Building Heritage: Using Heritage to Make Space with Migrants in A Chinese Urban Village by Melanie Miao

BUILDING HERITAGE: USING HERITAGE TO MAKE SPACE WITH MIGRANTS IN A CHINESE URBAN VILLAGE

Melanie (Ran) Miao Wolfson College 17 March 2017 Essay 4: Project Implementation An essay submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil examination in Architecture and Urban Design (2015-2017) 5,438 words

Figure 1: Cover Image showing abandoned shrine (site 5) in Xiaozhou Village

Figure 2: site five 1:100 elevation @ A2 Masonry and Floors Fissure Bulging, peeling Disjoint Soil Surface changes (disintegration, denting, corrosion) Tearing Shattered, missing elements Congestion Humidification (wall foundation, wall head) Salt infiltration Black stains Coatings Traces of painting Traces of graffitti/posters Windows Missing windows/doors Replaced windows/doors Slightly damaged windows/doors Heavily damaged windows/doors Roof Shattered, missing elements Plants 2

abandoned village shrine

cramped rental blocks

Abbreviations CMPB FRPRC GAHA Jiazong VEC

Guangzhou City Haizhu District Culture, Media and Publications Bureau Guangzhou Faze Public Research Centre Guangzhou Architectural History Association Jiazong Family Services Village Economic Commune

Abstract This essay outlines an implementation strategy for pursuing and realising a project that negotiates built heritage and migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public space amidst the informal and self-build characteristics of an urban village in Guangzhou. The proposed framework questions the validity of planning and strict control through analysis and understanding of the political, social and economic conditions at the local scale. The strategy highlights the multiplicity of roles and the importance of using built heritage to balance conflicing interests between project actors. This essay is also a result of my fieldwork period over a period of three months in Guangzhou.

The complexities and opportunities inherent in urban heritage are elucidated through six chapters: (1) critique of the lack of planning in the urban village and the exclusion of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; social needs (2) critique of Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Plan and the endurance of agency (3) analysis of building heritage craftsmanship and the deficiency in skills (4) a suggested integrated project team for realising the project (5) a suggested relationship with communities through frameworking instead of control (6) a suggested funding structure based on case studies This framework deals with the involvement of two opposing forces of historical building conservation and urbanisation in terms of migrants.

Contents 1. Abstract 2. Site Background 3. Project Summary and Aims 4. Planning Policy

a. Political Structure and Lack of Provision of Public Facilities in Urban Villages

b. Planning Policy and Implementation

c. Growth of the Heritage Industry and the Lack of Skilled Heritage Craftsmen

5. Project Team Structure 6. Project Implementation: Relationship with Community 7. Different Funding Models 8. Conclusion

Guangdong

Pearl River Delta

Guangzhou City

(left) Figure 3: Location of Guangzhou City

City Municipality: Guangzhou District: Haizhu Street: Yingzhou Village: Xiaozhou Total village area: 4.5km2 Village residential area: 0.65km2 Total village population: 23,000 Villager population, registered: 6500 Migrant population: approximately 16,500 Total number of buildings: approximately 3600 Number of rental apartment units: approximately 17,000 units (30-50m2/unit) Site coverage: approximately 60% Building height: 8-30 metres (1-8 stories) Public programmes: Health Clinic, Yingzhou Primary School, 2 kindergartens, Market, Basketball ring Above information obtained from Xiaozhou Village Economic Commune.

Figure 5: Xiaozhou Street Current Situation Analysis street alleyway green piazza residential building public building water key planning zone 7 (left) Figure 4: Planning map of Haizhu District

(left) Figure 6: Diagram showing 5 sites across site

Project Summary and Aim phase 4: community centre

phase 3: primary school

phase 2: kindergarten

This project is a series of schools for migrants in Xiaozhou Village, Guangzhou, a traditional rural area turned urban village in the South of China. The project is part of a larger research project on using heritage to empower migrants in the urban village. The series of schools is a phased project, beginning as training sites for migrants to learn traditional building crafts, then construction sites to practice building crafts through building schools for migrant children, then schools that could be vertically expandable to serve future public needs of migrants and also function as building craft guilds. The immediate aim of the project is for migrants to obtain the much needed kindergarten and primary school education for their children. The intermediate aim is for migrants to obtain valuable traditional building construction skills and improve their standard of living.

phase 1: gallery and construction school

The long-term aim of the project is to enable continuity of heritage from master builders and through the creation of building craft guilds, empower migrants in the urban village. In terms of the physical site, the project will take up five building sites spread across the urban village. Each of the site has an abandoned or empty vernacular building which would serve as the site for learning construction skills as well as physically, as part of a new school building for the immediate community.

Figure 7: Diagrammatic isometric of site 5 proposal

Phase

Funding source

Programme

Phase 1

Government

Phase 2 Phase 3 (speculative) Total Figure 8: Phasing table

Guild members Guild members

Construction school & gallery Kindergarten Total Primary school Community centre

No. of stories 1 2 3 2 3

Years to construct 0.5 1 1.5 3 5.5

Area per unit/m2 ~2500 ~1000 ~3500 ~2300 ~3000

~8800

(above) Figure 9: timber on site (above right) Figure 10: oyster shell on site (above right middle) Figure 11: tile on site (above right bottom) Figure 12: brick on site

Building craft using Timber Oyster shell/natural material Tile Bamboo Brick

Availability of highly skilled labour Critical scarcity (refer to chapter) Critical scarcity Lacking Lacking Uncommon

Each site will have a specific building craft. These five crafts selected are traditional building trades that are found in vernacular buildings in the urban village. The construction start date of these schools are not the same and they are prioritised according to the need of the construction skill (from interview with builders in 2016) . The rank of their priority is seen on the right. The project aims to create five building craft guilds based on these five materials.

