchistic process can be disastrous, just as in the case of the degraded environment of urban villages where self-builds grow haphazardly and disorderly. Self-builds should follow a certain logic concluded by authoritative and professional knowledge (Sennett, 2018), with the logic comprising a combination of acceptable codes and regulations. Codes and regulations are derived from the human body, living experiences, social relationships and the law, aiming at providing a better quality of life and ensuring harmonious relationships. To take a simple example, how high the leg is lifted comfortably informs the formulation of suitable height and width of a staircase’s dimensions. Many of these rules should be recognised and applied to guarantee healthy and conducive construction. Yet concurrently, these rules should act as limits or guidance to action, instead of prescribed lines of action (Turner, 1976) which impose a finished form on people. Also, when there are rules, conflicts can be mitigated among stakeholders by narrowing the available choices; thus, the power of each actor will not prevail over another (Carmona, 2009). In this manner, so long as they remain within the boundaries defined by the rules, they are free to combine their options as they wish (Turner, 1976). External forces may thwart the end result, but the existing reality is engaged in the process by considering approaches of how best to alter it (Sennett, 2018), which can be evident via users' creativity. Intervention both restricts and encourages change within the content, but building within constraints could potentially steer users toward 'good' results that meet individual and government intentions.

Second, an inevitable question is, how should a home be made? What should a community look like? As a single exact form? Or various forms assembled in different ways (Sennett, 2018)? This proposition embraces the idea that “It is not about designing allegedly ‘good’ or ‘correct’ layouts but aims to provide a space which can accommodate the vicissitudes of everyday use over the long term.” (Schneider & Till, 2005b, pp. 159). Thus, it intends to build up a collective texture that accepts the uncertainty of future housing demand whilst reacting quickly to changing needs. In fact, this hypothetical self-build community does not aim for a specific target population, since the urban village is a shelter for people varying in social backgrounds, expertise and economic status. In this context, methods used to achieve a self-build are multiple, and contingent on users’ willingness and necessity. It advocates diverse modes of working, living and leisure; it appreciates adaptability and flexibility to different social uses and physical arrangements (Bower, 2016). In addition, it gives a voice to the silent users (migrants). Though giving voice to all possible users is equally unrealistic and impractical as per the current social situation, involving them as makers of their own living environment ensures they can understand their everyday living environment when they are as engaged as possible in the process (Milgrom, 2008). When users are involved in the design, they will turn their experiences into built forms, their ideas will be manifest in the form of the building (Hill, 2001), and their perception of a building will change depending on how it is designed and managed. Consequently, to self-build is a means to realise personal fulfilment, greater autonomy of investments, assumption of responsibility (Turner, 1976), and to produce attachment to a place and a local identity (Caputo et al., 2019).

Subsequently, establishing such an autonomous neighbourhood requires a new system to manage and encourage cooperation among all parties, from politics, economics and construction. Sometimes the self-build community is regarded as a self-presumed anarchic utopia or ideal society, but in reality, realising such an idealised community demands each agent has its own role to play. Moreover, what is desired is not a fixed set of regulations, but a process whereby rules can be rewritten when the community’s needs change. Therefore, there should be a system that provides a range of degrees of freedom, empowering individuals and groups to blend and weave, drawing borders between the realms of self-governance and central intervention (Turner, 1976). This issue is, in fact, a broad topic and there is no ready, universal solution, but it is nonetheless worthy of being explored, and to investigate every possibility to attain such a model.

Figure 48: Models are used to envisage the outcomes of different levels of freedom/ control.

Conclusion This chapter illustrates the background of self-builds in China's complicated social-political context and emphasises the values of self-builds that can contribute to an alternative neighbourhood for urban regeneration. The suggested community integrates residential, retail and leisure services, and includes various social and economic classes, striving to be self-governing with well-designed and well-maintained living environments (Aldous, 1995). It will be typified as a mixture of land uses with high efficiency, a strong sense of belonging, a pedestrian-friendly environment and a high degree of community engagement in its design and maintenance (Aldous, 1992; Murray, 2004; Shostak, 1997). Finally, given the self-build context, in order to achieve a healthy and sustainable development, questions about how far the occupants can take possession of their space and how to rebalance central authority control in housing inevitably arise and shall remain pertinent in any future consideration.

Figure 49: Models are used to envisage the blend of different levels of intervention

CHAPTER THREE DEGREES OF INTERVENTION

Figure 50: Collage of selfbuild homes and commercial apartments

Introduction If we are to preserve the self-build's diverse and creative promise, we should recognise where control lies, and emulate the diversification of constraints and degrees of freedom. However, though the combination of central power and individual participation in decision making is endorsed by many scholars (Xue, 2014), few researchers have conducted an in-depth investigation on defining the boundary between these two sources of power. Hence, the critical question in this chapter is to what extent is housing to dwellers control. More precisely, it is a question of defining the ideal mix of individual freedoms and authoritative interventions. This chapter narrows this question to the architectural aspect by reconsidering the architect’s role and examining a series of scenarios where architects are involved at different levels.

