Huajing Wen. Interfamily Living: Building A Community of Public Housing in China.

INTERFAMILY LIVING:

Building A Community of Public Housing in China

by Huajing Wen

Architectural Association School of Architecture Graduate School

INTERFAMILY LIVING:

Building A Community of Public Housing in China

Coversheet for Submission 2017-19 Programme: Term:

MPhil in Architecture and Urban Design Projective Citeis 2017-2019 5

Student Name: Submission Title:

Huajing Wen Interfamily Living: Building A Community of Public Housing in China

Course Title: Course Tutors:

Disseration Sam Jacoby, Platon Issaias, Hamed Khosravi, Mark Campbell

Submission Date:

24th May 2019

Declaration: "I certify that this piece of work is entirely my/our own and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged."

Signature of Student:

Date: 24.05.2019

Huajing Wen Taught Mphil in Architecture and Urban Design Projective Cities Programme Dissertation Architectural Association School of Architecture May 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my very great appreciation to my tutors, Dr. Sam Jacoby, Dr. Platon Issaias, Dr. Hamed Khosravi amd Dr. Mark Campbell for their patient guidance and help throughout the whole process of my dissertation as well as two-year study in Projective Cities.

I would also like to thank my parents who supported me throughout the way with their immense love.

I am also grateful for the supports and encouragement from my friends, Minglu Ma, Han Chen and Wenwen Wang, as well as from my colleagues at Projective Cities, especially Gianna Bottema, who offered enomorous help in the past two years.

To Yunhong Wen, who offered her help when I needed most without hesitation, and encouraged me to overcome the most difficult times.

At last, I would like to offer my special thanks to my cats, Haitai and Xiatiao, for their faithful companions in those long nights.

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT

Abstract Introduction

3 7

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living 1.1 Housing for Collective; Housing for Individual The Privatisation of Housing Fragemented City Housing for Individual 1.2 The Chinese Context: Public Housing for Whom?

Subjects of Public Housing The Typologies of Public Housing 1.3 A New Housing Typology: Interfamily Living The Idea of Co-housing What is Interfamily Living?

13 13 13 17 19 21 23 25 28 28 31

Chapter 2 Room, Unit and Module 2.1 Case Study Public Housing in Post-war London Longnan Garden: An Experimental Rental Housing Project 2.2 Design Proposal: Prototype Module for The Family Group Individual Unit: An Economical Space for Individual Living In-between Space: Additional Space for Interfamily Living The Scales of The Floor: Two Housing Types Negotiating Between Space

38 38 38 41 46 47 50 53 56 64

Chapter 3 Urban Community 3.1 The Transition of Urban Governance in China Urban Governance in Ancient China Communist Living in The City: The Work Unit Community as The New Urban Governance System 3.2 Public Service: Who is Responsible?

The Current Service Provision System Question: Should the State Take All The Responsibility?

Distributing The Facilities and Responsibility to Individuals 3.3 Design Proposal: The Urban Community The Scales of The Neighbourhood

69 70 70 71 72 75 75 77 79 81 81

Conclusion: Housing As An Instrument

101

Bibliography

104

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Public housing has become one of the major focus of the Chinese government since 2007. It becomes the solution to the housing shortage and city renewal throughout the country. While driven by housing market as well as efficient planning and construction, public housing is becoming a small version of commercial housing in terms of producing generic units and layouts, which not only fails to coordinate the on-going demographic change but also fails to improve the existing inefficient service provision system.

On the other hand, the ageing society brought by one-child policy raises problems around elderly care and upbringing of children. With the inefficient public service system at present, the changing demography points to the possibility of interfamily living, which is based on but goes beyond the extended family. By sharing particular living space where some public facilities are inserted with different groups of people, the daily activities of the residents are associated with a more hierarchical service provision system of a new housing typology.

This dissertation aims at providing a new typology of public housing that is based on interfamily living, to challenge the current way of single-family living and its relation to public service provision. It will also analyse the relationship between public housing and urban governance, to rethink how spatial elements can help to redefine residential relationship for better social cooperation. In this process, the role of public housing will also be challenged to become an instrument to build up a more efficient public service system.

3

4

5

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

In October 2015, the CommuniquĂŠ of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee announced that the state now recommended a couple to have two children. This announcement put an end to the one-child policy

since 1980. In the past 35 years, the constitution decreed that a couple in the city should only have one child. This policy was put forward as the solution for an unexpected high growth rate of the population, which led to huge pressure

on the limited social resource. Three decades later, the policy also accelerated the growth of an ageing society.

According to the population forecast by the State Council in 2017, the

population of people over 60 years old will reach up to 25% in 2030, whereas in 2013 the proportion was 13%. The ageing society will not only influence economic growth but also put pressure on the national welfare system in terms

of elderly care, especially when the single-child generation is becoming the

central workforce. Despite the abolishment of the one-child policy, the birth rate dropped by 3.5% in 2017. The low birth rate implies the worry of young couples having no financial capability as well as time to raise children, due to various reasons such as short maternity leave, job market competition, gender inequality, etc.

While the current welfare system in China is unable to deal with the massive

pressure of elderly care, traditional ethics require children to take care of their parents. Meanwhile, the parents are the only reliable carers for newly born

babies of young couples that both work full-time. This demographic change has resulted in changing household structures. As the proportion of emptynest and single family grows, there is also a tendency and particular needs of the return of an extended family.1 Studies show that the relationship between

Chinese Family Structure between Urban and Rural Area: On the Basis of the 2010 National Census Data.’ (Social Sciences in China, 2014)

7

6 Photograph of Lilong housing in the inner city of Shanghai

1. Wang Yuesheng, 2015. ‘An Analysis of Changes in

Photograph from above Hongkong

Introduction

China Country Assessment Report on Ageing and Health, by World Health Organisation, 2015

2. Song Jian, Huang Fei, 2011. ‘Intergenerational Relationship between Adult Only Child and their Parents.’ (Population Research, 05.2011)

parents and children of the single-child generation is much closer than multi-

children families, both economically and emotionally, and that they also more commonly live as extended families. This has led to the unique 4-2-1 or 4-22

Eldely Care of the old generation

2 household structure caused by ageing society and the lag of the one-child

policy, in which a young couple is responsible for taking care of 4 old people and one or two young children.

First Generation of Single Children

However, although with a long history, the traditional way of intergenerational

living is now challenged by a huge difference in lifestyle and social values between two generations. Conflicts and disagreements are inevitable in every

aspect of daily life, and both children and old parents are quite aware of

The 4-2-2 Household Structure

Upbringing

of typical Chinese Family in the

of the old

following decades

generation

the dilemma. More and more parents choose to live on their own to avoid

influencing young families, which leads to the growth of the empty-nest family.

However, there are risks. Many of them suffer from loneliness and degrees of

Reducing Family Size

physical disability.

With the problems of both elderly care and the raising of children becoming

a heavy burden on young families, relevant public services to provide welfare

support becomes a main concern of the state. However, on the one hand, the current community-based service provision system is still problematic in

terms of lacking standardisation and low efficiency. On the other hand, since

a community, which is an administrative unit in urban China, is based on

several neighbourhoods in which housing is the major component, housing

itself should also be considered as an essential element in the public service

provision system, which is not the case nowadays. On the contrary, most of

8

Composite family in the late 19th century

Nuclear family in work unit

Nuclear family after one-child policy

9

Introduction

the housing projects in China are market-driven and not part of the system.

an ageing society encourages a new housing typology to deal with changing

Even public housing tends to copy the same development models and

different generations and individual families, which leads to the possibility

typologies of market housing without considering the difficult situation of

existing service provision system. In the past 27 years, housing was treated more as a commodity by government, developers, contractors, planners

and even ordinary residents, rather than a daily living space that supports,

encourages and regulates people’s everyday life, influencing social relationship,

household structures and the complicated residential relationship between

of interfamily living. Interfamily living is common space at multiple scales between individual dwelling and community that is currently missing. This research tries to discuss the possibility of integration of housing and service provision through a new public housing typology based on interfamily living.

cooperation and governance. As a result, when public housing was put forward

The methodology of this research is based on a typological study of architecture

to quantity than quality. With massive public housing projects in construction

from work unit, to market housing as well as existing public housing, and their

as a solution to urban renewal and housing shortage, more attention was paid

all over the country, most of them are a small version of market housing with generic individual units isolated from each other. Few projects consider the

actual on-going demographic change and the rise of diverse household types.

Even fewer view the need to integrate housing with a public service provision.

The privatisation of housing makes it possible for the division of land use right and ownership so that the state can lease the land use right to private developers and get enormous profits in return. However, in this process, the

state also gives up part of their control at the neighbourhood level in terms of design, management and planning of service provision. Even though there

and urban planning, by looking into the transformation of housing typology relation to the transformation of service provision system, ownership pattern, development mode, etc. The first chapter is based on the study of historical

housing transformation in China, exploring and analysing the social, political

and economic context and revealing the current situation and problems. The

second chapter is based on several case studies in both the UK and China, which helped me develop the design elements and design proposal for interfamily living. The third chapter is based on the analysis of relations among

housing, urban form and urban governance, which led to the coordination of housing and service provision for a newly proposed urban community.

are regulations and building codes to make sure all housing constructed by developers meet specific standards, the market drives the developers to

produce similar housing typologies to make the highest possible profit. As a result, we see thousands of newly built neighbourhoods with tower blocks of 2 and 3-bedroom units for nuclear families without any practical daily

services except pure landscape in between the towers. ‘It is part of the game the occupants get to bear’, as Niklas Maak described, ‘to tout the single-family house 3. Niklas Maak, 2015. Living Complex: From Zombie City to the New Communal (Munich : Hirmer, 2015)

as an anthropological necessity and thereby raise it to the status of an indisputable natural form of existence to which there is no alternative.’ 3

Disciplinary question: What is the role of public housing in building up an efficient public service provision system?

Typological question: What are the spatial elements of in the scales of

The rise of public housing should be an opportunity for both the state

interfamily living? How can interfamily housing deal with the problem of

to the improvement of existing service provision system, which is based on

public services in public housing?

ownership pattern, public housing allows the state to enter the neighbourhood

Urban question: What is an urban community in terms of both its residential

domestic scale and urban scale in the existing service system. On the other hand,

housing becomes an instrument of urban governance?

and residents to rethink the nature of housing and what it can contribute communities as the providers of general public facilities. With a different

scale again, which offers the opportunity to address the gap between the

10

Research Questions:

changing household structures? How can it help to integrate the function of

and administrative functions? How will the urban form be changed when

11

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

Chapter 1

INTERFAMILY LIVING

1.1 Housing for Collective; Housing for Individual The Privatisation of Housing In 1998, an official document published by the state council, the Circular of

the State Council on Further Deepening the Urban Housing System Reform and

Accelerating Housing Construction, put an end to the free allocation of housing.

Before that, the majority of housing was distributed by the state through state-owned enterprises, in which most people worked. The privatisation of From above an old work unit in Beijing

From above a typical high-rise market housing estate

housing was part of the national policies of Reformation and Open Up since

1978 and the Free-market Economy since 1992. It was the outcome of stateowned enterprise reformation forced by the market competition, during which a large number of these enterprises went bankrupt and disintegrated. As a

result, much of state-owned housing was privatised, sold to the employees at a price lower than the market price.