Figure 13: Building craft table

Item

Programme

Construction school & gallery Phase 1 3 masters 6 apprentices gallery open to public

Reception Gallery space Building raw material storage space Workshop space Office space WCs Family space Administration Multipurpose spaces Group rooms Sleeping space Exercise space Kitchen Staff room Laundry/utilities room Refuse space Mechanical services Store WCs and Changing rooms Covered open area Classroom Multipurpose playground/assembly hall Library Staff room Dining Kitchen Utilities room Refuse space Mechanical services Store WCs and Changing rooms Workshop spaces Learning spaces Storage space Office space Committee rooms Library Exhibition space Theatre/lecture hall Sports hall Clinic

Kindergarten Phase 1 50 children 8 weeks to 6 years in 4 groups 8 staff opening hours 6-6

Primary School 100 children 6 years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 12 years in 4 groups 18 staff opening hours 6-6

Community Centre/Guildhall Open to community

No. of units 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Area per unit/m2 30 500 500 500 50 10 50 30 40 20 20 40 20 20 20 10 20 10 20 300 50 800 500 40 60 40 20 10 20 10 40 100 50 20 40 30 300 300 500 500 100

Figure 14: Schedule of accommodation

Planning Policy

Figure 15: Growth of Guangzhou City, pink = Xiaozhou

Political Structure and Lack of Provision of Public Facilities in Urban Villages Xiaozhou Village is an urban village in Guangzhou. This type of area ‘urban village’ is a phenomenon found frequently in Chinese cities, especially in southern ones like Guangzhou (Lin, Meulder, and Wang 2011). Due to rapid urbanisation starting in the 1980s, rural villages in Guangzhou are increasingly being engulfed by urban developments. The results are called ‘urban villages’ and these areas form a strong contrast to the controlled and heavily masterplanned urban fabric. An ‘urban village’ is an informal, unplanned and highly-dense conglomeration of apartment blocks which are mostly occupied by migrants from other rural areas in the country (Lin, Meulder, and Wang 2011; Wang & Liu et al, 2016). Some academics have likened urban villages in Chinese cities to slums and favelas of other non-Western countries due to their self-governing, informal and selfbuilt method of urbanism (Huang, 2015; Webster and Wu et al, 2016; Zhang and Zhao et al, 2003).

1800

1923

1954

1980

1995

2000

Figure 16: Photo of Xian Village

Figure 17: Photo of Shipai Village

The lack of planning is a result of the lack of representation of migrants in the governance of urban villages. Xiaozhou Village began as a rural village in around 13th century (Sha, 2002) and has since grown into a tightly knit community, with the villagers being related mainly through blood ties (Sha, 2002). 90% of its villagers sharing the same surname of Jian (Sha, 2002) and they are all members of ‘Xiaozhou Economic Commune’ which is a collective body governing all aspects of the village (Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Huazhou Street, 2016). This governing body of the village is formed through regular elections by the adult members of the urban village (elections was held during the period that I was there) and it worked quite effectively as the needs of the rural community is understood and represented directly by the board. However, as the rural village becomes an urban village, the new migrants and their needs are no longer represented by the governing body. There is no incentive for the village commune to take on the infrastructural needs of migrants. As a collective that puts the interests of villagers before anything else, it has fulfilled its role in enabling individual villagers to obtain the most financial gain through renting out apartment blocks to migrants (Zhang, 2014; Liao, 2017). Taking money from their own pocket to cover the social needs of migrants are not in the villagers’ agenda, especially when migrants are viewed as ‘outsiders’ by villagers (as multiple villagers said during interviews). 75% of Xiaozhou’s population is made of migrants. However, there is little public facilities for these 16,500 people. One of the basic needs that is missing in the urban village is the provision of education for migrants’ children. There are currently 2 kindergartens and 1 primary school in Xiaozhou Village. However, the

schools are already overwhelmed, with one kindergarten charging more than half of a typical migrant’s monthly pay and having 200 children and only 3 teachers (interview with kindergarten). The number of spaces to enter into Yingzhou Primary School, a public school, is limited and to be eligible, the migrant needs to provide employment documents, amongst others (Guangzhou Haizhu Yingzhou Primary School, 2014), which are very often difficult to obtain, given that more than half of migrants are not formal employees of companies (Yao, 2008, interviews with migrants). The situation in Yingzhou Primary School is generally similar to the city-wide situation where the percentage of students in a primary school who have non-Guangzhou Hukou (household registration) is at around 8% (Liang 2013). This is a commonly understood problem in Guangzhou, where the supply of places in kindergarten and primary school are far below demand (Li 2014; Guangzhou Municipality Education Research Institute, 2013), with an increase of 18,000 primary-school aged migrant children needing education places in Guangzhou each year (Li 2014). The number of education spaces that are required in urban village can be easily found through initial consultations with migrant population in Xiaozhou Village. In interviews with the residents, I have found that there is a strong desire for kindergarten and primary school facilities in the urban village, as most of the families with young children have to send their child back home to their hometown in the countryside to be taken care of by their grandparents due to the lack of a place in public schools or the high cost of private schools. The proposed school aims to create educational spaces for migrant children aged 3 months to 12 years old. These are the years when there is a strong need for parent-child bonding as well as a wide range of stimulus for healthy child development. The proposed school aim at providing educational facilities and learning spaces for these migrant children as well as public spaces in the urban village for their parents and the wider urban village community to gather.

18 Figure 18: Photo of Xiaozhou Village

Figure 19: Xiaozhou Conservation Zoning Plan historic architecture protection zone historic architecture construction control zone boundary historic cultural protection zone protection boundary historic cultural protection zone construction control area historic cultural protection zone boundary (purple line) historic cultural protection zone landscape reconciliation zone water

Planning Policy and Implementation Xiaozhou Village, due to its history as a 800 yearsold rural village, has created a vernacular landscape that comprises of shrines, temples and rivers and bridges. As urbanisation expands and Xiaozhou continuously demolish its traditional buildings, planning authorities and the general public have become increasingly concerned about the state of the cultural heritage (Chen, 2004; Chen 2005, GPZI, 2008). As a result, in 2008, Xiaozhou was listed as one of the first batch of ‘National Grade Eco-Village’ and was designated as province ‘Unique Tourism Village’ (Haizhu District, 2008). A conservation plan was produced by the Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute (GZPI) to arrest the uncontrolled development of Xiaozhou Village in accordance to a number of new national, province and city level heritage laws (refer to list of law). The planning document is based on the ethos ‘protect and make use, make use and develop’ (GPZI, 2008) and aims to protect the appearance of Xiaozhou Village and develop the tourism industry (GPZI, 2008). The area was divided into three zones: historic cultural protection zone, construction control zone and environment reconciliation zone.

Figure 20: Photo of plaque for ‘Guangdong Province Historic Village’ Figure 21: Photo of plaque for ‘National Grade Eco-Village’

The plot ratio is controlled at 1.8 with a density of less than 30% and green space more than 30%. The heights of the buildings were controlled at 2 stories and no construction is to be made unless it is a public facility (GPZI, 2008). And the control on the physical environment is stated in the documents.

Figure 22: Xiaozhou Architectural Protection and Regeneration Planning Map restoration building repair building improve building preserve building total repair building demolish building water historic cultural protection area protection boundary (purple line) historic cultural protection area construction control area boundary

Figure 23: Planning and design for restoration of Jian Main Shrine

From 2008 to 2013, there was no implementation of the plan aside from four buildings which were repaired and restored by the city municipality with its allocated funds for heritage conservation (from interview with Xiaozhou VEC).