Figure 51:

Spatial congestion presents a game between individual interests and the authority regulation.

The Role of the Architect Designs, namely the conveyance of a designer’s intentions, suggest and have an influence on how people might use space. Traditionally, architects become accustomed to imposing their standards of aesthetics and utilities on inhabitants whose own desires often go unheeded (Ellin, 2000). Within the topic of self-builds, the conventional role of architect is threatened because users' ability to transform spaces challenges the role of architects as the authors of architecture (Hill, 2001). Moreover, sometimes architects' ambitions may contradict the residents' tastes and lifestyles; on the other hand, such distribution of control facilitates the redefinition of the architects' role and endows new meanings to their responsibility. As Habraken said “the separation of control is a liberation, not an encroachment” (Habraken, 2008, pp. 294). What if architects seek out different roles? What if architects assumed an ambiguous role as facilitator, agent or enabler, instead of occupying a position of full control and authorial power (Holland, 2018)? The change of role can be described as “shifting the profession's scope from elitist specialism to democratisation of the professional skills” (Papanek, 1984; Caputo et al., 2019, pp. 1023;). The anarchist theorist Colin Ward maintains dweller control in the process of housing production, whereby architects act as activists; by extension, Ward posits that the role of the architect in self-build housing is not necessary, but it is of great help in making the best of site and space and ensuring compliance with technical requirements (Ward, 1976). Also, Hertzberger defines an architect as someone who is able to “contribute to creating an environment which offers far more opportunities for people to make their personal markings and identifications, in such a way that it can be appropriated and annexed by all as a place that truly belongs to them” (Hertzberger, 2005, pp. 47). An Architect’s function thus alters from a dominant role to that of a medium, bridging the gap between stakeholders and opening the dialogue between users and their environment (Ellin, 2000).

Furthermore, as an expert to constrain individualistic behaviour, the architect will be a guarantee that any problem will not be allowed to worsen (Turner, 1976). As Jones says, architects would be responsible for educating their clients, not just to educate aesthetics or cost-benefit paradigms, but the power and responsibility to their creation (Jones, 1987). To conclude, the architect becomes the medium for an innovative process and social dynamic, where he offers his expertise to transform social interactions into an appropriate place (Poletti, 2010). What follows is a series of scenarios exemplified with cases where architects intervene in producing the living environment at different levels. They range from historical examples to modern experiments, demonstrating the creativity and diversity of self-builds and the significance of architect power and control behind them.

Figure 52: The lack of architect involvement will lead to inefficient use of space. The role of the architects is to guarantee problems will not worsen.

A Series of Scenarios 1. Fully Spontaneous Self-Build – Kowloon Walled City What happens when architects are entirely out of the picture? The Kowloon Walled City, where anarchy reigned due to the absence of government administration, is an abnormality in the history of Hongkong (Figure x). The Walled City came into being in 1847, primarily used as a garrison constructed by the Chinese government to resist foreign invasion. It was a unique edifice, forming an approximate parallelogram measuring 700 ft. by 400 ft., encircling an area of 6.5 acres (Lockhart, 1969). The great change came about in 1899 when Hongkong had been colonised by the British, Chinese officials departed and no government claimed jurisdiction over it. Since then, the Walled City was left to its own devices, and was depicted as “a cesspool of iniquity, with heroin divans, brothels and everything unsavoury” (Sinn, 1987; Wesley-Smith, 1998) (Figure 53).

Figure 53 (left): Kowloon Walled City photography

Figure 54 (right):

Illustrations of the life in the Walled City

In 1987, approximately 33,000 people lived in the Walled City, equivalent to an extrapolated population density of 1,255,000 people per square kilometre. It was once the most densely populated territory in the world (Liang, 2017). Girard and Lambot's photographs show real images of the Walled City (Lee, 2016): high-rise apartments hovered above the maze-like filthy narrow alleys with exposed piping and open drains where constructions were neither respectful of, nor in any way referenced Hongkong's regulations; there was no open space between buildings, but narrow paths like rabbit warrens linking one another (Sinn, 1987); mountains of rubbish, sewage and rats were seen everywhere; rooms were windowless, with no access to natural light, fresh air, stable electricity or water supply. It thus become a favoured hideout for the darkness: drug dens, prostitution, black market trade, unlicensed medical practices, sweatshops and gang activities (Lee, 2016) (Figure 55). An institutional decision was made regarding the Walled City, with demolition decided in 1987, but the process underwent multiple phases until its completion in 1993 (Figure x). The Kowloon Walled City and Chinese urban village have several parallels. They both remain in a state of in-betweenness, physically and psychologically segregated from the mainstream, providing accommodation for tens of thousands of people excluded by the outside housing market. Under a tangible level of self-governance, residents' continuous creation of space was central to the place's nonreplicable life. Buildings are therefore highly socially integrated and able to accommodate all functions, ranging from living and working, to recreation and social services (Lee, 2016). Despite contemporary retrospections choosing to perceive Kowloon Walled City as a rich cultural heritage, rather a stereotype of a crime-ridden slum (Figure 54), the end of the Walled City still sounds an alarm to urban villages as to what will happen if a fully spontaneous self-build grows without any authoritative intervention.