In fact, this was part of the process of the commercialisation of housing based

on the Free-market Economy. After 1987, the land use right was divided from land ownership to make it possible for private investment in land, and later led

to the rise of market housing. After the first market housing estate constructed in Shenzhen in 1980, market housing gradually became the prevailing housing type in China, especially after 1992. The prosperity of the housing market

significantly contributed to the economic growth of China for decades. In 2018, it accounted for 6.87% of the GDP. The commercialisation of housing

brought great profit to both the government and developers and also promoted

the process of urbanisation of China. Cities expanded rapidly to the edges, with thousands of modern housing estates being constructed in the periphery.

12

13

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

Historical Tranformation of Housing in People's Republic of China

On the left is the photograph of Chairman Deng Xiaoping during his tour of inspectation in Southern China, during which the 'Free-market Economy' was proposed. On the right is the first new paper reported the new economic policy.

Poster celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Reformation and Open Up policy, from 1978 to 2018

However, this was followed by an inflation of the housing market. In 2016, the average housing price in China was three times higher than in 1999. This

rise was even more dramatic in large cities like Shanghai and Beijing. The high

housing cost became a tremendous economic pressure for Chinese citizens, including the middle class. While the middle class struggles to buy a small

apartment, the working class has no choice but to live in poor conditions in urban slums. On the one hand, housing is in shortage. On the other, housing

becomes an investment for the upper middle class, who may own several flats in different districts or even in different cities. However, most of these flats remain empty, since they are often in the periphery of the cities where it is 4. ‘Ghost town’ referring to newly developing town with newly constructed housing but with no resident actually lives there. These towns are usually far away from cities and have ineffective provision of infrastructure and service.

14

difficult to attract tenants. The demand of the investment market at the same time encourages developers to build more market housing, which results in an

absurd situation: there are newly built fancy ‘ghost towns’4 and there are still

millions of people struggling to own a flat.

Land Ownership Pattern In order to enable the land development and make use of the value of the land, the land use right is seperated from the landownership. While the land is still owned by the collectives (namely all the villagers or members of an agricultural collaboration), the use right will be distributed to every farmer family. The land use right can be transferred among individuals or private sectors. However, the law restricts the function of the land, meaning that the farmlands cannot be used in other proposes, such as real estate development.

Therefore, when a piece of farmland are going to be transformed into a residential or commercial block, it has to be firstly retrieved back by the state from the collective and become state-owened land. Compensation will be given to the collectives and land use right owners in return. Then, the land use right will be lent to private developers who will pay the rental to the state.

15

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

Fragmented City

Site Layout of Tianjin Petrochemical Neighbourhood, 1976

The privatisation of housing contributes to the formation of a fragmented city in terms of management and service provision. In fact, Chinese cities were already

fragmented back during the work unit period, when all the neighbourhoods

were gated and managed by the different state-owned enterprise as a ‘danwei’.

Each danwei was responsible for its service provision, and the quality would be based on the financial capability and size of the danwei. This led to the uneven

distribution of public facilities. When entering the era of market housing, the revision of landownership coordinates with a new kind of development model working under the modern urban planning method based on functional

zoning. Urban Planning conducted by the government never enters the neighbourhood scale as before. Instead, they produce regulatory detail plans 1. Kindergarten 2. Primary School 3. Middle School 4. Cinima 5. Non-staple Food Market 6. Supermarket 7. Speciality Store 8. Hotel 9. Post Office

to organise the zoning of a large area. Designing the neighbourhood scale

becomes the responsibility of private developers. Although their designs will be restricted by a set of building codes and regulations, developers are always

driven by the market to make a maximum profit by producing specific housing typologies.

10. Telephone Office 11. Culture Centre 12. Canteen 13. Service Centre 14. Power Station 15. Breakfast

This furthermore leads to the problems of management and public service provision. The privatisation of housing makes the land use right inside a neighbourhood the private property owned by the occupants, meaning that it

is impossible for them to become a public space for public facilities. As private

Site Layout

Development Mode of Contemporary Housing Estate - Xinkai Homeland Estate, Shanghai

Road System

16

Public Building / Housing

Green Space / Housing

Public Space and Facilities

Regulatory Detailed Plan by the State

Detailed Plan by the Developers

17

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

property, market housing neighbourhoods remain gated to prevent outsiders from entering and using the space. Property management companies are hired

to manage these spaces in terms of security and the maintenance of facilities.

However, the facilities in most of the market housing estate are poorly

designed. On the one hand, in order to maximise their profit, investment into these facilities by the developers are limited. On the other, the demands and

expectations of occupants are low for these services, as they are unwilling to pay

for them. In other words, the profit-driven market itself at this moment cannot take responsibility for a positive environment and foundation for an efficient service provision system. That is when the state should take responsibility and step in.

However, because of the privatisation of housing, public facilities provided

by the government can only arrive at the level of community, yet are excluded from the neighbourhoods. Nowadays, most of these services, such

as gymnasium, sports field, community centre, community library, public square, etc., are situated on specific pieces of land planned by regulatory detail plan. The user groups that they target at are lacking in definition, meaning that they could be shared by hundreds or even thousands of people living

in different neighbourhoods of the community. Consequently, these facilities

Housing for Individual Before the debate of whether housing should be defined as a commodity in the late 1970s and early 1980s, housing was provided as part of the social welfare. Although citizens did not need to pay for their houses, the political

impetus to put production at highest priority led to scarcity in social resources.

Housing as unproductive expenses received less investment from the state, which resulted in the housing crisis in the late 1970s. According to the survey

in 1978, the national average living area was 3.6 m2 per person, while in 1952, this was 4.5 m2, and 35.8% of the urban citizens needed housing.5

5. Lu Junhua, Peter G. Rowe and Zhang jie, 2001.

Modern Urban Housing in China 1840-2000.

(Munich : Prestel, 2001)

The extreme shortage in housing meant that occupants had to share many living spaces with others in collectively-owned housing. In the work unit, it was typical for a 3-room unit to be shared by two or three families. Kitchen

and bathroom were also shared. At the neighbourhood scale, other facilities

were collectively owned, including communal bath, canteen, gymnasium, etc., to compensate for lacking functional spaces in individual units. This situation continued until the mid-1980s when a survey showed that only 62.56% of the

citizens had a private kitchen, and 24.23% of them had a private bathroom.

75% of citizens lived in flats without all standard functions.

are difficult to reach for many residents, not only because they are outside

the neighbourhood, but also because the enclosure of these neighbourhoods

Floor Plan of Tianjin Petrochemical Neighbourhood, 1976

discourages daily activities from happening on the street. As a result, the city becomes fragmented with thousands of isolated urban blocks that fail to share public service provisions. The discontinuity of the existing service provision

system at the neighbourhood scale leads to inefficiency and, furthermore, influences urban governance.

On the top shows the fence around a

Danwei housing of

Danwei housing of

three units per floor,

two units per floor.

with a staircase in the

Each unit contains two

centre.

bedrooms.

private neighbourhood in Zhengzhou. In the middle shows the entrance gate of a neighbourhood with two security guards worked for the property management company. On the bottom shows the pure landscape in a newly built public housing estate.

Designed Occupation

18

Actual Occupation

Designed Occupation

Actual Occupation

19

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

6. Lu Duanfang, 2006. Remarking Chinese Urban Form: Modernity, Scarcity and Space, 1949-2005.

(Routledge, 2010)

The housing crisis encouraged the commercialisation of housing, for the state could not afford the expenditure all by itself. As the reformation of state-owned

enterprises changed the distribution of national income, citizens had higher

savings and were eager to own a flat with well-equipped bathroom, kitchen

and living room, after having to live in small, shared dormitories for decades.

To own a flat with all functions was considered representative of modern life.6 7. China Youth Daily. ‘54.6% Interviewed Young Adults Enjoy Living Alone’. 2017. Web. http://news. ifeng.com/a/20170526/51167462_0.shtml

While there is nothing wrong with the desire of home ownership, the emphasis

on privacy and private property became mainstream. The situation shifted from one extreme of almost sharing everything to another extreme of wanting

to share nothing. In a typical market housing block, only the circulation space is shared, and architects will use every means possible to reduce the shared Evergrande Future Town Real Estate, Chengdu, 2017

area in order to lower the development cost. No one wants to pay for the

space that does not exclusively belong to him or her. Therefore, the area of

individual unit grew from 50m2 per unit at most in 1978 to an average 80100m2 per unit nowadays. This also explains the inadequate facilities provided

in the neighbourhood. Residents are willing to give up part of the quality of

shared spaces for a better private space but not the other way around. The

loss might be more problematic than they think; however, when children have no place to play with their friends after school and retired old people have no place to go but stay at home. However, even young adults suffer from

loneliness. A survey shows that 45% of young adults in China feel lonely.7 Today’s housing is housing for individual living, is about providing a private

space in which residents can isolate themselves physically from the rest of the world safely. However, it is necessary to question what problems will be

brought by maximising the quality of individual living, while compromising the common space.

Site Layout

Evergrande Future Town is a typical market housing real estate developed by one of the most popular developers, the Evergrande Group. With commercial facilities open to the street at the periphery of the neighbourhood, the central area is enclosed as private garden for the residents.

4-unit floor plan is one of the most vastly used floor layout, with two larger units facing to the north and two smaller units facing to the south. Central core is the only shared space for circulation.

1.2 The Chinese Context: Public Housing for Whom?

Public housing could be an entry point to change the situation of inefficient

services and generic unit types caused by housing privatisation because of its different ownership pattern. Although designed and constructed by

developers, all rental housing is ultimately invested into, owned and managed

by the government or relevant national institutes. As for affordable housing, most of it is housing for sale at 70% of the market price and invested into by

state-owned companies. It is owned by the state before the transaction and owned privately by the resident after. In recent years, there has been a tendency for affordable housing to transfer into joint-property housing, owned both by

the occupants and the state, meaning that the state is taking more control in the ownership of public housing.

The national ownership of public housing makes it possible for the state to enter the neighbourhood scale again, meaning that it is once again possible

for the processes of planning, designing, constructing and managing to be more systematic and integrated at the neighbourhood level. It thus offers

an opportunity to rethink the site layout and housing typologies in terms of whether they still make sense concerning the street, the urban fabric and service provision system. For example, as a state-owned property, is it still necessary to have these neighbourhoods gated?

However, these questions are ignored in the current public housing projects, which are just a small version of market housing. It is crucial for the state, the

planners and the architects to be aware of the problems of existing housing

typologies, of its generic units that fail to meet the demands of changing

household structure as well as its bad coordination with public service provision. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the subjects, the typologies and the problems of current public housing.

Floor Plan

20

21

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

Three Main Kinds of Public Housing in China

Subjects of Public Housing As early as the emergence of market housing, public housing was put forward as part of the national welfare system to help low-income groups. During the Housing Reform in the 1990s, the Chinese government already foresaw

inflation in the housing market, and that the accommodation of low-income Affordable Housing

Rental Housing

Joint-property Housing

Middle to low income groups with certain financial

Middle to low income groups, especially new employed

New kind of affordable housing as complement to

capacity, but cannot afford for commodity housing.

workers, including new graduates, retired elders, disables

existing public housing system. The implementation of

and migrant workers.

affordable housing result in many problems. Many people buy affordable housing and sell them at higher price to

Policy support from the state, control the housing price at 70% of the market price, through saving first cost in

Policy support from the state, recruit new-built or

gain the profit, while people who in need of the housing

construction.

existing housing from the society. Owned by the state or

still cannot get them.

public institution, lent to tenants at affordable rental.