Figure 24: Rendering of Jian Main Shrine design

Figure 25: Jian Main Shrine in 2004

Figure 26: Jian Main Shrine in 2017

Figure 27: Temple reconstruction plan

The restoration of these buildings take on the following process: 1. Guangzhou City Haizhu District Cultural, Media and Publications Bureau (CMPB) to reach agreement with VEC 2. CMPB to commission restoration design and construction plans by in-house architecture design department 3. CMPB to put up notices in village regarding restoration plan 4. CMPB to set construction cost based on Guangdong Province Building and Restoration Construction General Pricing Guidelines in place in 2012 (refer to appendix) 5. CMPB to begin public tendering processes 6. Contractor assigned 7. Building restored (top left) Figure 28: Temple in 2008 (top right) Figure 29: Temple in 2016 (bottom) Figure 30: Planning notice for public

Figure 31: Niangma bridge 2008 Figure 32: Niangma bridge 2016

However, the execution of this planning document has been, to a large extent, unsuccessful. We need to look at the failure of municipal planning in the context of the legal ownership of the land. Historically, the rural land has always been owned by the village collective commune and is recognised by national, provincial and city level law (refer to list of laws). That ownership is then subdivided into the hands of individual villagers who each own a small plot of land, averaging 200m2 to build their residential houses. Shrines, temples and other public buildings are owned by the collective as a whole. Villagers have, over the centuries of agricultural activities and living on the land, formed a strong dependency on land and on the ability to use and adapt it for their changing purposes. The reason that the planning failed in this case is because it unrealistically forbade any individual construction actions by the villagers. Planning was met with strong resistance from villagers because (1) villagers have a long tradition of selfbuilding (interview with villagers) and adapting in their individual plot of land and (2) land is their only money-earning asset after their agricultural lands have been expropriated by the government in 2008 (Ma, 2014; Xin Kuai Newspaper, 2013).

As a result, after the laws have been issued in 2008, villagers fought to quickly demolish their traditional house and occupy the land with a new building so to avoid their traditional building being listed and ensure the choice and flexibility in the future to develop their plot (Huang 2013; Ma, 2014). There have been multiple times over the decade when city authorities went into the village to demolish villagersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; new buildings (Huang 2013; Guangzhou Daily Newspaper, 2013), but the villagers have just continued to build as construction was at a scale and speed that was unstoppable (Huang 2013; Guangzhou Daily Newspaper, 2013). At the same time, the villagers were able to use their individual share of compensation from the compulsory land purchase to build tall apartment blocks, in hope to find another way of making living through renting to an increasing number of migrants (Huang 2013). In the eyes of the villagers, this was the only way to feed themselves, as agriculture was taken away from them during the compulsory purchase (Huang 2013).

(left) Figure 33: Street in 2008 (right) Figure 34: Same street in 2016

In 2013, a different planning policy was introduced through listing individual buildings as ‘immovable relics’ (CMPB, 2013). These buildings are mainly collectively-owned (CMPB, 2013) and contested in terms of their future use, resulting in more hesitance over their demolition (interviews with villagers). Therefore, these buildings did not participate in the demolition spree in the couple of years following 2008. Listing was a beneficiary, not the cause of their non-demolition. However, since 2014, the demolition of these listed buildings has been halted by the listing. The owner of a privatelyowned, listed, oyster-shell house did not demolish his building due to the fear of legal action taken against him (interview with villagers). The targeted audience of the ‘Cultural Relics Protection Law and Regulations’ has been shifted from the entire village to singled out individual owners who are much less likely to resist law. In terms of the collectively-owned buildings, there is no guarantee that they will be permanently protected. However, the increased amount of government investment in renovating these buildings have increased their value and their demolition is less likely.

Number of listed ‘immovable relics’: 21 Number of traditional brick buildings: approximately 180 Number of traditional bridges: 18 Number of historic trees (more than 100 years old): 6 Information from CMPB, 2013

Growth of the Heritage Industry and the Lack of Skilled Heritage Craftsmen The listing of buildings in Xiaozhou is part of a larger state-wide effort to place more importance in cultural heritage, especially in built heritage (Winter and Daly, 2012). There is an increasing number of ‘immovable relics’ buildings listed in the country and there has been more attention from both academia (Winter and Daly, 2012; Chu, 2012; Hu and Su et al, 2014), the public (Zhu, 2016) and nationalist efforts (HUL, 2014; Liu, 2017) to protect and sometimes to use heritage for purposes of education, tourism or cultural identity (Winter and Daly, 2012; HUL, 2014; Liu 2017). Most of these buildings require some degree of renovation or reconstruction. In Guangzhou alone, 92.7 percent of historic buildings have building safety issues require varying degrees of construction work (Xin Kuai Newspaper, 2015; Xin Kuai Newspaper, 2017). However, a significant problem is the lack of appropriate construction skills in traditional building crafts (Bi, 2016). This is most severe in timber woodworking (Bi, 2016). Most of these woodcraftsmen work in heritage conservation companies and the experienced masters are highly valued by the company (Bi, 2016). Craftsmen with good skills in Guangzhou are paid

significantly higher than a normal construction workers (Bi, 2016; Beijing Cultural Exchange Museum 2016), demonstrating the lack of supply and high demand for these skills. However, these masters are very frequently more than 50 years old and there are no heirs to their skills (Bi, 2016). One cause of this situation has been attributed to the city municipality’s wrongful pricing of labour and materials in heritage conservation projects (Xue, 2016), most of which are funded by the municipal government themselves (Li, 2016). This is not due to the lack of funds as only around 15% of the 60,000,000 RMB city municipality funds allocated solely for heritage conservation is successfully spent each year (Li, 2016; Beijing Cultural Exchange Museum 2016). This is more of a technical issue where prices are based on modern construction techniques, prices and labour costs (Li, 2016; Guangdong Province Housing and Urban and Rural Development Bureau 2012) which are significantly lower but there are no technical guidelines on pricing for heritage conservation works (Li, 2016; Beijing Cultural Exchange Museum 2016). Recently, a social organisation called Guangzhou Architectural Heritage Association

(GAHA) made of mainly academics in architectural heritage has been set up in 2016 to begin the processes of recording accurate pricing as well as leading negotiations with the city municipality (Xue, 2016; Guangzhou Federation of Social Organizations, 2016). This project hence responds to the need for traditional building crafts through creating a construction school for migrants. This school is run on the apprenticeship programme to ensure that tactical knowledge can be passed down from master to apprentices through the conservation works for the traditional building on site and the continued expansion using traditional building knowledge. The construction skills learnt are highly valuable and increases the salary of the migrant from a general construction worker to an apprentice and a master over the course of six years of training. This project will also form an alliance with GAHA to provide a physical anchor point for the transmission of building craft, during which the processes of heritage conservation (phase 1) could be recorded to create a practical guideline for the pricing of heritage materials, techniques and labour.