Figure 55: Scenarios of the life in the Walled City

2. Participation – La MéMé Who’s Participation, Who’s Decision? The participation movement emerged during the 1970s as a tool against the uniformity (Graaf, 2016). Architects began to look for ways to rebalance the power between users and architects. Although the approaches employed varied, the architects shared a similar purpose, which was to enable people to control their buildings whilst not restricting the architect's position to that of a mere technical facilitator. The Belgian architect Lucien Kroll is one of the pioneers, who proposes expanding ownership of responsibilities and encouraging people to make a positive contribution to the built environment (Davies, 2018). His famous project La MéMé, a student complex at the Catholic University of Louvain, remains a model of users' participation. In the beginning, students at the university came to Kroll and engaged him as their guide to design an alternative accommodation, so as to protest against the monotonous scheme proposed by the university authorities (Graaf, 2016). Kroll organised professionals and students into a group and used physical models rather than abstract drawings in the design process, making communication understandable and conducive among users (Figure 57). The construction approach subsequently adopted was to separate the building's base structure from the infill or interior fit-out, split the building into sections according to different teams, and allow residents to pursue their own ends with the assistance of experts. Kroll, as an architect, listened more to the occupants' personal choice of external refurbishments to their flats and accepted every outcome, even it went against prevailing rules (Evans, 1985). His method and philosophy are ultimately manifest in the building façade: it looks fragmented, untidy, and reflects the coexistence of disparate individual preferences (Figure 56). The building atmosphere provides possibilities for future addition and alteration, which can harmonise and enhance the montage effect of the building (Poletti, 2010) (Figure 58). It underpins what Kroll insisted upon: variety facilitates participation, especially Jones' notion that “differentiation, variety, even disorder produce a context which allows growth and change” (Jones, 1987).

Figure 56: The appearance of project La MéMé

Figure 57: Design workshops and meeting

Project La MéMé is undoubtedly a model of participatory architecture and an icon of democracy. To some extent, the outcome is happy as the design process does respect the authentic individual wishes and the appearance of the building presents a diversity of users' creation. Moreover, the participation strategy is also a revelation of how to engage users and experts in practice. Workshops, studios and meetings are available where the architect's role is redefined as a medium who can offer support, including guidance, training and material purchases for those unskilled but creative users. Though we are able to criticise the crude and untidy outcome (Jones et al., 2005), it has undoubtedly achieved a subtle balance between unregulated individuality and monotonous uniformity, and its values and alternative aesthetics deserve recognition. Participation is a function of who decides what should be done and who provides the means to enable it (Turner, 1976). For the project La MéMé, some critics suggest that the users are just being used to create an architectural result which succeeds in only creating surface variety (Evans, 1985). That is to say, the user’s participation is limited to design, not the entire process of housing construction (Jones, 1987). However, the primary significance of his work is probing the political dimension of architecture; it is a challenge to standardised living, and abstract community imposed rigidly by bureaucracy (Jones et al., 2005). In architectural aspects, it provides a possibility of how the building or community could look like when users engage in architectled participation processes. The next scenario to be discussed is a halfhalf project that provided people more opportunities to spontaneously self-build within what is fixed and what is not determined.

Figure 58:

The illustration of project La MéMé

3. Half-Half Self-Build – Quinta Monroy What will be gained, if an incomplete form is made on purpose, by design Instead of by necessity? Quinta Monroy is a celebrated social housing project in northern Chile built early in the 21st century, which aims at settling residents in the same place rather than relocating them on the periphery. To deal with insufficient government subsidies, the way in which costs were kept down is to make users act as their own contractors, effectively encouraging the self-build. Here, an incomplete self-build form project was initiated by the Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena who believes in the productive capacity of residents. His concept is to build half a decent house which can be filled and finessed by the occupants with their own labour instead of having a finished house constructed to a lower standard. Thus, half of the buildings' first and second floors are walled in and fitted with adequate electricity and plumbing in this form. Necessary infrastructure lies not on the parting wall but the gable end of the house, ensuring the maximum flexibility of personal infill. Another refinement is the entry staircase design outside the building, which allows the first and second floors to be separated and independent from one another, to be lease out or to house different generations in a family (Sennett, 2018) (Figure 59-61). Figure 59 (left): The interior change of the 'half' house