Terms (Shanghai):

The joint-property-right housing are owned both by

1. Family members that live in Shanghai. 2. Having local

Terms (Shanghai):

the state and the individual family. The percentage of

Shanghai Hukou for 3 years, and lcoal Hukou for 2 years.

Individual applicant:

ownership of individual family ranges from 50% to 100%

3. Average living area per person no more than 15 square

1. Having local citizen Hukou, or local resident permit

according to local policy, meaning that applicants can

meters.

for more than 2 years, plus having paid for the social

move in by paying part of the price at the beginning,

4. Family of 3 people and above, annual disposable

insurance in Shanghai for more than 1 year.

and buy the whole property later when they are financial

income per person no more than 60,000 yuan, personal

2. Signed labor contract of more than 1 year with local

capable. These houses cannot be rent or sold to others

property no more than 150,000 yuan per person. Family

company.

except being sold to the state/public institution/other

of 2 people or below (72,000 / 180,000 yuan).

3. No housing property or less than 15 square meter per

applicants.

5. No family member has sold or lent any housing

person.

property in the past 5 years, except between family

4. Not in other public housing support.

The terms for the JPR Housing in Shanghai are similar to that of affordable housing, which require local Hukou.

members.

Enterprise applicant:

Changes can be foreseen, however, with the putting

1. Influential enterprise of local community: medical,

forward of the new policy in Beijing that no longer

education, science, etc.

require the Hukou of applicants (but formal local work).

2. Coordinating local industrial development.

3. Annual tax more than 10 million yuan.

The JPR Housing is now under experiment in 6 cities:

4. Special high-level personnel or professional.

Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Huangshi, Chengdu and Huaian. It will become an important part in the public housing system across the nation in the future.

family could not be solved by it. As a result, the state established a public

housing system consisting of three types of public housing: affordable housing, low-rental housing and public rental housing. 8

8. The low-rental housing was combined with public rental housing in 2014

However, with the high demand for economic growth by the Chinese government, market housing was thought more important than social

demands. Therefore, for more than a decade, public housing was ‘ignored’ or considered less important than the housing market. From 1999 to 2008, the sales of affordable housing were only 7.82% of the total sales in the housing

market, and the proportion dropped every year.9 This situation changed in

2008 when the State Council published two documents, ‘Suggestions on Solving

Difficulties of Urban Low-income Families in Housing’ and the ‘Several Opinions

9. Chen Jie. ‘General Introduction of Public Housing Policy in China’. Housing Express, 2010. http://www.cih.org.hk/publication_dnload/ HousingExpress201009/04_cover_story.pdf

on Promoting the Healthy Development of the Real Estate Market’ to support

policies for the large-scale construction of public housing all over the country.

As a new type of housing, there was little experience in the development of

public housing in China. As a result, learning from precedents is very important.

Public housing projects have long been constructed in European countries and the United States in the early 20th century, and later spread globally after the Second World War.

However, the context in China is quite different from other countries who

have succeeded in popularising public housing. Part of its uniqueness comes from the significant number of migrants, the special Hukou or household

registration policy10, and the land ownership pattern. Unlike many countries where only low-income groups can apply for social housing, public housing in

10. The household registration system, started in 1950s for Planed Economy.

China aims at three different groups of people: low-income migrant workers, relocated families and young professionals.

22

23

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

Migrant worker flows are the result of urbanisation. From 1993 to 2012, around

96 million migrants from rural areas moved into the city of Shanghai, making 11. Wang Zhen, Zhou Haiwang, Chen Guozheng, Gao Hui, 2014. 'Research of the Strategy of Controlling the Population and Demographic Structure in Shanghai'. (Social Science, 2014)

up 40.3% of the whole population.11 This phenomenon happens all around the

country. However, most migrants are working class. Among the low-income groups, migrant workers became a new group in the past two decades.12 They

became the major productive force in cities, but are underpaid and unable

to afford a decent living space. The previous Hukou policy prevented them 12. Lu Jihong. 2018. The Path Choice and Several Problems in the Urbanisation of Population Equilibrium. (Southwestern University of Finance and Economics Press, 2018). The book defines four groups that consist of low-income population in China: 1. No working ability, no stable income, no stable job. 2. Unemployed, including those who lost their job in the reformation of state-

from having equal rights to townspeople to access urban service provisions,

Migrant workers waiting at the train

including applying for public housing, education and pension. In recent years,

station during the Spring Festival

the state amended the Hukou policy to reduce the restrictions. Now migrant

workers with a Temporary Residential Permit for two years and above can apply for public housing.

owned enterprises. 3. Low-income employees and retirees. 4. Other poor people, including migrant workers, relocated families, poor students, etc.

Relocated families are families who used to live in certain areas, either

in the inner city or periphery, but are moved to other areas due to urban

On the left, children of poor family in the inner city of Shanghai playing in

renewal and expansion. This phenomenon is quite common in Chinese cities

the site of demolishment, which used to

due to land ownership. Since the state owns the land and has the right to

be their homes. On the right, a woman farming in her farmland by the newly

transfer the use right, residents will have to give up their houses and receive

constructed housing.

compensation in return. In most cases, relocation programmes offer significant benefits to relocated families, improving their living conditions with modern accommodation and financial support. However, it is also problematic since

most of the relocation housing estates are far away from the inner city where these people lived before. As public service provisions are much denser in the inner city, those who move out will lose their access to these facilities.

Young professionals refer to people who just graduated from university and started their careers. Unlike the other two groups, these young professionals

Young graduates searching for jobs in the event.

are mostly well-educated white-collar workers. Typically, these people will not

be considered as the subject of public housing in many other countries. In

China, however, this group is thought highly of by the state because of the

The Typologies of Public Housing

overseas graduates to come back and serve the country through a series of

Nowadays, most of the newly built public housing follows the same

to attract young people and big companies. Consequently, housing is one

mode, housing projects are assigned to different developers, with pieces of

competition of human resources. On the one hand, the state tries to attract policies and benefits. On the other, different provinces and cities also want

13. Talent apartment is rental housing built especially for highly educated young professionals as temporary accommodate at the beginning of their career. It is part of the ‘Human Resource Strategy’ and supported by the state.

24

of the most important problems, since the housing and rental price is even

unaffordable for these young professionals. This encourages the development of public rental housing in many cities, many of which later transform into ‘talent apartment’. 13

development model and typologies of the existing market housing. In this land zoned for residential blocks by regulatory detail planning. The size of a

neighbourhood varies from case to case. The ones in the inner city are usually

smaller with only one or two residential blocks, while others in the periphery are several times larger.

25

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

After calculating the FAR, height limitation and density, the number of

This housing typology works very efficiently in terms of the individual living

orientation and minimum distances will determine the site layout. The space

one’s unit: cooking, sleeping, resting, entertaining, etc. However, since the units

residential blocks and their number of floors will be decided. Building between buildings will be designed as green space with some outdoor fitness

equipment, a playground or a small square. In the periphery, fences will be

constructed along the edge with only one or two entrances guarded by security.

Exceptionally, some neighbourhoods may contain a small store, but usually, there is no other service. Some shops may be located on the ground floor of residential blocks on the periphery, but they usually open to the streets and will not be managed by the neighbourhood.

High-rise tower blocks are the most popular housing type for both market and public housing, as it is more cost effective. Exceptions can be found in a commercial neighbourhood, where houses and medium-rise blocks are

within a nuclear family. Most of the essential daily activities can take place in

of public housing are smaller, they become inconvenient for sharing among

family members, such as dining together, using the living room for indoor exercise, working without disturbance, etc. Even most of the market housing

unit cannot provide generous space for activities like hosting a party or big family dinner. Since there is no such space for these activities, people have to

go somewhere else outside the neighbourhood, such as a cafe, gym, restaurant, or library, most of which are commercial spaces. With public facilities in

the inner city still being insufficient, there is a more significant shortage of facilities in the public housing neighbourhood, since most of them are in the newly developed area in the periphery.

constructed. The high-rise tower usually contains 4 to 6 units each floor.

Besides the problem of lacking facilities, the units themselves are problematic as

floor, with two smaller units (usually 1- or 2-bedroom units) facing south and

Most of the existing units are designed for the nuclear family only, while there

Some might contain up to 8 units. The most popular model is four units per

two larger units (usually 2- or 3-bedroom unit) facing both south and north, allowing every unit to have access to direct sunlight. In public housing, the area of a unit is smaller than in market housing. Between these units, there is no redundant space other than circulation space.

well in terms of accommodating other household types than the nuclear family. is a significant proportion of extended family and single-person households.

With problems of an ageing society, elderly care, raising of children and the

4-2-1 family, the current unit types will not be able to fulfil the demands of various household types. On the other hand, the intergenerational relationship should also be rethought and carefully dealt with instead of simply providing

more rooms. More and more young couples and old parents express demand for privacy and independence between two families, whereas great necessity

Typical Floor & Unit Plan of Current Public Housing

also exists for mutual help both emotionally and physically.14 Moreover, this

multi-generational household is less stable over time than a nuclear family, meaning that a specific unit type is inappropriate for it. In other words, the

14. Feng Xiaotian, 2009. ‘Household Structure of The First Generation of Single Child and Their Parents, Based on Survey of Top Five Chinese Cities’. (Social Science Research, 2009)

problem of intergenerational living is not a problem of size and area of units, but a problem of the organisation of the residential relationships.

Both the problems of service provision and intergenerational living are critical for the subjects of public housing. As vulnerable groups, these subjects should

have equal rights to access public services like other citizens. In regards to

intergenerational living, it is vital for migrants (including migrant workers and

young professionals) to permit their families moving to the cities they live in.

As for relocated families, which are highly likely to be extended families, it is Xinkai Homeland Real Estate, Shanghai, 2008

Huinan Minle Residential District, Shanghai

also essential to consider how to accommodate them without separating them.

All in all, new housing typologies are needed for public housing.

26

27

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

to choose whether they wanted to participate in community living and to what

degree. Additionally, as Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett said in their

book, ‘it also differs from most of the intentional communities and communes in

United State, which are often organised around strong ideological beliefs and may

depend on a charismatic leader to establish the direction of the community and hold

1.3 A New Housing Typology: Interfamily Living The Idea of Co-housing

the group together’. It differs from other multi-family living typologies as well, such as the courtyard housing in China, since the spatial hierarchy is not 17

about lowliness and nobleness, but about sharing equally. It provides a new way of living together in equality, independence and privacy.

17. Also known as ‘Siheyuan’. It is a historical type of residence that was commonly found throughout China, most famously in Beijing and rural Shanxi.

Throughout Chinese history, the siheyuan composition was the basic pattern used for residences, palaces, temples, monasteries, family businesses, and government offices. In ancient times, a spacious siheyuan would be occupied by a single, usually large and extended family, signifying wealth and prosperity.