Xiaozhou Village Economic Commune (VEC) Local Land Owners

Guangzhou City Haizhu District Culture, Media and Publications Bureau (CMPB)

Jiazong Family Integrated Service Centre (Jiazong) Project Lead (Villager)

Project Sponsor

core team Guangzhou Architectural Heritage Association (GAHA)

Guangzhou Faze City and Public Research Centre (FCPRC)

Project Lead (Heritage)

Project Lead (Migrants)

Heritage Building Builder/ Contractor

Guangzhou Federation of Social Organisations.

Contractor

Project Sponsor

Traditional Building Craftsmen

Migrants from Xiaozhou Village

Master Builders

Local Residents

Migrants (construction workers) from Xiaozhou Village Apprentices & Local Residents

Figure 35: Integrated project team

Project Team Structure Project Lead: GAHA

Project Lead: FCPRC

The project team structure takes on that of an integrated strategy, comprising mainly of three non-governmental social organisations, Guangzhou Guangzhou Architectural Heritage Association (GAHA), Guangzhou Faze City and Public Research Centre (FCPRC) and Jiazong Family Integrated Service Centre (Jiazong). will lead the project in terms of heritage conservation and the latter in terms of migrant and their social needs.

GAHA is a social organisation created in 2016 that specialises in built heritage work. Specifically, as part of its aims, it aims for the continuity of craftsmanship in built heritage and creating a shared cultural value (Guangzhou Federation of Social Organizations, 2016). The secretary of the association has stated the importance of the ‘human dimension’ in heritage conservation and that the best protection for heritage is appropriate use (Zhu 2016).

Collaboration between an issue-specific social organisation (GAHA and FCPRC) and a local (Jiazong) one might be the most effective way forward for the project. Individual actions from any of these three organisations might prove to be insufficient as the GAHA and FCPRC have not previously engaged with Xiaozhou Village while Jiazong operates strictly on the ground with families and residents on solely events-based activities.

The association has since organised and conducted work including undertaking government commission and purchase services (Xue, 2016) and creating pricing guidelines for built heritage conservation and negotiating the city municipality (Guangzhou Federation of Social Organizations, 2016). The appropriateness of this organisation lies in that GAHA is comprised of academics who are already nationally recognised (Xue, 2016), have ability to negotiate with the municipality and could form the necessary trust between bottom-up craftsmanship training on the ground with top-down government supervision (Xue, 2016). It is also the first organisation in Guangzhou to be specifically looking at craftsmanship in building trade (Xue, 2016).

The project will be led secondarily by the FCPRC, who is a non-government organisation with an existing interest in migrant issues in the city of Guangzhou. The organisation is a registered NGO and specialises in Social Innovation and Development in China’s Urbanisation, focusing mainly on research, consultation and other service surrounding issues of urban charity and social governance (ForuMag, 2016). The organisation has secured public attention onto migrant issues, especially through the urban village university project (Urban Village Community University) in Sanyuanli, Guangzhou (Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website, 2015). Although defined to be a ‘Community University’, the new insertion in the urban village is a comprehensive school for migrant children as well as adults. This school started its operations in 2015 (. The focus and aims of FCPRC is greatly catered towards the needs of migrant communities (ForuMag, 2013). In the proposed project in Xiaozhou Village, detailed in this essay, FCPRC could act as a mindful client who is genuinely interested in the wellbeing of the community and has already a certain amount of experience in running schools in urban villages, for migrants and their children.

Figure 36: Jiazong Office during a voting

Project Lead: Jiazong Family Integrated Service Centre Jiazong is a community service centre that operates throughout Guangzhou (Zhou and Yin, 2015). Targeting needs of the community, it operates on the ground in neighbourhoods and provides services for families, elderlies, teenagers etc. Jiazong is a governmentbought social service and is operated by employed staff and general volunteers from the public and local institutions (Zhou and Yin, 2015). In Xiaozhou Village, Jiazong forms a presence through regularly held events such as creative art markets and festive celebrations and performances (from interviews and fieldwork). These events have a steady attendance amongst residents in the urban village and has successfully brought together different groups within Xiaozhou Village, including local shopkeepers, indigenous villagers, tourists and migrants, albeit through solely events-based activities (from interviews). Jiazong has shown interest to work closely with migrants in the Xiaozhou Village through its different programmes. In terms of heritage conservation, it has also attempted to roll out a scheme called ‘Beautiful Xiaozhou’ which encourages shop owners (and renters in this case) to take care of the public space in front of their shop (from interviews). Although this scheme, which lies outside of their event-based expertise, has not been successful, this is an indication that Jiazong has an interest in firstly the migrant community and secondly in the condition of the physical environment of the urban village.

Jiazong would play an important role in mediating between the project and the indigenous villagers. The district-wide organisation has an established presence in the urban village and is well received through various events organised with participation from villagers, NGOs and local shopkeepers in the village. Some villagers regularly visit the Jiazong office in Xiaozhou Village and the office has been converted into a space for the elderly community, consisting mainly of indigenous villagers, to gather. Jiazong has, to a certain degree, opened up the villagers to outside influence by building a bridge between villagers, general public (tourists and volunteers) and migrants through event-based initiatives (from interviews). Therefore, Jiazong has a strong advantage in terms of project operation as it forms a bridge between ‘outsiders’ like FCPRC and GAHA, government organisations and the concerned general public with indigenous villagers who are warier of external interference. This is particularly true in the urban village situation where there is a general lack of certainty for the future of the area and trust for the government, especially when these areas in the city are in a state of legal grey zone. Having a local anchor such as Jiazong enables villagers, who are also mainly elderly people, to work with people whom they are familiar with and be more open to the proposals of a trusted organisation within the urban village.