Figure 60 (right):

The exterior change of the 'half' house

The house, or zooming out and considering the entire neighbourhood, consists of 50% predetermined construction and 50% individual selfbuild. Architects and the government provide the first half, the part that a family will never accomplish independently, regardless of how much income, resources or time they expend, on their own (Delaqua, 2012) The initial building is equipped with basic facilities and a framework to facilitate future spontaneous expansion. To avoid negative self-build effects, the architecture firm, Elemental, also provided guidelines to help residents expand their houses within a defined framework (Figure x). The remaining 50% volume leaves a private domain where flexible configuration enables flexible (re)use and occupation; the building could thus be adapted to its dwellers' evolving expectations and be improved by its occupants as their resources permitted, thus enabling them to increase their property values over time. Ideally, flexibility regarding both internal and façade options can be achieved by time (Figure 61). Project Quinta Monroy is a testbed for the self-build community. First, architects and the authority provide what users cannot manage by themselves, like basic infrastructure to support and upgrade community, and that establishes a basic set of relationships that allow variations in the form within these constraints. The rest of the space left to selfconstruction gives the residents a high degree of freedom to introduce time and unknown. This strategy can be manifest in the community' form: half of it is fixed and uniform, while the other half is variable and diverse. But not all uses and space appropriations can be foreseen. After 15 years, the volume for self-build part expands, the half self-build houses evoked a sense of belonging and pride in the neighbourhood. But subsequently, private additions sometimes flouted the architectural standards set by architects. Quinta Monroy's manual failed to offer instructions restricting the degree to which additional construction was permitted, leading to unregulated private appropriation of public space (Carrasco & O'Brien 2021). The absence of establishing governance guidelines after post-occupation leads to the community's failure. Its successes and failures are worthwhile revelations and indicate that healthy self-build is a long-term process involving all agents to redefine constantly specifications of what should be done and followed, and requirements of what should not be done, leaving actors free to their own way within restrictions.

Figure 61: The construction drawings of the project, demonstrates which half should be done by the architect and which half can be left for the individual.

4. Fully Predetermined Building – Liede Village/Garden What Will be Gained and Lost from Finished Architecture? It would be risky and potentially troublesome to give unfettered individual freedom for personal construction as demonstrated in the cases considered above. Thus, universal and rigid templates are favoured for application to a large variety of contexts and populations. Liede village used to be a typical urban village in Guangzhou before redevelopment, known for negative connotations of a chaotic and filthy living environment. In 2008, due to its exceptional location in the city centre, Liede village became the first redevelopment project in Guangzhou (Li al et., 2014). In this case, large-scale demolition is the norm as clearing the whole, sporadic village is the most straightforward way to receive a safe and stable environment for investment and governance. With the completion of collective land being converted to urban land, the land use right of the north-western part of the village was transferred to private developers for the construction of commodity housing. Developers employed high-rise tower typologies which have minimal identity (Li et al., 2014; Liu & Wong, 2018), yet the uniformity of housing can maximise economic benefits and contribute to a consistent and civilised city image. After three years of transformation, the gated community, Liede Garden, was formed, covering 8000 m2, with 37 towers in total (Figure 63).

Figure 63 (right): Liede village, after tranformation

Figure 62 (left):

Liede village, before tranformation

Liede Garden offers approximately 15 apartment types, ranging from 30 m2 to 200 m2, with different layouts to suit different needs. For the prospective purchaser of merchandise, living in this gated community often produce a sense of exclusivity and pride ( Zhang, 2010; Li et al., 2012), because the exquisite landscaping, abundant recreational facilities and strict estate management in the built environment contribute to the atmospheric enhancement and a notion of neighbourhood superiority (Li et al., 2012). However, alienation increased as residents have a less active role in participating in their living environment (Deng, 2017). People live in an upscale but static and fixed habitat, where everything is disallowed for inclusion in any dramatic alteration according to personal preference. Although people are free to redesign their homes, only a limited degree of freedom is provided. One way is to choose from a range of configurations designed by architects; another is to change the size of a space or add new elements, but certainly not significantly change the building in its character (Hill, 2001). Additionally, apartments led by developers usually adopt minimum space standards to designated room types, meaning that the use of the room is predetermined in one way due to the size and shape of the room. Many commercial housing firms will use freedom as propaganda buzzword and by providing a roughcast house to customers, lauding how households are free to make their room with their own choices. This freedom is merely reflects (and confined to) decoration; it is easy to change the colour of the wall, but it is difficult to change the room's use for other purposes (Schneider & Till, 2005b) (Figure 64). This kind of freedom is dependent on the physical change of architectural elements, not a transformation in perception.