‘Housing for individuals’ is not a unique problem only in China, but rather

a global problem of modern living: unaffordable housing prices, isolation, 16. Niklas Maak, 2015. Living Complex: From Zombie City to the New Communal (Munich : Hirmer, 2015)

loneliness, etc. People complained about living in high-rises in cities. ‘The

single-family home becomes, once and for all, a temple of immersion’, said Niklas Maak.15

As a result, other suggestions and innovations were given by planners, architects

and even residents themselves. The idea of co-housing originated in Denmark in the 1960s, with the first co-housing project Saettedammen constructed in

1972. This community came from the original idea of Danish architect Jan Gudmand-Hoyer and his wife, who were tired of existing options of housing

as well as living in the city. They gathered a group of friends to discuss other possibilities, and eight years later, Saettedammen was constructed with 27

families living together. The community followed their initial discussion of 16. Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, 1988.

Cohousing: A Contemporary approach to Housing Ourselves. (Ten Speed Press, 1994)

being ‘small enough to allow residents to know each other and to feel comfortable

using the common area as an extended living room’. The design should, as they insisted, also ‘encourage social interaction among neighbours’.16

The site layout of Saettedammen clearly illustrated these ideas. The community

occupied a rhombic area with terraced houses on four edges and a large

surrounded courtyard in the centre. A common house situated near the centre, providing a communal kitchen, a large living room and other shared spaces for collective activities. Facing the common house was the main entrance for

vehicles with a parking lot, which encouraged residents to use the common house more often. Every private house had their kitchen facing to the courtyard with an open lawn, but also a private garden of their own at the back.

Saettedammen, Denmark, 1972 The first co-housing project in Denmak, designed by Jan Gudmand-Hoyer

The idea of co-housing was not forcing people to live collective lives and share

with others. Instead, it aimed at providing different options for the residents

28

29

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

18. More information can be found in the original website, http://onesharedhouse2030.com

Afterwards, co-housing as a new living model spread to other European

countries and then to the United States and Canada. Various housing typologies have been tried out for this new living model, from detached housing and

terrace housing to multi-floor apartment. For example, a 9-story point block

What is Interfamily Living?

33 units in total. Later it also transformed into private rental housing projects

Although the idea of co-housing is well accepted globally, it has seldom been

apartment. In 2017 an online survey launched by Space10 named ‘One Shard

First of all, the original co-housing idea came along with the autonomy and

investigate what and how people would like to share.18 The outcomes show

government-led public housing projects. Secondly, as it is housing for low-

community; they are happier with access to multiple homes they could easily

shared facilities. Financial factors are considered more than well-being. Thirdly,

all house related items, etc. The survey gives many insights into the following

quickly and accommodate as many people as possible, which are high-rises for

called Staken was constructed in Sweden in 1980, with five units per floor and

The cohousing project Stacken in Göteborg wae Sweden’s first collective house of the self-work model, where housekeeping and childcare were shared by both male and female residents.

such as the Crystal City by WeLive, a company specialises in the co-housing

applied in a public housing project. There are three main reasons for this.

House’ collected data from over 7,000 participants in over 150 countries to

negotiation among the residents, which would be challenging to realise in

that people in China prefer single women, couples and single men in their

income people on welfare, the budget is too limited for the extra expense of

move between; they would be willing to pay extra for a service layer to manage

the great demands of housing call for typologies that can be constructed

design proposal.

hundreds of residents, whereas a co-housing community should remain of a

Individual Dwelling

certain size for residents to know each other.

In general, the idea of co-housing as an alternative way of living has become more acceptable all over the world.

These three reasons can also be applied to the Chinese context. The national land ownership, as well as the huge population, make it neither possible for

democratic negotiation in housing delivery, nor for the development of low-

density terraced housing. Therefore, the Danish model of co-housing can never

be applied in China. However, with inefficient service provision in private

Interfamily Living

housing and the problem of intergenerational relationship, there are particular

needs for families to live together as a small family group for better social cooperation. This co-living is not the succession of Danish co-housing since it is not based on self-organised private property, but state-managed public housing. It is also different from intergenerational housing, which focuses

more on mutual help between young people and the old. It targets a broader problem of co-living between families without kinship, and how interfamily

relationships can coordinate with a new service provision system. To underline the difference, I define it as interfamily living.

Interfamily living refers to several scales between the scales of individual unit and the community. These scales are now missing in modern neighbourhood because of housing privatisation. The idea of interfamily living originates from

the changing household structure in terms of the consolidation of extended Typical floor plan and section of the Crystal City by WeLive

30

The general result of the survey by One Shared House

family due to demographic change, but goes beyond it into the problems of

Public Service of the Community

31

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

be changed according to need. This solution is hard to realise and implement at

The Proportion of Household Structure, 1982 - 2010

scale, because of the high cost and necessary sophisticated building technology.

Household Type

2010

2000

1990

1982

Nuclear Family

60.89

68.18

70.61

68.30

Extended Family

22.99

21.72

21.33

21.74

Composite Family

0.58

0.56

1.08

0.92

The other is to design a flexible building management system, which allows certain functions to be converted and provides limited scope for extensions in pre-designed spaces. The latter is more suitable for interfamily living in public housing.

By dividing an extended family into two or three nuclear families or single-

The Transition of Household Structure within A Family Old parents come to help

person households, and accommodating them in separated but adjacent units,

Old parents come to help

a certain degree of privacy and independence is secured, while mutual help

and daily interactions between young families and the old are still possible.

Every unit will have full functions from the bedroom to cooking space, but Old parents passed away First child entre school

married single

Old parents need care

more generous sharing space will be designed between these units to enhance

the relationship. As independent units, they can be sold back to the state after the older generation passes away or the young couples move out. This is when interfamily living comes in, since the units will be sold to other applicants

of public housing. As a result, interfamily living is co-living beyond kinship, First child

becoming a small family group that allows public services to be inserted in the

Second child

in-between scales.

Children left

Compared to individual living, interfamily living has many advantages. First

service provision and urban governance. There are two main reasons for the

of all, it provides a flexible living space that can accommodate the extended

of children, both of which result from the inefficient service provision. As the

moderate the problems of elderly care and raising of children. Secondly, it

consolidation of extended family: home-based elderly care and upbringing

family while avoiding some conflicts between generations. This helps to

state hopes extended family to work as compensation of inadequate service,

allows those who can only afford public housing to enjoy a more generous

supporting facilities should be provided by the state at the scale of interfamily living. Besides, the in-between scales also provide space for introducing other

facilities, that not only deal with problems within a family, but also between

families without kinship. By rebuilding the in-between scales, the gap of public service between community and individual dwelling is filled by densified

facilities, serving smaller groups of people within the reach of their daily life, in the neighbourhood just outside their doors

On the other hand, extended family is less stable than the nuclear family since

it changes according to different need of different generations at different stages of life. Therefore, the unit should be adaptable to future changes. There

In-between Shared Space

are usually two leading solutions to achieve flexibility in architecture. One is to

design a flexible building system, in which functions, walls, structure, etc., can

32

Dividing An Extended Family into Several Nuclear Families

33

Chapter 1 Interfamily Living

The in-between shared space are functional space combined with circulationa space

living space with common facilities shared by limited numbers of people, improving social equality in terms of public service accessibility. Finally, it

enables the mutual help and interactions between neighbours on daily routines

and needs, building up trusted social networks for better social cooperation, which is essential in the development of autonomy in urban governance. If

being designed carefully, the interfamily living could lead to a new housing

typology in public housing that could benefit not only the residents in terms of well-being, but also introduce a more efficient public service provision for better urban governance. The following chapter will discuss the design considerations of interfamily living.

34

Rendering of The Facade of Linear Type

36

37

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Deck Access

Chapter 2

ROOM, UNIT AND MODULE

Central Corridor

Grid

Grid GridPublic housing has been constructed all around the world since the middle of

Central Core

Part-to-Wh

Part-to-Whole Part-to-Whole

last century. There is a great deal of experience in public housing design that can be referred to when dealing with the new demand in China. This chapter

will present several case studies of public housing in London as well as an

experimental rental housing design in Shanghai, China. The case study will help to define the spatial elements of interfamily living in public housing, in

terms of function, dimension, orientation and circulation, which will guide

the design. The design proposal will serve as a prototype for interfamily living

and should be improved and tested later in architectural practice by architects, Block 12, Lincoln Estate, 1960

Block 4, Dorian Street,1953

3458

Greater London County.

period.

Public housing in post-war London represented contemporary ideas of highdensity living in modernist architecture, especially in terms of its housing

38

5350

5350

786

786

940

2750

1686 786

3896

1686 3080 3268

2364

4168

786

3268 1686

4920

4920

5350

5350

2460

2750 1686

1686 2750

3268 1686

2640

Upper Floor

3458

3268 3458

1697

1500

1697

1500

corridor and central core.

2100

access to daylight, where kitchen, living room and bedrooms would be situated.

Different from the deck-access type, housing with central corridor would have units on both sides. These units would be less deep and would only have

one side that access to daylight. As a result, many of them would occupy two floors, so that more rooms in one unit could access to daylight. Housing with

1000

3840

3300

920

780

1580

3458 2940

1697

2100

2640

2940

3000

central corridor type and tower type. Each unit would have dual aspects and

1500 1800

1800

of the corridor, and the units would always have greater depth compared to

3458

5350

units. Housing with deck access would usually have the units on one side

750

The circulation determined the arrangement, orientation and dimension of

4800

Lower Floor

4800

5350

the local councils. More than 4.6 million of dwellings were built during this

3458

4756

from 1889 to 1965. After that, it was replaced by

were applied in order to accommodate more residents: deck access, central

4168

local government body for the County of London

design was assigned to architects either from the private sector or working for

their construction. Three typical kinds of circulation that defined floor layout

1697

900

1697

4168

Council. London County Council was the principal

2100

800

1697

1440

19. London County Council and Greater London

invested in and planned by the LCC (and GLC after 1965)19 and their housing

264

3840

2940

as well as to fulfil the great demand of modern housing. These projects were

3458

1697

1697

3458

1697

3458

1874

1945 to 1975 in order to rebuild the city of London destroyed in the war,

2800

2422

Second World War, social housing went into large-scale construction from

3458

3268

provide social housing for the low-income group after the 1890s. After the

3458

1697

786

private sector before it was transferred as the responsibility of the council to

3458

types of this housing, and prefabricated concrete was predominantly used in 1697

800

3458

3458

essential considerations. Medium-rise and high-rise were the most popular

3268

The public housing of the UK originated as private property supplied by the

2750

2750

2750

typologies. High density, efficient construction and cost-effectiveness were the 1697

Public Housing in Post-war London

3458

3458

786

2.1 Case Study

Farrell House, Thirza Street, 1968

4168

planners and the government.

Typical Maisonette

Typical Maisonette Plan of

Plan of Deck Access

Central Corridor

39

a central core was usually a high-rise tower block, with more floors but fewer units (usually four units) on each floor. These units would have a smaller ratio of depth to width and would have access to daylight from two adjacent sides.

Among all, a specific favourite unit type called ‘maisonette’ was widely used. This unit type has two floors connected by an internal staircase. It was popular not

only because it allowed more rooms in one deep unit, but also divided different functional space in a clearer and more efficient way. Typically, entrance, living

room, and kitchen would be situated downstairs, while upstairs spaces would be used for bedrooms and bathroom, spaces with more privacy. The staircase

also made the dwelling look more generous, giving occupants the feeling of living in a house.