project team events

2017 Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

strategic definition

output: business report by: GAHA, FCPRC and Jiazong

consultation with village economic commune

output: written consent from village regarding right to restore and build new by: mainly Jiazong, with exchanges with GAHA and FCPRC

consultation with Haizhu District

output: production of new heritage planning document outlining strategies by: mainly GAHA, with exchanges with Jiazong and FCPRC

assemble project team including suitable master builders

output: project team structure flowchart, main roles and responsibilities outlined by: GAHA, FCPRC and Jiazong

identify funding revenues

output: financing plan; apply funding by: GAHA and FCPRC

confirm funding revenues output: funding received by: GAHA and FCPRC

site survey

output: site information report with photos, records and analysis by: GAHA (heritage buildings), FCPCR (migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs) and Jiazong (community needs)

design commissioned; develop project programme and design; community consultations

output: adaptable design approach based on traditional crafts; design and construction drawings of adaptablility and of initial building by: GAHA, FCPRC, master builder and commissioned architectural practice

community events

gallery opens to public

exhibition restaurants space opens open to to public public

gallery opens for hire

workshop and meeting spaces open for hire

theatre/ hall open for rental to public

community family space opens

community library opens

community kindergarten opens

community community exhibition centre opens space opens

community theatre/hall opens

community primary school opens

construction school opens, with 3 masters and hires 15 apprentices

new apprentices intake

apprentices gain 2 years experience

2018

theatre/hall opens to public

2019

construction

traditional contract with master builder output: construction school operational support; by: GAHA and master builder

2020

new apprentices intake apprentices gain four year experience

2021

2022

construction of kindergarten Family space Administration 2 Multipurpose spaces 2 Group rooms Sleeping space Exercise space Dining space Kitchen Staff room Laundry/utilities room Refuse space Mechanical services Store WCs and Changing rooms

Figure 37: Timeline of project

apprentics become masters

2023

2024

output: construction school operational support by: GAHAand master builder

output: building management, supply of teachers and staff for kindergarten and primary school by: master builder, FCPRC and Jiazong

Reception Gallery space Storage space Learning space Workshop space WCs

new apprentices intake

self-building school & community centre

building operations and management

convertion into construction school + gallery

new apprentices intake

self-running school & community centre output: strategic support from FCPRC by: building craft guilds and Jiazong

expansion into community centre/guildhall

New workshop spaces New learning spaces New storage spaces Offices Committee rooms Library Exhibition space Committee rooms

Theatre/main hall

construction of primary school New classrooms Multipurpose playground Library New classrooms New staff room Sports area Assembly hall New dining space New kitchen New WCs & changing rooms Meeting rooms and offices New service rooms

Project Implementation: Relationship with Community Villagers: Ownership and Conservation Rights to Traditional Buildings

Villagers: Aligning with the Project Aims of Building a Migrant School

Technically, the rights to historic buildings remain in the hands of villagers and the village commune. However, in reality, any restoration or reconstruction to the buildings are carried out by the government and villagers are unable to change their building (from interviews and observations during fieldwork). In this situation, it is very likely that villagers are agreeable to have their buildings conserved by the government as long as the ownership remain in their hands. In the proposal.

A part of village economic commune’s role in the urban village is that of the economic planner. Visions for the future of the urban village shifted across the years, beginning with the artists’ village in the early 2000s, the tourists’ village phase from 2005 to 2007 and the urban village starting from 2008 (from interviews). The commune is slowly, also reluctantly realising that the lack of planning control on the village has irrevocably altered the scenic rural landscape and that renting out apartments is currently the only method of generating income on the village land (from interviews).

In this case, parts of the project would need to respond to the social needs of the villagers. By making parts of the traditional building into an accessible gallery space open to the general public, villagers are able to still use the building when need arises. However, there is no apparent demand for further public space amongst villagers, especially when most of the second generation have moved into the city. Therefore, as long as the technical ownership of the traditional building on the ground floor remains with the villagers, villagers would benefit from the restoration and hence be agreeable to the government performing conservation works on the site.

If the proposed project could garner funding from the government, it would be seen as a ‘government-approved’ scheme providing social needs of young migrant families and potentially create a larger market for attracting migrant families into the village, securing economic gains.

In this way, a migrant school could well benefit individual villagers through filling out the rental apartments with long term occupiers. Currently in Xiaozhou Village, the percentage occupancy of rental apartments stand at around 70% and the average stay within a rental apartment is around 8 months (from interviews). The short-term nature of the lease is an indicator of the demographics within the urban village, which consists of around 50% young couples and 50% working age adult males (from interviews). Having a school dedicated to migrant children education in the centre of the urban village will act as an anchor to attract young families to move and settle in the village. Extending the average length of stay in the urban village will potentially also allow, in the long term, a more rooted migrant community in the village. The issue of master planning and need for regulations for the urban village is explored further in the next section.

Migrants

As I have mentioned before, migrants do not have a representative organisation in Xiaozhou Village. The absence of concrete policies that address migrants and their needs ranging from workplace insurance to education subsidy for their children are some of the starting points FCPRC and Jiazong. This type of organisations is only recently beginning to play a role in society through bridging the gap between migrants and governments and employing the combined efforts of academics and the general public to effect on-the-ground changes to migrant communities. The Sanyuanli Community University project, for example, is a solution-based initiative that acted as a method to directly deal with issues such as childcare and education rights based on research within the community. Having FCPRC as an expert in migrant issues and bringing Jiazong on board as the local correspondence will be the most effective team structure to implement the proposed project.

Public: Income-Generating Rentals

The project tries to create an initial system in place for the (1) training of heritage construction skills and (2) spatial relationship with built heritage so that migrants could appropriate the system of design and construction. The aim of the project is to create a situation where migrants, who will be able to improve their income over the years through gaining highly employable skills, could (1) settle down in the urban village as families and (2) continue to build public spaces for their future needs. This enables traditional craftsmanship to find continuity in the urban villages through migrants.

The project suggests that parts of the proposed building need to be leasable to the public as a way to generate income for the building. This might be gallery spaces, workshop spaces, commercial offices and meeting rooms. The income will be managed by the newly set-up (specific) building crafts association and be used towards maintenance and vertically extending the public building in the future. Each association will also be collecting membership fees from its members at an appropriate time in the future when salary reaches a certain level.

Project Implementation: Different Funding Models Funding for a New School for Migrants Income-Generating, Privately Funded

Non-Income-Generating, NGO Funded

The most common format for migrant schools follow this format. School fees ranges from 5000RMB to 10,000 RMB per year and being ran for-profit, these schools are ineligible for government subsidies.

There is a very limited number of nonincome-generating NGOs in the region and cases should be studied in isolation. A notable example within this category is the Urban Village College in Sanyuanli Community. Initiated by a NGO, Guangzhou Face City and Public Research Center, the College is a basically a rented apartment room in the urban village (Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website, 2015). The purpose of the programme is to create learning spaces for both migrants and their children and to assist in the integration of migrant into the local community through building positive social interactions. The project is non-profit and members of the College do not have to pay any fees to join their programmes (Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website, 2015).