Figure 64: Selected room types, the tighter the fit, the less the flexibility.”

Conclusion This chapter discusses the role of architects and different degrees of individual freedom available to users in controlling their living environment. Each case has its benefits and limitations. Despite the enthusiasm of giving wholesale agency to residents, this thesis also recognises the perils of the informal. When should such an open-ended process conclude? When is the building finished? Actually, there will be not only one solution. Answers will vary with contexts because there is no single universal form that is able to capture every feature of current practice and thus forecast the future with certainty (Roberts & Skyes, 1999). Strategies can be learned from different housing types and philosophies, and adaptions employed as appropriate.

Figure 65: Collage of the envision of self-build, a hybrid of freedom and control

CONCLUSION

"Housing is an architecture that both shapes and is shaped by our ways of dwelling within the world." (Bellin, 2011). Chinese urban housing problems stem from the rapid rates of both urbanisation and industrialisation. Massive resources and attempts have been invested in cities to meet the surging housing demand of urban residents, among which the repeating and equal-sized housing typology has become a useful means of housing a large number of people in a short time while achieving standard living conditions. However, the issue is that this emergency measure has in fact become the norm, a tool that serves for state control and capitalist power (Ward, 1976). Speculative housing projects dominated by government and developers architecturally predetermine people’s lifestyle by imposing functional categories upon housing spaces, making it an illustration of life; but in reality, this is not life itself because occupants are left in a passive role with little decision and engagement in modifying their living environment. Housing and the lifestyles shaped by commercial communities are conceived as expensive objects beyond most people's affordability, giving rise to social homogeneity, segregation and alienation (Ma & Wu, 2004). An important feature of Chinese land policy – the dual urban-rural land ownership, has contributed to alternative living environments and lifestyles in urban areas that challenge the static and orderly capitalist paradigm and the bourgeois aesthetics in a chaotic manner. The urban village is the concrete presence of this unique neighbourhood where inhabitants exercise the right to self-build in order to control the housing process and utilisation, providing sufficient affordable housing and diverse lifestyles. Through releasing users' creative instincts, the self-build approach proves its values in building a flexible and complex community. However, the quality of a self-build community is a collective outcome of individual actions rather than a collage of personal preferences (Benson & Hamiduddin, 2017). Unruly individual acts, such as that of space appropriation, may shatter the promising future development which has been manifested in the spatial outcome of the 92

current urban village.

Given the dilemmas facing urban villages, redevelopment schemes associated with self-build proposed in this research do not aim to completely subvert authority power and control, but rather seek to redefine the role of central or expert intervention. After all, self-build at a neighbourhood scale inevitably involves a wide array of stakeholders whose interests and values are more or less in conflict. The process of reconciling contradictory views held by different groups of people to achieve an acceptable consensus is a complex problem (Broome, 2005). Considering these challenges, this thesis thus raises a self-build participatory framework that aims at increasing the opportunity for mutual understanding and regulating power and freedom. A series of scenarios and their strategies illustrated in the thesis offer valuable examples as to what can be anticipated or overcome in selfbuild practice. Housing demands depend on past experiences and future expectations, and only householders can truly understand what they really need and what is the best decision in a given situation. This requires the architects to avoid explicitly demonstrating what should be done in the selfconstruction domain as this would it closes down alternatives for update and growth. The manifest pride and pleasure derived from self-build can be revealed in these cases when people are engaged in producing the space which they inhabit, whilst reminding us that a careful balance between professional intervention and everyone's freedom is of significance, or else the community will fall apart rather than grow sustainably. In this context it is be all the more important to offer guidance to inhabitants and maintain their dialogues with professionals who can regulate them in construction and transformation of their dwellings (Bellin, 2011). This thesis puts forward a suggestion of an alternative housing community responding to current urban housing problems in China. By proposing selfbuild as a strategy in redevelopment schemes, theoretical speculation and scenarios analysed in the research present the benefits and difficulties of different self-build strategies adopted in different given settings, which can inspire future strategic adaption as a circumstance alters. Rather than providing a definitive solution, this research prefers to open up a wider debate to envision different prospects of self-build neighbourhood. As it insists, housing is a verb (Bower, 2016); it is a work still in progress, a work that concerns many aspects beyond the scope of architecture, and "only by proposing alternative possibilities, conducting endless experiments, and constructing new futures could individuals and groups actively initiate the process of social transformation" (McLeod, 1997). 93