Apart from the social-political factors that caused a low construction quality, 20. The Great British Housing Disaster. A documentary film by Adam Curtis, to investigate how the council housing of 1960s came to be built so poorly that thousands later needed to be demolished. The film gave following 6 main reasons: 1. Construction became ‘the number game’ of political competition. 2. Deals between contractors and local councils. 3. The innovative system building was untested before going in massive construction. 4. Bad construction on site.

5. Lack of subsidy. 6. Later untested repairing

and later led to the conclusion of ‘a failure’ in architectural history,20 public

housing in post-war London still contributed much to the public housing practice later in both the UK and other countries. The housing typologies with three different circulations and maisonette unit types are useful references

when having to accommodate more residents in cities with large populations

and high density. It did not work well in terms of service provision, however,

for it lacked in public space and proper maintenance due to the limited budget, which led to a failure of the original idea of shared corridors to encourage interactions among residents. However, if being designed with better spatial

Photograph of Longnan Garden Rental Housing Estate, Shanghai

elements, these can become advantages, by widening the corridor or inserting public facilities between units, for example.

Regarding the context of China, it is also essential to test the possibility of adopting other housing typologies in public housing, not just the central-

core tower block, which is the dominant type in the current housing market.

The deep unit type can also be modified by rearranging the functional spaces due to different standards in the building code, to make it more efficient in

accessing daylight and cross-ventilation. For example, the main entrance can

directly lead to a living room, while the living room serves as the entrance hall

leading to other rooms. This allows a deeper unit type with less width but better daylighting than a deck-access apartment. Moreover, the maisonette unit type provides a prototype for dealing with interfamily living and intergenerational relationships with its efficient division of functional space.

Longnan Garden: An Experimental Rental Housing Project Different from the UK where public housing generated new housing typologies at the beginning because of the influence of new building technologies and

modernist architecture at that time, public housing in China was mainly

constructed two decades after the prosperity of market housing began. Thus, it followed the typologies of market housing. As argued earlier, market

housing mainly is high-rise or medium-rise point blocks with central cores, whereas deck access and central corridors are more common in old work unit dormitories, which would be considered as ‘incomplete functions, no privacy and uncomfortable’ and be defined as ‘housing for the poor’.21 As a result, most

of the newly constructed public housing also avoids adopting these typologies, even though they are more efficient in housing small household of one or two

21. Lu Duanfang. 2006. Remarking Chinese Urban Form: Modernity, Scarcity and Space, 1949-2005.

(Routledge, 2010)

people.

40

41

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Recently, some public housing projects aimed to try out some experimental

designs in order to encourage interactions among tenants. Most of them are rental housing projects. Different from affordable housing, which is also

large populations in high-density cities.

invested into by developers and for sale, rental housing is publicly owned and

The outdoor corridors are not only used as circulation space, but also potential

have a better chance of being given to famous architects to test their design

occupied part of the corridor as their own semi-private space to place a floor

invested into directly by the state. With support from the state, these projects concepts and innovations, as they have sufficient financial support, whereas

in standard cases developers or design institutes will be assigned the job. The Longnan Garden in Shanghai is a typical example of these experimental projects.

Unlike other public housing, Longnan Garden combines deck access and courtyard in its building layout. Six out of seven blocks have a central yard

space for interactions between tenants. Many residents unconsciously

their benches together with their neighbours eating snacks and chatting in the

corridors, which will never happen in a central-core tower block. The design

itself also tried to encourage these interactions by providing space for bicycle parking and small sitting and reading areas on the ground floor next to the main entrance.

The unit types of Longnan Garden are also different from typical unit types.

having four blocks of only seven floors and two blocks of 12 floors, which have

significant depth and smaller width. The area of these unit ranges from 35

comparably lower floor areas than typical high-rise residential blocks, the FAR of Longnan Garden still reaches 3.0, containing 2,021 units, which is even

higher than typical market housing estates with high-rise tower blocks. The

density comes partly from the larger shared circulation space, the corridors, but the lower ceiling and mezzanine also contribute to that. This gives supporting

Floor Plan

mat, umbrella, or potted plants. Moreover, some tenants would even sit on

surrounded by residential blocks that are connected by an outdoor corridor

as a whole. These blocks are high-rise, varying from 7 to 18 floors. Although

42

evidence for the argument that high-rise is not the only solution for housing

Circulation Space

They are similar to the unit types of post-war UK public housing with more

to 60m2, which is very small compared to typical unit types. There are six

unit types in total, two of which are lofts, three are studios and only one is a 1-bedroom flat. Most of the units are designed for singles or young couples

Individual Units

without children. However, some couples with young children also live in the neighbourhood. In lofts, where functional space is more divided over different

43

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

is a need for tenants to use them as extra space. The demands of extra space

Unit Types of Longnan Garden Estate

also reveal the fact that the units are too small. With widths ranging from 3

to 4.5 meters, the indoor space is too limited for all functions to be contained.

Residents find no place for a washing machine, dining table, television or an

additional cabinet or desk. It is impossible for hosting a small party or family dinner without occupying the public corridors.

The case of Longnan Garden shows that a neighbourhood with a better

residential relationship can be achieved by using appropriate building 1-bedroom Flat

Studio 1

Studio 2

Studio 3

Loft 1 & 2

floors, two tenants may share them.

Most residents are young white-collar workers around 25 to 30 years old.

For most of them, living with neighbours at their age is encouraging and

comfortable, helping them to expand their social networks. Consequently, the management of the neighbourhood is more democratic, with a stronger

typologies and design. The closer relationship among tenants also inspires taking responsibility in the management process. On the other hand, it is

clear that providing space without providing actual facilities is meaningless.

Providing sharing spaces should not become formalistic without really

considering actual demands. Also, reducing individual living areas for cost

saving purposes should be compensated with more generous shared space.

Both the advantages and disadvantages need to be considered in the design of interfamily living.

awareness of responsibility by the residents. These young tenants express their views and suggestions through the group chat on WeChat (an online chatting

app) and thus connect to the property management company easily. They also

have many private group chats for communications about activity organisation to information sharing. ‘The tenants of this estate are hard to deal with,’ said

the security guard of Longnan Garden during the field study22, ‘they are all

well-educated young people with a strong sense of their rights. They know each other and express their voice through social media quickly. As an exemplary public rental housing estate, the government thinks highly of the views of its residents.’

22. The field study was conducted in August, 2018. It included short interview and a survey that investigated about people’s view towards the public housing they lived in and to what extent they would like to share with others. 66 residents from 3 neighbourhoods were involved.

Although there are some innovations in the design of Longnan Garden, other

problems reveal themselves in the actual usage of the facilities and living conditions. The courtyards that are intended to provide hierarchical public

squares for residents of different blocks fail because of the inappropriate design.

Instead of providing various facilities for actual activities, these courtyards

were designed as a pure landscape with low fences to prevent entry. As a result, residents cannot use them. At the building scale, the public sitting area is too small to be shared by over 200 residents living in one block. Thus it remains a

redundant space covered with dust, yet it is the only shared functional space.

Roof garden shared by residents

Corridors in the air connecting different blocks

The width of the corridors is only useful for circulation, even though there

44

45

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Small Functional Space Unit

Module for The Family Group: Basic Components of Interfamily Living

Space between Units

In order to ensure limited access to facilities for better management and

maintenance purposes, the number of families for the interfamily living

Floor

should remain small, also to ensure better cooperation and communication.

There is a natural limit to the number of people who can know each other by

Neighbourhood

name and share common facilities as an extension to their own home. In their book, McCamant and Durrett discuss the features of a co-housing community

of three sizes: small (6 to 12 households), medium (13 to 34 households),

Community

and large (35 or more households). They conclude that in small developments, residents know each other so well that it required more compatibility and commitment, while in large developments, the group identity was diluted and personal accountability diminished. 23

23. Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, 1988.

Cohousing: A Contemporary approach to Housing Ourselves. (Ten Speed Press, 1994)

Large

However, when being applied to neighbourhoods of high density, more

problems need to be considered than co-housing projects in suburban

Interfamily Living is framed throughout multiple

Denmark: housing typologies of the medium and high rise, building system

scales from unit to the community.

and structure, orientation, ventilation and daylight. These factors limit the size

of a co-housing unit in a horizontal development, while a vertical expansion

2.2 Design Proposal: The Prototype

may not work well due to limited accessibility.

There are two main goals that interfamily living aims to achieve. Firstly, it

As a result, the prototype proposes a more hierarchical composition of a

help. Secondly, it should be able to coordinate with inserted common facilities

on the size of these households) of 14 to 20 people as the basic units, to form

the proposed prototype is one possibility that includes the following design

facilities such as a gym or a mini-garden at the scale of the floor. To distinguish

modern apartment, flexibility of the unit arrangement, in-between spaces for

family group is defined as a ‘module’. A module will consist of several individual

should have the ability to accommodate changing households to enable mutual

‘extended family groups without kinship’. These family groups will also share

considerations: independent units that accommodate the full functions of a

from a unit that refers to a full-functional dwelling, the physical space of a

common facilities to share, and convenient access to facilities for limited users.

units and in-between space for common facilities.

housing, in which individual units owned by the residents (but can only be

A module consists of 3 floors with a shared staircase shared by all family group

by the state for shared rental.

functions and privacy. The first floor is the only floor that has access to public

sold back to the state when no longer needed), and in-between space owned

Individual units + in-between space

community, with family groups consisting of 7 to 15 households (depending

as solid supports for a more hierarchical service provision system. As a result,

It is based on rental housing, which is owned by the state, and joint-property

46

3-floor-height space

13.5m

12.5m

8.1m

members. The vertical division helps to create shared spaces for different

circulation space. It serves as the entry hall of the family group with sitting

Axo of the Module

47

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

areas welcoming its members and their guests. The second floor is less open to non-members, with cooking and dining area heavily used by members. It still

allows certain visibility from the public circulation space, encouraging more participation and creating an atmosphere of living. The third floor is a more Main Structure: Concrete

quiet and private area for members, with small living rooms, and working or reading area being isolated from public sight and disturbance.

Soft divisions are adopted between modules and the public circulation space.

Instead of using walls, fences or French windows, the thresholds are left open

with only curtains as division. It allows air, sound and daylight to come into the in-between space, as well as residents to wander around in this semiprivate space and the public areas. By using different materials on the floor

and the wall as implications of different degree of privacy, the semi-private

common space will discourage the entry of non-members of the family groups.

The members also will act as potential guardians when they are at home or using these shared spaces. The continuity of the semi-private and public area

enlarges the space of the module both physically and mentally. The public area is no longer only the circulation space but becomes a part of the residents’ daily life.

Daylight Daylight

Extension: Light Structure

Daylight

Light Structure: Wood, Lightweight Steel

Daylight Daylight

Bottom Floor of Module in Linear Type

48

Bottom Floor of Module in Tower Type

49

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Individual Unit: An Economical Space for Individual Living

Four Basic Unit Types

Different from collective living in the work unit or people’s commune, where

people were forced to share almost everything and have limited privacy, the

proposed interfamily living model encourages sharing of specific spaces and

interaction among residents while protecting the privacy of every individual.