An example of this type of school can be studied with the example of Yingzhou Kindergarten within Xiaozhou Village. Located on the main vehicular streets outside the core of the urban village, this kindergarten serves only migrant children and has a school fee of 1200 RMB per month which is more than a half of a normal migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s salary, making this option unrealistic.

The Sanyuanli Community University project was sponsored primarily through a Vibrant Community Fund (VCF) set up by the China Society Benefits Fund. VCF is a collaboration with Compassion for Migrant Children

(CMC) and supports programmes with the aim of providing social and education services to migrants and their children (Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website, 2015). The fund particularly operates through the building cultural activity centres in migrant communities. This particular school project also received 300,000RMB each in 2004 and 2015 in the 1st and 2nd Guangzhou Charity Venture programme organised by the Guangzhou Federation of Social Organisations. Together with 31,200RMB raised from crowd funding website under the same programme and donations from other sources, the project has altogether raised 770,000 RMB for the Sanyuanli Community University Project and ran it since 15th June 2015 (Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website, 2015). This funding model (through NGO and crowdfunding) could be replicated for the construction of a new school complex in Xiaozhou Village.

Funding Models for Heritage Building Conservation Village Commune or Villagers

Private Owners

Government

Other urban villages in Guangzhou have conserved their heritage building through individual donations. This includes Zhu, Shipai and Chepi for example. These are usually shrines or temples and funds are collected from willing villagers. Xiaozhou is uncommon

There are a few instances of private owners of single heritage buildings indirectly engaging in conservation work. This normally entail renting out these heritage buildings to shop owners or resident artists who would then conduct the conservation work themselves. Their actions might range from cosmetic maintenance of the building to surgical operations on the building such as extensions or piping work. However, this currently very rare in Xiaozhou Village and the renters are usually artists who have an affinity for traditional rural spaces and its serenity. This type of peace-seeking artists is also leaving Xiaozhou Villages as it turns more and more into an urban village, making this source of funding unattractive.

There is currently a large amount of government funding available for heritage conservation in Guangzhou (Li, 2016). As we have mentioned before, GAHA and the municipal government are actively working around the problem of heritage construction pricing (Xue, 2016). This project could even be an experimental pricing study to understand the traditional forms of construction and how it should be priced correctly and reasonably.

Appropriate Initial Funding Model As we can see from the examples here, it seems the most appropriate to apply for the funding for NGO-funded school and government funding for heritage projects. If the pricing could be worked out with the government, sufficient funding for heritage projects in an area that has already garnered a lot of attention over the years, is not going to be difficult.

Conclusion This essay has outlined an implementation strategy for pursuing and realising a project that negotiates built heritage and migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public space amidst the informal and self-build characteristics of an urban village in Guangzhou. The proposed framework questions the validity of planning and strict control through analysis and understanding of the political, social and economic conditions at the local scale. The strategy highlights the multiplicity of roles and the importance of using built heritage to balance conflicing interests between project actors.

The complexities and opportunities inherent in urban heritage have been elucidated through the previous six chapters: (1) critique of the lack of planning in the urban village and the exclusion of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; social needs (2) critique of Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Plan and the endurance of agency (3) analysis of building heritage craftsmanship and the deficiency in skills (4) a suggested integrated project team for realising the project (5) a suggested relationship with communities through frameworking instead of control (6) a suggested funding structure based on case studies This framework deals with the involvement of two opposing forces of historical building conservation and urbanisation in terms of migrants.

Bibliography Beijing Cultural Exchange Museum. ‘Historic Buildings Restoration Pricing Standard to Be Improved in Guangzhou’. Beijing Cultural Exchange Museum, 16 September 2016. http://bjmshop.com/wenboxiehui/20160916/114/ html. Bi, Xiaofang. ‘Research on the Construction of the Timber Framework of Northern Guangdong in Ming-Qing Dynasties’. Doctoral, South China University of Technology, 2016. Chen, Jiena. ‘Historic Oyster Shell Building in Danger, Haizhu District Creates Planning Protection’. South Daily Newspaper. 2 September 2004. http://www.southcn.com/news/dishi/ guangzhou/shehui/200409020164.htm. Chen, Qixi. ‘Half of Xiaozhou’s Relic Architecture Is Demolished’. 13 December 2005. http://news.sina.com.cn/ c/2005%AD12%AD13/08467694635s. shtml. China Vernacular Architecture Series. ‘Tang Long Door’. Accessed 16 March 2017. http://www.fotoe.com/publication/22451. Chu, Dong ’ai. ‘Restructuring of Festivals, Religion and Clan Traditions in Social Changes – Using Pearl Village’s Dragon Boat Festival as an Example.’ Guangxi Folk Studies 106, no. 4 (2011): 67–72. CMPB. Guangdong Province Guangzhou City Haizhu District ‘Immovable Relics’ List (2013). CMPB. Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Zone Protection Law

(2008). Du, Huimin, Si-ming Li, and Pu Hao. ‘“Anyway, You Are an Outsider”: Temporary Migrants in Urban China’. Urban Studies, 14 February 2017, 0042098017691464. doi:10.1177/0042098017691464. ForuMag. ‘Launch Ceremony and Council Meeting of FAZE UWI’. China-Europa Forum, November 2013. https://www.china-europa-forum.net/ IMG/pdf/cef_newsletter_nov._2013_ no.6_.pdf. Friedman, Eli. ‘Just-in-Time Urbanization? Managing Migration, Citizenship, and Schooling in the Chinese City’. Critical Sociology, 1 February 2017, 0896920517695867. doi:10.1177/0896920517695867. GPZI. ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. Gruber, Stefan. ‘Protecting China’s Cultural Heritage Sites in Times of Rapid Change: Current Developments, Practice and Law.’ Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 10, no. 3 (2007): 253–301. Guangdong Huanan Economic Decelopment Research Institute. ‘2014-2014 Guangzhou Municipality Cultural Relics Protection Fund, External Results Report’. External Report. Accessed 9 March 2017. http://www.gzfinance.gov. cn/gzczw/tzgg/201701/9e43598bd57b4 197a9f0e1edabdc5150/files/97e914afa9 62486aae555dd7ccc26dc4.pdf.

Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website. ‘Guangzhou City Second Social Organisation Charity Investment Project: Migrants’ Community Integration Experiment Project “Sanyuanli University” Officially Starts’. Guangzhou City Social Organisation Information Website, 16 June 2015. http://gznpo.gzmz.gov.cn/xwzx/InfoContent/10865/68130.html. Guangzhou Daily Newspaper. ‘Xiaozhou Becomes a Construction Site’. Guangzhou Daily Newspaper. 2013. Guangzhou Department of Culture and Media. Guangzhou City Cultural Relics Protection Regulation. Accessed 9 March 2017. http://www.hp.gov. cn/hp18/0201/201505/a3ad7e2ca6ff424ba3b2034430acf8e2.shtml. Guangzhou Federation of Social Organizations. ‘Guangzhou Federation of Social Organizations Interviews Guangzhou Built Heritage Protection Association’. Guangzhou Federation of Social Organizations, 12 August 2016. http://www.gzfso.org.cn/html/news/ events/0Q2O42016.html. Guangzhou Haizhu Yingzhou Primary School. ‘Haizhu Primary Schools Entrance Guide’. Government website. Guangzhou Haizhu Yingzhou Primary School, 2015. http://www. hzyzedu.net/Article/ShowArticle. asp?ArticleID=242. Guangzhou Municipality Education Research Institute. 2013 Guangzhou Education Development Monitor. Guangzhou, China: Guangdong Technology Publisher, 2013.

Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Huazhou Street. ‘Huazhou Street Information’. Government website. Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Huazhou Street, 8 June 2016. http://www.haizhu.gov.cn/site/hzj/ hzfm/jj/201107/t20110704_127053. html. Haizhu District. ‘Haizhu District 2008 Population Economic and Social Development Report’. Government Report, 2008. http://www.gzstats.gov.cn/ tjgb/qxtjgb/200904/t20090409_439. html. Huang, Shaohong. ‘Guangzhou Haizhu Police Demolishes 14 Illegal Buildings in Xiaozhou Village’. South Daily Newspaper. 2013. HUL. ‘Linong Study, Hongkou Creek’. HUL, 2014. http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/ download/2014/7/21/cd0rawb4aqzsdo8.pdf. HUL. ‘Pilot Cities in China’. The Historic Urban Landscape, 2014. http:// www.historicurbanlandscape.com/index.php?classid=6043&id=40&t=show. Li, Chuanyong, and Tian Li. ‘Population Migrantion in the History of China’. Journal of Photophy and Social Sciences 5, no. 3 (1997): 13–18. Li, Jing. ‘Guangzhou Has 600,000,000 RMB Funds for Cultural Heritage, Why Can’t It Spend?’, 27 May 2016. http:// ycp.ycwb.com/ycpFront/content/ news_help/2016052709320010657. html. Li, Lingling. ‘Urban Villages as Spaces

of Cultural Identity: Urban Migrant Writers in the Pearl River Delta’. International Journal of China Studies 4, no. 2 (August 2013): 189–212. Li, Qinggang. ‘Guangzhou Accompanied Migrant Children Compulsory Education Policy Study’. Urban Insight 3 (2014): 65–70. Liang, Yanyan. ‘Guangzhou Province School Admissions at 8% Quota for Non-Guangzhou Hukou Migrants’. Newspaper. Xinlang Education, 2013. http://edu.sina.com.cn/zhongkao/2013-12-11/1534403763.shtml. Liao, Qianwen. ‘Xiaozhou Village in Turmoil’. Guangzhou Daily Newspaper. 2017. http://news.163.com/15/0804/05/ B05CJOH500014AED.html. Lin, Yanliu, Bruno de Meulder, and Shifu Wang. ‘Understanding the “Village in the City” in Guangzhou: Economic Integration and Development Issue and Their Implications for the Urban Migrant’. Urban Studies 48, no. 16 (2011): 3583–98. Liu, Huaiyu. ‘Guangzhou Announces 2017 Urban Regeneration Projects and Financing Plans’. South Website. 8 February 2017. http://kb.southcn. com/content/2017-02/08/content_164859960.htm. Liu, Yuqi, Fulong Wu, Ye Liu, and Zhigang Li. ‘Changing Neighbourhood Cohesion under the Impact of Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China’. Urban Geography 38, no. 2 (7 February 2017): 266–90. do i:10.1080/02723638.2016.1152842.

Liu, Yuqi, Fangzhu Zhang, Fulong Wu, Ye Liu, and Zhigang Li. ‘The Subjective Wellbeing of Migrants in Guangzhou, China: The Impacts of the Social and Physical Environment’. Cities 60, Part A (February 2017): 333–42. doi:10.1016/j. cities.2016.10.008. Ma, Xueguang. Study on Spatial Production and Land Use Conflicts in Urban-Rural Fringe. Beijing: Peking University, 2014. People`s Government of Guangzhou Municipality. ‘5 Years 3 Billion Cultural Relics to Be Repaired’. People`s Government of Guangzhou Municipality, 10 September 2014. http://www.gz.gov. cn/2016cwhy/zdgz/201409/95c7a1994 8644945a0df50d7cc457b0c.shtml. Sha, Wenzhong. Xiaozhou Village History. Guangzhou: Guangzhou Publishing, 2004. Silverman, Helaine, and Tami Blumenfield. ‘Cultural Heritage Politics in China: An Introduction’. In Cultural Heritage Politics in China, edited by Tami Blumenfield and Helaine Silverman. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2013. Siu, Helen F. ‘Grounding Displacement: Uncivil Urban Spaces in Postreform South China’. American Ethnologist 34, no. 2 (2007): 329–50. Taylor, Bill. ‘Migrant Workers in China’ 16, no. 5 (2017). http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2895570. Tong, Mingkang. ‘Cultural Heritage Conservation in China’. Conservation Perspectives, 2016, Spring

edition. http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/ newsletters/31_1/practices_achievements.html. Wan, Yu, and Minyi Guo. ‘Xiaozhou Village to Restore 3 Cultural Relic Architecture, 3,000,000RMB Budget, Call for Tender’. Xinxi Shi Newspaper. 12 August 2014. http://gd.qq. com/a/20140812/052356.htm. Wang, David. Urban Villages in the New China: Case of Shenzhen. New York, USA: Springer Nature, 2016. https://www.amazon.co.uk/UrbanVillages-New-China-Shenzhen-ebook/ dp/B01M72Y76M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF 8&qid=1489237518&sr=8-1&keyword s=Urban+Villages+in+the+New+Chin a%3A+Case+of+Shenzhen. Wang, Xun. ‘China North-South Han Race Clan Settlement Differences and Reasons’. Research on Financial and Economic Issues 288, no. 11 (November 2007): 20–30. Wang, Yanfei, Yansui Liu, Yuheng Li, and Tingting Li. ‘The Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Urban-Rural Development Transformation in China since 1990’. Habitat International 53 (2016): 178– 87. Winter, Tim. ‘Beyond Eurocentrism? Heritage Conservation and the Politics of Difference’. International Journal of Heritage Studies 20, no. 2 (17 February 2014): 123–37. doi:10.1080/13527258.2 012.736403. Winter, Tim, and Patrick Daly. ‘Heritage in Asia : Converging Forces, Conflicting Value’. In Routledge Handbook