FIGURES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Figures Figure 1: Residential tower in the gated community [By Author] Figure 2: Self-build homes between towers [By Author] Figure 3: Residential towers [By Author]

Figure 4: Urban village, Banqiao village, Guangzhou [By Author] Figure 5: Urban village photography [By Author]

Figure 6: Popular high-rise apartments in Guangzhou [By Author] Figure 7: Historical timeline of housing evolution [By Author]

Figure 8: Planned economy, photography, available at: https://img1.gtimg.com/ ninja/1/2018/07/

Figure 9: Welfare housing allocation, photography, available at: https://img1.gtimg. com/ninja/1/2018/07/

Figure 10: Tube-shaped building photography, available at: https://www.sohu.com/ a/405061373_444207

Figure 11: Tube-shaped building plan, [By Author]

Figure 12-15: Tube-shaped building life photography, available at: https://baijiahao. baidu.com/s?id=1664025784707764360&wfr=spider&for=pc Figure 16: Unit building plan, [By Author] Figure 17: Unit building type, [By Author]

Figure 18: The first commercial residential community, available at: https://www.sohu. com/a/326953566_120054336

Figure 19: Institutional enterprise and housing construction, available at: https://www. sohu.com/a/326953566_120054336

Figure 20: The real estate market boomed, available at: https://imgs.soufunimg.com/ news/2014_08/17/news/

Figure 21: Screenshots of gated communities, available at: https://fang.baidu.com/ pages/index/index

Figure 22: Screenshots of housing advertisements, available at: https://fang.baidu. com/pages/index/index

Figure 23: Exquisite model photography, [By Author] Figure 24: Urban village photography, [By Author]

Figure 25: Land to the tiller photography, available at: https://money.163. com/11/0627/12/77IBDQ8A00253B0H_all.html

Figure 26: Land ownership of farmers, available at: https://money.163. com/11/0627/12/77IBDQ8A00253B0H_all.html

Figure 27: The formation of an urban village, [By Author] Figure 28: Urban village photography, [By Author] 94

Figure 29-30: Urban village photography, [By Author]

Figure 31: Aerial view of Lirendong village, available at: https://timgsa.baidu.com/timg?ima

ge&quality=80&size=b9999_10000&sec=1601596350270&di=d654440fffa65a54243e8eeef 1083421&imgtype=0&src=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.gzcankao.com%2Fnews%2Fnews%2F 20190724%2F1563953722607056664.jpg

Figure 32: Transformation exhibition, [By Author]

Figure 33: Self-building in The Netherlands, available at: http://projects.mcrit.com/ esponfutures/index.php/kk/58-self-building-in-the-netherlands Figure 34: A life of togetherness, [By Author] Figure 35: Spatial congestion, [By Author]

Figure 36: General layout of Lirendong village, [By Author] Figure 37-39: Urban village life [By Author]

Figure 40: Axonometric drawing of a self-build house [By Author] Figure 41: Illustrations of life [By Author]

Figure 42: Structure and material [By Author]

Figure 43: Diagram drawings, transformation of a house [By Author] Figure 44-45: Photography, transformation of a house [By Author]

Figure 46: Photography, issues with the self-build community [By Author] Figure 47-49: Model illustration [By Author]

Figure 50: Collage of self-build homes and commercial apartments [By Author] Figure 51: Spatial congestion [By Author]

Figure 52: The role of the architects [By Author]

Figure 53: Kowloon Walled City photography, available at: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/

tap/7977573.0006.202/--kowloon-walled-city-revisited-photography?rgn=main;view=fulltext Figure 54: Kowloon Walled City illustration, available at: https://www.thisiscolossal.

com/2014/11/an-illustrated-cross-section-of-hong-kongs-infamous-kowloon-walled-city/?e

pik=dj0yJnU9ajZtNDJQeF9NYkpCb01jTU9IZ1RQSXUxRWlMMHJobzYmcD0wJm49OXJPd 1RhNjY2MkpHUXhZd0h5d0M2USZ0PUFBQUFBR0FUaWRZ

Figure 55: Scenarios of the life in the Walled City, available at: https://fotomen. cn/2014/06/19/cituy/

Figure 56 -57: Project La MéMé photography, available at:

https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/few-architects-have-embraced-the-idea-ofuser-participation-a-new-movement-is-needed

Figure 58: The illustration of project La MéMé, available at:

https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/reputations/lucien-kroll-1927?contentid=15177 Figure 59-60: The Quinta Monroy photography, available at: https://www.archdaily. com/10775/quinta-monroy-elemental

Figure 61: The Quinta Monroy, construction drawings, available at: https://www.archdaily.com/10775/quinta-monroy-elemental

Figure 62: The transformation of Liede village: before, available at: http://stuxiaoqi.blog. sohu.com/67493374.html

Figure 63: The transformation of Liede village: after, available at: https://www.sohu.com/ a/114946729_430226

Bibliography Aldous, T. ed., 1995. Economics of urban villages. Urban Villages Forum. Ayong. 2010. The Tongzilou: The Last Residential Compound. Openings, pp.26-28 Bao, L., 2011. Neighbourhood Interpersonal Communication in Change. Thesis. China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House.