As a result, the individual units within a module should be seen as a shelter where residents can hide from sociality whenever they choose to. Thus, an individual unit should have the following essential functions to fulfil the needs

of residents’ everyday life: bedrooms or a sleeping area, a small living room or a sitting area, and a bathroom. Kitchenettes are optional for small studios of

single occupants, but necessary for units of a nuclear family or a couple. The

individual units can be both sold as affordable housing and rented out as rental housing.

The module of interfamily living changes the relationship between neighbours

2-bedroom flat

1-bedroom flat (small)

1-bedroom flat (large)

Bed & sitting room

- Nuclear family of a

- A single

- A couple

- A single

couple and a child

as well as the relationship between family members of an extended family.

Instead of providing a larger unit of more rooms for the extended family, the

module provides only small units from studio to 2-bedroom flats by dividing

an extended family into several nuclear families. For example, an extended

family with grandparents and a young couple with their children can be seen as two nuclear families and be accommodated in two individual units within the

same module. These two units can either be on the same floor of the module, or different floors connected by a shared staircase. To say it differently, the

module can be seen as a 3-floor cottage, while the units can be seen as different

rooms in it. The only difference is that the ‘rooms’ have more functions and can be used as an independent dwelling.

This arrangement system adds excellent flexibility when dealing with interfamily relationships. First of all, it allows the rearrangements of these

units over time. As mentioned, the Chinese extended family is less stable than a nuclear family. Grandparents may only live with their children and

Dimension of The Furniture

grandchildren for a short time. When they move out or pass away, their unit’s use can be agreed on with other occupants.

Also, when the family decides to have more children, the older children can be accommodated in another unit within the same module. Secondly, it helps to

avoid conflicts between family members of different generations. Since every

Dimension of The Functional Space

unit is equipped with the facilities needed by daily functional needs, relatives do not have to meet each other every day. This reduces the chance for tension

between family members when both the old and young generation wants to take control.

Finally, it coordinates with the retrieval of public housing by the government.

Double Bedroom

50

Living Room

Single Bedroom

Bathroom

Bed & Sitting Room

When an extended family becomes smaller and no longer needs additional

51

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

units, these units can be retrieved by the government and be rented or sold to

room have the same dimension, which allows their conversion into each other

The flexible arrangement is not only designed for an extended family, but

share the same span between two axes. This allows the division of a unit into

other applicants while the original family can still stay in the same module. also interfamily living beyond kinship relations. The variety of units can accommodate different household types: single, a young couple, and a young couple with one or two children.

The dimension of individual units is carefully determined based on both the building code and the flexibility of room conversions anticipated. For cost-

saving purposes, the individual units are designed with the smallest possible dimension, just meeting the existing standard. This also encourages the use

easily. The bathroom and the entrance hall also have the same dimension and

two smaller studios (or one-bedroom flat, depending on the original unit type), both of which have a bathroom and sleeping area. More flexibility can

be achieved by the construction of an extra room in certain pre-designed areas within the in-between space. These flexibilities are designed to adapt

to the variety of subjects in public housing, who have different household compositions and demands, at the same time allow the possible retrieval by the state to help as many people as possible.

of shared spaces that are more generous. The distance between the grid is 3.3 metres, which can exactly be the span of a double bedroom, a living room, a

bed and sitting room, a single-bedroom (on the longer side), as well as double

Division of The Unit

Extension of The Unit

the span of a bathroom. The double-bedroom, living room and bed and sitting

studio

study/baby room

single bedroom

Fixed Grid vs. Flexible Organisation of Functions

Double Bedroom Living Room

Living Room 2-bedroom Flat

3.3m

3.3m

3.3m

3.3m

3.6m

Bathroom

1-bedroom Flat

Single Bedroom

2.4m 3.6m

Sleeping Area

In-between Space: The Additional Space for Interfamily Living Considering the financial capability of the residents in public housing, the

2.7m

individual units are designed to be ‘just enough’ for private daily life and should be affordable by residents, whereas the in-between space with shared facilities

offers more generous living areas to the family group members as ‘extra space’

Entrance

in compensation of their small units. Different from individual units, the inbetween space will be invested into and owned by the state as part of the Kitchen

Baby Room

Single Bedroom

52

service provisions at the grassroots level while being used and managed by the family groups themselves. This allows every individual to have equal access to the facilities with a more efficient way to provide service.

53

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Division and Combination of the Units within a Module

The in-between spaces are the designed extra spaces between units. They serve as the shared circulation space, but with a more generous dimension that

allows them to have other functions. On the first floor of the module, part of the in-between space can be converted into an entrance hall with flowerbed and plants, while the rest can become a living room for residents to sit down and chat when passing by. A large communal kitchen will be provided on the

second floor as compensation for the tiny kitchenettes in the units, so residents can cook more complicated meals if needed. A shared dining area will also be

provided with either larger dining tables for a party or small square tables for

Three separated units

Two units combined on the

All three units work as a unit

occupied by three different

bottom occupied by two

group to accommodate a

families

nuclear families with kinship

large extended family

families. While on the third floor, fitness equipment, bookshelves and desks are provided for exercising, reading or working.

in by the state. When occupants make further conversions or refurbish their

The functions of the in-between space can be changed according to the

needs of the group members through negotiation. With the individual units

constituting the main structure, made of reinforced concrete, the in-between space will be constructed as an additional structure made of light materials such

as wood and steel. This offers more flexibility to the adjustment of functions, and will also become part of the services and infrastructures initially invested

units, they should pay for the cost.

Also serving as a shared circulation space, the in-between space enables the

flexible division and combination between units, in terms of occupation.

Although with only 4 unit types, the combination and division of them can actually form various sizes of ‘unit group’ to accommodate different household

types, which will be connected by the in-between space. This flexibility can fulfil

the need of changing household structure. It also helps the State to retrieve unneeded units in public housing without moving remaining residents.

Spatial Elements of In-between Space

With soft divisions of curtains, the in-between space becomes a semi-outdoor space that allows fresh air and daylight to go through, making it a wonderful

space for residents to relax in good weather. It also becomes a semi-private

space that connects public circulation areas and the individual units. With every unit opening its door onto the in-between space, activities that happen

Spatial Organisation of Common Facilities

there also become part of the daily routine of individuals living there. For

example, for an office worker living on the third floor, it will be part of his daily life after work to see an old lady watering the flower at the entry, kids playing with dogs on the first floor, young couples cooking in the common kitchen and

a girl having her dinner with a coffee by the dining table on the second floor, a young man running on the treadmill and a student reading an interesting book on the third floor, until he finally opens the door to his or her unit. Before how long will he or she stop by one day to say good evening to that old lady

or ask the student about the books? The in-between space is the essential core Sitting Area + Reading Area

54

Sitting Area

Sitting Area + Exercising

Terrace

Dining Area

Common Kitchen

Common Living Room

of interfamily living that encourages interactions between residents and builds up the primary social connection for negotiation and cooperation.

55

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Initial Layout of the Unit in The Tower Type

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

Tower Type

Layout of the Unit in The Tower Type after Division

The Scale of The Floor: Two Housing Types In order to adapt to different density, urban fabric and environment, two

different types of floor layout are designed with different spatial organisation of the unit, the module, the shared facilities and the circulation: the linear type

Floor 3

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

and the tower type.

The linear type is framed by external corridors, or deck access, on both sides

orientation, though some units might not be able to orient north and south.

other functions in the middle part, having doors opened to the in-between

shared space. The in-between space is mainly a widened linear circulation space

with shared facilities, having access to both sides of corridors, letting air to YSIZE XSIZE

flow across the module. Between every two units, there is a larger shared space

YSIZE XSIZE

more land for open space. it aslo has more flexible

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

occupies fewer area on the ground floor and left

YSIZE XSIZE

sleeping area in the units facing the corridors for daylight and ventilation, and YSIZE XSIZE

The Tower type works better in small plots since it

YSIZE XSIZE

of the module. As a result, the layout of the module has all the bedrooms or

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

for facilities of more specific functions, such as children playroom, meeting room, laundry, small gym, mini-garden, etc. These are shared space at the floor YSIZE XSIZE

Linear Type

scale, used by residents of this floor and encourage the interactions between different modules. They provide additional functions that cannot be fitted into

Floor 2

the smaller scale of the module.

The tower type adopts the central core circulation, with four modules every

three floors, surrounding the central core with vertical circulation in the centre.

Due to different orientation to daylight, the organisation of units in the module

is different from the linear type. The in-between shared space is also like a core space. Compared to the linear type, the tower type is more centralised, both

within the module and on the floor plan. The connection between units and modules will be closer.

Floor 1

YSIZE XSIZE YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

These two types serve as the example of how modules, as well as facilities and

YSIZE XSIZE

well as public circulation space.

YSIZE XSIZE

is more open than the tower type in units, modules as

YSIZE XSIZE

has more restriction on the orientation. But this type

YSIZE XSIZE

The linear type require a relevantly larger plot. It also

YSIZE XSIZE

in the centre of the module surrounded by units. Spiral Staircase is used to save

space shared between them, are arranged at the scale of the floor. Changes will be made when they are adapted to different existing context of actual sites.

0

56

1m

5m

57

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Floor Plan of The Tower Type

Floor Plan of The Tower Type

YSIZE XSIZE YSIZE XSIZE

XSIZE YSIZE YSIZE XSIZE

XSIZE YSIZE

1

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

2 Floor 3

cad-block.com cad-block.com

4 5

3

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

0 1m

5m

10m

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

01

1. Sand & Children Playing 2. Laundry Space 3. Mini-garden

5

10m

Floor 2

4. Bicycle Parking 5. Table Tennis

58

59

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Initial Layout of the Unit in The Linear Type

Layout of the Unit in The Linear Type after Extension

Layout of the Unit in The Linear Type after Division

Floor 3 YSIZE XSIZE

Floor 3 again includes three units and a small common living room. Space for exercising is also designed.

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

Floor 2

YSIZE XSIZE

Floor 2 has two units on two sides. The central space is for common kitchen and dining room.

Floor 1 Units can be divided from the middle where the bathrooms are situated.

Floor 1 consists of three units of different size (2-bedroom, 1-bedroom, studio). The in-between space 0

1m

5m

10m

serves as the entrance hall of the module, which also allows cross circulation between decks as both sides.

60

Some designed shared

By adding another

areas will be occupied as

bathroom, a bedroom

extension to some units

can be converted into a

when needed, by renting

small studio with private

them from the State

entrance.

61

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Floor Plan of The Linear Type

9 8

Floor 3

9 YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

10

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

10

YSIZE XSIZE

7

11

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

Floor 2

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

YSIZE XSIZE

cad-block.com

6

cad-block.com

cad-block.com

cad-block.com

3

2

Floor 1 1. Sand 2. Children Playroom 3. Bicycle Parking

1

4

5

4. Meeting Room 5.Sitting Area 6. Table Tennis 7. Gym 8. Dancing & Yoga Room 9. Party Room 10. Laundry Space

0

1

5

10m

11. Mini-garden

62

63

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Negotiating Between Space For a long time, one of the most critical problems of public space or shared space is the responsibility of maintenance. As public investments, who should

be responsible for keeping them in good order and pay for the cost? The government could be one solution, but it could not afford for refurbishments

over many years. A typical example is the public space of public housing in post-war London. When many of these estates were built, they were equipped

with the designed landscape, playground and small square on the ground floor.