of Heritage in Asia, edited by Tim Winter and Patrick Daly, 1–35. Abingdon, England: Taylor & Francis, 2012. Wood, Gordon, S. The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History. Reprint. USA: Penguin Books, n.d. Xin Kuai Newspaper. ‘Guangzhou’s Historic Architecture, Only 7.6% Does Not Have Building Safety Issues’. Sina Newspaper, 24 November 2015. http:// news.sina.com.cn/c/nd/2015-11-24/ doc-ifxkxfvn8982035.shtml. Xin Kuai Newspaper. ‘New Old Buildings Structurally Dangerous, How Can Guangzhou’s Historic Urban Street Areas Micro-Regenerate?’ Xin Kuai Newspaper. 27 February 2017. http://www. planning.org.cn/news/view?id=6102.

Zhang, Le. ‘Commercial Renovation Strategies of the Traditional Residence in Xiaozhou Village, Guangzhou’. Masters Dissertation, South China University of Technology, 2014. Zhang, Lin, Simon Zhao, and Jueping Tian. ‘Self-Help in Housing and Chengzhongcun in China’s Urbanization.’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 4 (2003): 912–37. Zhou, Cong, and Rui Yin. ‘Guangzhou Government Spent 330,000,000 RMB to Buy Jiazong Services’. China Development Brief. 6 September 2015. http:// www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/ news-17961.html.

Xin Kuai Newspaper. ‘Xiaozhou Village Fights to Build’. Xin Kuai Newspaper. 2013.

Zhu, Qiuli. Academic Speaks about Guangzhou Built Heritage Protection and Reuse. Interview by Shuhong Zhang, 31 July 2016. http://www.duxuan.cn/doc/13974385.html.

Xue, Jianghua. ‘Creation of Guangzhou Built Heritage Protection Association’. China City Planning, 31 March 2016. http://www.planning.org.cn/news/ view?id=3982.

Weibo. ‘Historic Village: Guangdong’s Xiaozhou and Where Is It Heading?’ Weibo, 21 November 2016. http://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/ show?id=2309404044220959694953.

Yanzi, Wang. ‘Guangzhou Spends 20,000,000 RMB Each Year Repairing Privately-Owned Immovable Cultural Relics’. Jinyang Wang, 9 September 2014. http://news.ycwb. com/2014-09/09/content_7725602. htm. Yao, Huasong. ‘Guangzhou Migrant Population Characteristics and Spatial Differences Analysis’. Tropical Geography 28, no. 3 (2008): 259–64.

List of Laws on Heritage

List of Laws on Land Ownership and Migrants

•

Guangdong People’s Congress, ‘Guangdong Province Urban and Rural Planning Law’, 90 § (2013).

•

Guangdong People’s Congress, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Cultural Historic City Protection Regulation’ (2015).

Guangdong People’s Congress, ‘Guangdong Province Village Collective Economic Organisation Management Regulation’, 62 § (2016).

•

Guangdong Province Housing and Urban and Rural Development Bureau, ‘Guangdong Province Building and Restoration Construction General Pricing Guidelines’, 85 § (2012).

Guangzhou Municipality Migrant Service Management Bureau, ‘Guangdong Province Migrant Population Service Management Regulation’ (2003).

•

Guangzhou People’s Government, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Rural Commune Asset Exchange Management Regulation’, 119 § (2015).

•

National People’s Congress, ‘Republic of China Village Board Organisation Law’, 37 § (2010).

•

Guangzhou Municipality, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Historic Building and Historic Appearance Zone Protection Method’ (2014).

•

Guangzhou People’s Congress, ‘Guangzhou Historic Cultural City Protection Regulation’ (2015).

•

Haizhu District, ‘Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Zone Protection Law’ (2008).

•

National People’s Congress, ‘Republic of China Urban and Rural Planning Law’, 74 § (2007).

List of Figures 1. By author. 2. By author. 3. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 4. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 5. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 6. By author. 7. By author. 8. By author. 9. By author. 10. By author. 11. By author. 12. By author. 13. By author. 14. By author. 15. Growth of Guangzhou city, obtained from: Mou, Fengyun, Zhang, Zengxiang, Tan, Wen, Bing & Liu, Fu (2007). Guangzhou city’s spatial morphology and transformation analysis. Geo-Information Science, 9(5), 94-98 16. Obtained from: Sack, Peter (2012). Protests: ‘Great Greed Cannot Be Dealt with in One Day, Nor Will the Heart of Xian Village Villagers Die in One Day.’ Xian Village Blog. Available at: [https://xianvillage. wordpress.com/] 17. By author.

18. By author. 19. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 20. By author. 21. By author. 22. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 23. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 24. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 25. By author. 26. By author. 27. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. 28. China Vernacular Architecture Series, ‘Tang Long Door’, accessed 16 March 2017, http://www.fotoe. com/publication/22451. 29. By author. 30. From Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village

31.

32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37.

Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009. China Vernacular Architecture Series, ‘Tang Long Door’, accessed 16 March 2017, http://www.fotoe. com/publication/22451. By author. China Vernacular Architecture Series, ‘Tang Long Door’, accessed 16 March 2017, http://www.fotoe. com/publication/22451. By author. By author. By author. By author.

Appendix 1 Land ownership map Guangzhou showing government (dark grey) vs. villager (light grey) and Xiaozhou (red). Drawn from land ownership titles in Guangzhou.

Appendix 2 Urban core of Guangzhou and distribution of urban villages, Xiaozhou in red. Growth of Guangzhou city, obtained from: Mou, Fengyun, Zhang, Zengxiang, Tan, Wen, Bing & Liu, Fu (2007). Guangzhou cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spatial morphology and transformation analysis. Geo-Information Science, 9(5), 94-98

Appendix 3 Masterplan map showing ‘three districts, two axes and four points’. Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009.

Appendix 4 Urban core of Guangzhou and distribution of urban villages, Xiaozhou in red. Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, ‘Guangzhou Municipality Haizhu District Xiaozhou Village Historic Cultural Protection Area Protection Planning’, 2009.

55 Figure 38: back cover - abandoned shrine in Xiaozhou Village