Bellin, E., 2011. Life’s Net [or] a Framework for Growth and Change. Architecture in

the Fourth Dimension Methods and Practices for a Sustainable Building Stock, pp.4146.

Benkler, Y., 2016. Degrees of freedom, dimensions of power. Daedalus, 145(1), pp.18-32.

Benson, M. and Hamiduddin, I., 2017. Self-Build Homes (p. 332). UCL Press. Bower, R., 2016. Who decides and who provides? The anarchistic housing practices of John Turner as realizations of Henri Lefebvre’s autogestive space. Alternatives, 41(2), pp.83-97.

Caputo, S., De Oliveira, F.L. and Blott, D., 2019. Values for self-build urbanism. European Planning Studies, 27(6), pp.1200-1216.

Carmona, M., 2009. Design coding and the creative, market and regulatory tyrannies of practice. Urban Studies, 46(12), pp.2643-2667.

Carrasco, S., and O’Brien, D., 2021. Revisit: Quinta Monroy by Elemental. The Architectural Review.

Chan, R.C., Yao, Y.M. and Zhao, S.X., 2003. Self-help housing strategy for temporary population in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International, 27(1), pp.19-35. Chen, P.Y., 2010. Tong zi lou de gu shi. Peking University Press Davies, P., 2018. Lucien Kroll (1927-). The Architectural Review. De Graaf, R., 2016. Few architects have embraced the idea of user participation; A new movement is needed. The Architectural Review.

DeGory, E., 1998. A potential for flexibility. MSc Thesis, University College London. Delaqua, V., 2012. Quinta Monroy/ELEMENTAL. 96

Deng, F., 2017. Gated community and residential segregation in urban China. GeoJournal, 82(2), pp.231-246.

Dotson, T., 2016. Trial-and-error urbanism: addressing obduracy, uncertainty and

complexity in urban planning and design. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(2), pp.148-165.

Ellin, N., 2000. Participatory Architecture on the Parisian Periphery: Lucien Kroll's Vignes Blanches. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(3), pp.178-183.

Evans, B., 1985. Lucien Kroll and the dilemma of participation. The Architectural Review.

Gibson, M.D. and Kendall, S., 2011. Architecture in the Fourth Dimension. Gierszon, M., 2014. Architect-activist. The socio-political attitude based on the works of Walter Segal. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 38(1), pp.54-62.

Groat, L.N. and Wang, D., 2013. Architectural research methods. John Wiley & Sons. Hao, P., Geertman, S., Hooimeijer, P. and Sliuzas, R., 2013. Spatial analyses of the

urban village development process in Shenzhen, China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), pp.2177-2197.

Harloe, M., 1996. Cities in the Transition. Cities after socialism, pp.1-29. Hertzberger, H., 2005. Lessons for students in architecture (Vol. 1). 010 Publishers. Hill, J., 2001. The use of architects. Urban Studies, 38(2), pp.351-365. John Habraken, N., 2008. Design for flexibility. Building Research & Information, 36(3), pp.290-296.

Jones, P.B., 1987. ‘Society has suffered long enough from finished architecture: buildings must be allowed to grow and change’. The Architectural Review.

Jones, P.B., Petrescu, D. and Till, J. eds., 2005. Architecture and participation. Taylor & Francis.

Kemeny, J., 2013. Housing and social theory. Routledge. Lancione, M., 2020. Radical housing: on the politics of dwelling as difference. International Journal of Housing Policy, 20(2), pp.273-289.

Lee, J., 2000. From welfare housing to home ownership: the dilemma of China's housing reform. Housing Studies, 15(1), pp.61-76.

Lee, J.J., 2016. Kowloon Walled City Revisited: Photography and Postcoloniality in the City of Darkness. The Trans-Asia Photography Review, 6(2).

Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Li, L.H., Lin, J., Li, X. and Wu, F., 2014. Redevelopment of urban village in China–A

step towards an effective urban policy? A case study of Liede village in Guangzhou. Habitat International, 43, pp.299-308.

Li, S.M., Zhu, Y. and Li, L., 2012. Neighborhood type, gatedness, and residential experiences in Chinese cities: A study of Guangzhou. Urban geography, 33(2), pp.237-255.

Liu, R. and Wong, T.C., 2018. Urban village redevelopment in Beijing: The statedominated formalization of informal housing. Cities, 72, pp.160-172.