Years later, however, many of these public spaces were enclosed and left to be

abandoned with worn-out facilities. The main reason was that the government failed to provide enough money to maintain them, so they forbade people from using them for safety issues.

The same problem exists in the in-between shared space and the facilities of

interfamily living. Although the initial investment is from the state, residents

tend to take it for granted to be able to use these facilities while refusing to be responsible for maintaining them. It is especially difficult for families

who do not know each other in the first place, since people’s behaviours will be anonymous and their responsibility undefined. This is common in student

apartments where several students share the same kitchen, with someone always never doing the cleaning. The problem is, you never know who they are

unless you accidentally run into them. In this case, the problems come from the lacking sense of collective property.

On the other hand, there is also a potential for residents to enclose some areas in the public space as their private property. The shared terrace might be

enclosed with a fence by the residents whose windows or doors open up to it.

Perspective Section of the Module in The Linear Type

Others might occupy the space around their doors for storage. These are quite common in some medium-rise danwei housing, where people live on the top floor and add a door with a lock between this floor and downstairs, to ensure that only they can use the roof despite the potential fire risk this creates. In

the case of enclosures by residents, the shared space will be divided into several private spaces, which will fail the initial attempts of the in-between space to encourage interactions and better neighbourhood relationships.

64

65

Chapter 2 Room, unit and module

Facilities Shared at The Scale of the Floor

There are a few considerations in design that can discourage these from

happening. First of all, the spatial design should emphasise the identity of individual members in order to build a closer relationship among them. When

getting more familiar, people start to feel embarrassed for doing something

unpleasant that might undermine their relationship. Other considerations, Party Room

Dancing &Yoga

including their reputation, others’ comments also help to restrict people’s behaviour in a small face-to-face society. These can be achieved, on the one hand, by limiting the number of members in a family group to make sure it

remains in a small size. On the other, every individual unit should have some minimum spatial features, a small terrace for a rolling chair or a front door Mini-Garden

Laundry

Gym

Space

facing the flowerbeds, for example, to make them more distinguishing with

In the linear type, specific

their own identity.

facilities are inserted between every two module and shared by the whole floor.

Shared space and the facilities in it can also encourage interactions when

frequently used by members, as long as they are appropriately designed.

However, clearer boundaries should also be defined for divisions of Children

Meeting

Relaxing

Playroom

Room

Place

responsibility. If only one or two families use a circulation space, then it is

more likely for them to enclose that space. If the circulation space is more

open and others pass by frequently, it is less likely to be occupied. Therefore, the location of the entrances of individual units and the dimension of the

in-between space should follow the theory of environmental behaviour. For example, different materials can be used as the implications of different space

and degrees of privacy. The same can be applied to the pre-designed space for extensions. In order to avoid disagreement among group members, only a few

units can be extended into a pre-planned space. The potential extensive space

will be decided at the beginning, and the following extensions in the future will not influence the integrity of the in-between space.

Establishing visual connections between in-between space and the individual

unit can also help to maintain order. Surveillance by other members and eyes contacts between residents remind people to behave well. In order to achieve

that, the in-between space should be visually open to both the outside and

the individual unit. French windows and glass doors facing to the sitting &

reading area or small flowerbeds can help to realise the visual connection.

These can also be used as the division of the common kitchen and dining

room. Moreover, the open plan of in-between spaces itself also allows the visual connection to be established.

66

Establishing a credit system in public housing could also be a possible way to deal with conflicts among group members. For instance, every applicant should have their records in the public housing application system, where

group members can rate their neighbours or leave reviews. The records should be private but accessed by relevant professional officers and would be able to influence their application for public housing in the future. Online surveys should also be included in the process of application for applicants to join

proper family groups. Websites for an online community should also be built up for early communication of applicants to make friends and look for suitable neighbours.

The discussion around negotiation within a community is a complicated interdisciplinary topic that is not only related to architecture, but also

sociology, economics, psychology, and so on. Due to the limitation of time and knowledge, this thesis only discusses several potential problems and provides

a few solutions which need to be developed further. This further development can be another focus of study in other research or practice in the future. What is certain at this moment is that negotiation is key to the success of any projects

that challenge individual living. The process of negotiation itself also helps

to establish a collaborative relationship, which furthermore inspires residents’ awareness of responsibility and self-governance. These are the fundamental support structures for a brand-new service provision system that I will talk about in the next chapter.

67

Chapter 3 Urban community

Chapter 3

URBAN COMMUNITY

The proposal of ‘Community Building’ was first put forward in 1986 by The Ministry of Civil Affairs in China. Its initial primary task was providing public

services on the scale of the urban neighbourhood. More than 30 years later, community building is no longer only a proposal but has become a policy that needs to be implemented by local governments as part of their administrative duties. The Community Building Policy is closely coordinating with the

urban administrative system, especially at the grassroots level, where the local

authority works closely with autonomous institutes and volunteers of the

community to improve service provision, hygiene, culture, social order, and so on.

However, this model has limitations. It is more propaganda than the actual measurement that benefits the residents. Thus, it is not well recognised by the general public. This chapter will introduce the development of modern

urban governance and its problems related to housing. It will argue that a more efficient way of service provision could be achieved by rethinking the

relationship between urban governance, public ownership and public housing.

69

Axo of Site 1 with Surroundings

Chapter 3 Urban community

Communist Living in the City: The Work Unit In the first five years of the new China, urban planning was guided by western

theories, and the neighbourhood unit was introduced in many large cities.

Later the Soviet Union as the political ally sent professional planners to help

China with the construction, thus brought the idea of the superblock to China. Then the political movement of the Culture Revolution promoted 24

3.1 The Transition of Urban Governance in China Urban Governance in Ancient China

the construction of people communes in rural areas and the work units in the cities. The work unit system lasted for more than 30 years until the end of the 20th century.

For thousands of years in ancient China, urban planning of the city was an

In the city, work units not only served as the areas of residential, commercial

through time.

measurement to motivate and involve all citizens into the well-organised

There were two significant periods of urban planning. From the Zhou Dynasty

that time. Due to the shortage in all kinds of resources, the work unit system

‘Fang’ for commercial activities, which had walls surrounding the areas with

industrial production, while work unit was the subject that resources were

increase political control and military purposes. After the late Tang Dynasty,

service provision, including housing, health care, education, elder care, amenity,

instrument of governance. It had its own feature and systems which developed

24. The Cultural Revolution, formally the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, was a sociopolitical movement in China from 1966 until 1976 aimed at preserving Chinese Communism by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society. The movement paralyzed China politically and negatively affected both the economy and society of the country to a significant degree.

and industrial, but also as the basic unit in urban governance. It was an effective massive national production, especially in an unstable society of scarcity at

to early the Tang Dynasty, a city was divided into several ‘Li’ for residential and

enabled the state to monopolise the distribution of social resources and control

gates that opened only at certain times. The ‘Lifang’ system was introduced to

distributed through. As a result, work units held the responsibility of public

the prosperity of commercial activities led to an easing of the restriction of

Lifang, making the city more open. In the Song Dynasty, ‘Jiexiang’ replaced

Lifang to became the main ordering typology of cities, where residential and

commercial areas were no longer separated. This model continued until the

late Qing Dynasty, when western urban planning ideas were brought to China.

The urban governance model of ancient China still influenced the later development of urban form in modern China, especially on the neighbourhood

unit, work unit and the contemporary neighbourhood. The Baojia registration system related to Lifang system also illustrated the relationship between space

and organisation of community as well as the administration of social order

in traditional Chinese cities. This profoundly influenced the application and practice of a western theory of the neighbourhood unit and community in post-war China.

On the top, city of Chang'an in Tang Dynasty, which was the most typical urban plan under Lifang system.

On the bottom shows the organisation of Fang, the commercial area.

Photograph of life in the work unit in 1960s and 1970s

70

71

Chapter 3 Urban community

public security, and so on. Policies were also passed through the work unit

down to every individual and implemented on them, including the employees and their families.

The administrative duty of work units can easily be captured in the layout and functional zones of them. Typically, a work unit would include functional

zones of residential, workplace or industrial production, commerce, education and administration, depending on the scale of the enterprise. Residential area would always be combined with the educational function of schools for the

It needs to be clear that there are differences between the concept of urban planning and the concept of administration in Chinese cities. In urban

planning, there are three levels in urban residential planning: residential area, residential district and neighbourhood. While there are also three levels in

urban governance: district, street and community, governed by District Government, Street Office and Residents Committee. These two systems run

in parallel. Their relationship can be illustrated by the diagram on the bottom.

children of the employees, and the facilities for amenity and daily living, such

as sporting field, garden, canteen, clinic and public bath. All these facilities were enclosed with living and working in a territory defined by walls. Different from

the modern neighbourhood later, the facilities of service were inserted into the

Residential District

housing area, easy to access and clearly defined in term of their potential users and the responsibility of maintenance. Therefore, even though the quality of

service varied due to the financial status of different work units, or the fact that this service provision model was actually a kind of compensation for poor urbanisation and national economy, the work unit worked fair enough in terms

Neighbourhood

Community

of public service provision, that some old people still recall it nowadays.

- Community Committee Street - Street Office

Community as The New Urban Governance System After the Economic Reform, the old work unit system broke down along with

Community - Community Committee

the previous urban governance system. As estates of market housing were no longer managed by the state-owned enterprise, the state needed a new system

as the substitute to govern the cities, a system that could help them rebuild the urban governance network down to the grassroots level. The concept of ‘community' was put forward as the replacement of danwei.

25. Regulations for Organisation of Sub-district Office and Regulations for Organisation of Residents Committee

The community in the Chinese context is more understood as an administrative

Block - Street Office

unit of spatial area than a sociological term or architectural territory. Early in 1954, two regulations25 were enacted to define three different levels of an

Concept of Administration

urban community: district community, street community and neighbourhood community.26 Today when talks about community building, it refers to all

Concept of Urban Planning

three levels, but the effective instrument will start from the neighbourhood 26. Tang Zhongxin, 2000. Theory of Urban Community Building in China. (Tianjin People’s Publishing House, 2000)

72

community. In the following content, the word ‘community' refers to only the neighbourhood community.

Relationship Between Neighbourhood, Community, Block and Residential District

73

Chapter 3 Urban community

27. According to the Organic Law of the Urban Residents Committee of the People's Republic of China, the Residents Committee should have the following duties: 1. publicising the Constitution, the laws, the regulations and the state policies, safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of the residents, educating the residents for the fulfilment of their statutory obligations and for the protection of public property, and conducting various forms of activities for the development of an advanced socialist culture and ideology; 2. Handling the public affairs and public welfare services of the residents in the local residential area; 3. Mediating disputes among the residents; 4. Assisting in the maintenance of public security; 5. Assisting the local people's government or its agency in its work related to the interests of the residents, such as public health, family planning, specialized care for disabled servicemen and family members of revolutionary martyrs and servicemen, social relief,

As an administrative unit, there is no clear definition of the size of a community in China. It varies from one to another, sometimes contains

only one large neighbourhood, or contains several smaller neighbourhoods.