Liu, Y., He, S., Wu, F. and Webster, C., 2010. Urban villages under China's rapid urbanization: Unregulated assets and transitional neighbourhoods. Habitat International, 34(2), pp.135-144.

Lloyd, M.G., Peel, D. and Janssen-Jansen, L.B., 2015. Self-build in the UK and

Netherlands: mainstreaming self-development to address housing shortages?. Urban, planning and transport research, 3(1), pp.19-31.

Ma, L.J. and Wu, F., 2004. Restructuring the Chinese city: Changing society, economy and space. Routledge.

Maxwell, D.K., 2004. Gated communities: selling the good life. Dalhousie University. McLeod, M., 1997. Henri Lefebvre’s critique of everyday life: An introduction. Architecture of the Everyday, pp.9-29.

Murray, C., 2004. Rethinking neighbourhoods: From urban villages to cultural hubs. City of quarters: Urban villages in the contemporary city, pp.191-205.

Nederhand, J., Bekkers, V. and Voorberg, W., 2016. Self-Organization and the Role of Government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy?. Public Management Review, 18(7), pp.1063-1084.

Park, R.E., 1915. The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. American journal of sociology, 20(5), pp.577-612. 98

Poletti, R., 2010. Lucien Kroll: Utopia interrupted. Pow, C.-P., 2009. Gated communities in China class, privilege and the moral politics of the good life, London ; New York: Routledge.

Qiu, X., 2020. China 40 Years Infrastructure Construction. Springer. Roberts, P. and Sykes, H. eds., 1999. Urban regeneration: a handbook. Sage. Roberts, P., Sykes, H. and Granger, R., 2016. 16 Current Challenges and Future Prospects. Urban Regeneration, 1473906172, p.314.

Rossi, A. and Eisenman, P., 1982. The architecture of the city (p. 130). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Schneider, T. and Till, J., 2005. Flexible housing: opportunities and limits. Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(2), pp.157-166.

Schoenwitz, M., Naim, M. and Potter, A., 2012. The nature of choice in mass

customized house building. Construction management and economics, 30(3), pp.203219.

Sennett, R., 2018. Building and dwelling: ethics for the city. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sinn, E., 1987. Kowloon Walled City: Its origin and early history. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp.30-45.

Turner, J.F.C. and Fichter, R., 1972. Freedom to build: dweller control of the housing process. Macmillan Company; Collier-Macmillan Lim.

Turner, J.F.C., 1976. Housing by people: towards autonomy in building environments, London: Marion Boyars.

Urban Villages Forum and Shostak, L., 1998. Making places: A guide to good practice in undertaking mixed development schemes.

Urban Villages Forum, Aldous, T., Lunts, D. and Greenleaf, N., 1997. Urban villages:

A concept for creating mixed-use urban developments on a sustainable scale. Urban Villages Forum.

Wang, Y. and Murie, A., 1998. Housing policy and practice in China. Springer. Wang, Y.P. and Murie, A., 1999. Commercial housing development in urban China. Urban studies, 36(9), pp.1475-1494.

Ward, C., 1976. Housing: an anarchist approach. Freedom Press. Ward, C., 1985. When We Build Again: Let's Have Housing that Works!. Pluto Press. Wesley-Smith, P., 1998. Unequal treaty, 1898-1997: China, Great Britain, and Hong Kong's New Territories Rev., Hong Kong; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wu, F. and Pow, C.P., 2010. Reviews: Gated Communities in China: Class, Privilege and the Moral Politics of the Good Life, Developing China: Land, Politics and Social Conditions (Vol. 42, No. 7, pp. 1762-1765). Sage UK: London, England: SAGE Publications.

Xue, J., 2014. Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth society? An urban planner's perspective. Ecological economics, 105, pp.130-138.

Yang, S. and van Oostrum, M., 2020. The self-governing redevelopment approach of Maquanying: Incremental socio-spatial transformation in one of Beijing's urban villages. Habitat International, 104, p.102235.

Zhang, L.S.X.B., Zhao, S.X. and Tian, J.P., 2003. Self‐help in housing and

chengzhongcun in China's urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), pp.912-937.

Zhou, J. and Ronald, R., 2017. Housing and welfare regimes: Examining the changing role of public housing in China. Housing, Theory and Society, 34(3), pp.253-276.

Zhou, M. and Logan, J.R., 1996. Market transition and the commodification of housing in urban China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20(3), pp.400421.

Zhou, Y., and Li, J., 2020. The Development of China's Apartment House Design Since 1949. Time Architecture, pp.53-57

Zhou, Z., 2014. Towards collaborative approach? Investigating the regeneration of urban village in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International, 44, pp.297-305.

100

101