Residents Committee is set up to be in charge of the community every 100 to 700 families typically. It is a self-governing organisation composed by volunteering residents, following the guidance of the Street Office, the

lowest level of government. The Residents Committee is financially supported

by the government and coordinates with the Street Office. This makes the self-governing organisation, in fact, a subsidiary of the Street Office and

accomplishes political assignments delivered from the upper government, while its duty should have been providing public service and organising democratic meeting of the residents.27

and juvenile education; 6. Conveying the residents' opinions and demands and making suggestions to the local people's government or its agency.

One crucial dilemma of the Residents Committee is that they seldom receive public recognition. The committees are supposed to be representatives of

residents and are chosen through voting. However, in reality, most of the

residents in the community do not know either these committees or their 28. The survey was conducted in August 2018, in three different public housing estates: Longnan Garden Rental Housing Estate, Xinkai Public Housing Estate and Huinan Minle Residential District. In total, 66 residents were involved.

duties. In a survey conducted by the author, 47 out of 66 residents in three 28

different communities knew nothing about the daily work of local Residents

Committee, another 13 only contacted them several times. 80% of the residents never participated in any organised activities, and 59% never knew about any of them. These data show the low efficiency of Residents Committee.

There are several reasons for low efficiency. Firstly, the scale of a community is so big that it is impossible for every individual to be involved. Secondly, the

social ties among residents are weak, due to both the modern housing typology for individual living model and the scale of a community. Residents feel no

responsibility for participation. Thirdly, the awareness of democracy among the

public is still weak, and the authority (both the Residents Committee and the government) lacks support. People do not believe their decisions would make a

difference. Finally, everyone is so busy in life in modern cities. Though sounds

too general, the final reason also points to the inadequate service provision, including public facilities and activities, which fails to encourage interactions

and build up congregation among residents. In general, community governance needs improvement.

3.2 Public Service: Who is Responsible?

In a work unit, it was the duty of the enterprise to provide public service for its

residents, the employees and their families. When work unit system is gone, the responsibility falls back to local governments, which provides the central planning and financial support, while the actual practice of measurement of

providing public facilities is through local authorities, the Street Office and the Residents Committee.

The Current Service Provision System The enactment of general laws of service provision system had not been put

forward until recent years. Before that, unilateral laws29 were used for the

management of public service, which was only valid for specific cases. The first

local policy of public service was published in Guangdong province in 2012,

29. For example, the Administration of Public Library in Shanghai, published in 1996, only validated for management of libraries in Shanghai.

There were more than 300 laws and policies of library, cultural centre, etc.

which put forward the enactment of laws for public service in other cities and

provinces. In 2017, the Central Council published the Public Cultural Service Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China.30

30. Wei Jianxin, Duan Ran, 2017. ‘Analysis of Legislation Norm of Local Public Cultural Service’.

(The South China Sea Law Journal, 2017)

These policies and laws define the responsibility of local authority for planning, providing and maintaining the facilities of public service. Take Shanghai as an example. The Policy of Public Cultural Service Provision in Community of

31. DGJ08-55-2018, revised in 2018

Shanghai 31 published in April 2013, defines that the Street Office is responsible for the management of public service facilities of its area, including the setup

and construction, daily operation, future maintenance, effectiveness evaluation of them. Residents Committee also has the responsibility for the facilities in their jurisdiction.

The functions, location and density of these facilities are also stipulated in the

policy as well as the Standard for Public Facilities of Urban Residential Area

and District . The public service of a residential district includes facilities of administration, culture, sport, education, health care, commerce, welfare, green

space, municipal administration, etc. Community Cultural Centre should be

74

75

Chapter 3 Urban community

However, this model of public service provision has also been doubted by both

the public and the professionals. Many of them have been accused of lousy quality, lacking diversity as well as professional management, low participation

and low utilisation rate, facing only to one single subjects, the old, etc. In most case, these are true. Due to budget, the scale and construction area of the

community centre is limited, especially in some old neighbourhoods where there is not much land left for the new building. Same to the equipment and

facilities inside, from air conditioners to flooring. Most of the stuff is ordinary government officers who seldom likely to have professional skills in library science or elderly care, for instance.

The other thing that has been widely criticised is that the facilities lacking

diversity, and quality fails to attract various groups of users, namely young adult, teenagers or children, which take up 90% of the population in the urban

community.32 These groups seek for diverse entertainment with better quality

Photograph of the community

that current public service system cannot provide, even though they need to

centre in Wujiaochang Street,

32. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, 2016. China Country Assessment Report on Aging and Health. (WHO Press, 2016)

pay extra money for that, despite they already paid their tax for free public

Yangpu District, Shanghai.

in the centre with a service radius of less than 1,000 metres. Every community

service. This furthermore influences the function of democracy and autonomy

set up every 50,000 residents. A junior school and elementary school every

recognition, collaborative neighbourhood relationship, as well as awareness

and clinics should have a service radius of less than 500 metres. A community

provision system still being taken full responsibility by the government, it is

should have one or more community activity rooms. A high school should be

of community, which based on the high participation rate, high public

25,000 residents, and a kindergarten every 10,000 residents. Health care centre

of right and responsibility, of the residents. While the current public service

elderly care centre should be set up every 25,000 residents, a daily care centre

hard to change the situation.

every 15,000 residents, and an elderly activity room every 5,000 residents.

Recent years witnessed the increasingly attention from both the state and the public on public service provision, also with the propagation of Community

Building Policy started in 2000. Therefore, for years, there was a trend for building community centres, even in the design course in the school of architecture. A community centre usually would include a meeting room, a

reading room or small library, activity rooms, classrooms, gym, etc. Some of these rooms would be used for the public class of dancing, singing or other

social activities. A community centre would contain most of the facilities

associated with amenity in a community. It would be managed by staff worked for Residents Committee and Street Office, or volunteers from the

community. To coordinate with that, there are also Community Health Care Centre, Helping Centre, Elderly Activity Centre, etc.

76

Question: Should the State Take All the Responsibility?

For a long time, back to the work unit, people are used to the thinking that the

state has to provide, manage and maintain public service facilities. True it is, but not an excuse for ignoring people's responsibility when using them. There

is a vicious cycle in the state-responsible-only system: On one hand, the vast

expense on investing public service and later maintenance makes it difficult for improvement of its quality, density and diversity. On the other hand, citizens

take it for granted without feeling responsible for giving reviews or suggestions, helping to improve the system or maintain the facilities in good shapes. The lower the quality and harder to access, the less general residents would use the

facilities, the less attention would be paid to manage them, the fast they would malfunction, and the more unwillingly people want to be responsible.

77

Chapter 3 Urban community

Both the laws and policies mention the responsibility of citizens to be involved in the process of public service provision. For instance, the Policy of Public Cultural Service Provision in Community of Shanghai encourages individuals

to provide public service, or give suggestions or proposal for diverse service

provision. Therefore, the citizens also have their role in public service provision.

Although most of the current policies still emphasise more on the duty of the government.

On the other hand, it is also difficult for the current system to coordinate with

massive public participation, or require the accountability of every individual.

Under the circumstances that both budget and human resources are limited, it is impossible to improve the quality and expand the scale or increase the density of public service. How can residents feel responsible for or involved in the public service in a small 300m2 2-floor building, which is three blocks

away and shared with other 3,000 people? Who will bother to use them every

day or provide suggestions for the improvement after a long day work? Who

will be willing to pay for the maintenance? People feel the necessity to invest their time and money when they feel benefited. While it is not benefiting

the general citizens at all, except the old, who have more free time yet less capability. That is the reality of public service in China.

Situations are worse in the community of public housing as well as the other

small cities, where building community public service facilities become a political mission to be accomplished, that local government only build to make sure the general construction area meets the target, rather than considering the demands of the residents. For public housing on the edge of the city, a

complete system of public service is even more crucially needed than in the

inner city, due to the long distance travelling hours to reach the substitute of them. However, in most case, the construction of the public facilities usually

lags a lot behind the construction of housing. Sometimes it takes more than ten years for them to follow up gradually, which means huge inconvenience for the residents. A new system of public service is needed.

Distributing the Facilities and Responsibility to Individuals In the current network of public service, the community is the most basic level. However, a community can still contain several neighbourhoods with

thousands of residents, which the network would be impossible to cover. To

improve the efficiency and effectiveness, the density of the facilities must reach a certain degree, which means the public service must reach down to every

neighbourhood. Whereas nowadays, few facilities exist in the neighbourhood,

either publicly funded or not. Developers provide facilities, but in bad quality, insufficient numbers, and lacking diversity.

Right: Poster of Community Building Policy

Feel Not Responsible

The Missing Scale

Low Engagement

Below: Photograph of community activities. Most of the participants are retired old people. They are the only group involved in the public service provision

No feedback, No improvement No maintenance

Never use

Low Quality

78

79

Chapter 3 Urban community

Instead of putting all the responsibility and power of control on the shoulders of the government, the proposal of a new system adopts a more hierarchical

system of responsibility division. When public service is provided in the scale of the neighbourhood, not only the facilities but also the responsibility of maintaining them are refined, divided and distributed to different groups of

subjects, in this case, every family group and the members of interfamily living.

Public housing offers good opportunities for the new system due to its state ownership. This system should be combined with the development of new housing typologies for interfamily living, in which the shared space in and between modules offer perfect locations for the insertion of small-scale public

facilities, such as small gardens, gym, meeting room, reading area, working

space, laundry, children playroom, etc. With the users of these facilities being so specific, the responsibility of maintenance is also clearly divided, by which

at least people know who is accountable if any of these facilities worn out more

3.3 Design Proposal: The Urban Community In this chapter, designs at several scales between the module of the family group and community of neighbourhoods will be introduced. The proposal will show how the prototype of interfamily living will be practised through

different scales, coordinating with each other and finally related to the urban environment, based on two existing sites in Shanghai, China.

The Scale of The Neighbourhood

quickly than others. Residents will also cherish more the free resources they can get. The state, who are only responsible for the initial investment of public service and periodical refurbishment now, are relieved from the burden of daily manage and maintenance of them.

The improvement is not only on the efficiency of the service provision

but also on the neighbourhood relationship and governance of the urban

community. Unlike the old system in which public service is inconvenient to

Site 1

reach, these facilities are free to reach only a few steps from home for general

residents, and the quality of them will be assured since they are shared by

the people they know. By sharing and maintaining these facilities together, collaborative relationship among neighbours are developed, as well as a

friendly neighbourhood environment and sense of responsibility. The healthy

Site 2

neighbourhood environment and intimate relationship among residents encourage them to improve their living environment, express their views and give suggestions, help to build up a sense of autonomy and democracy on the grassroots, which is another principal aim of urban community building in China.

City of Greater Shanghai from Google Earth

80

81

Chapter 3 Urban community

(1) Site 1: Block No. 115 The block No. 115 is a site of 10,350 m2, situated in Jin'an District in

Shanghai. Jin'an District is one the oldest district of Shanghai City, which can be dated back to more than 100 years ago. It is a central area in the inner city

of Shanghai, where the housing price is the most expensive of the city, at an average pricing of over 90,000 yuan per m2.

33. Lilong housing is a traditional housing typology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was built in many large cities in China at that time, including Shanghai, Beijing, Wuhan, Guangzhou.

As the oldest part of the city, it contains a lot of old traditional Lilong housing33 firstly built in the 19th century, as well as danwei housing of the 1960s to

1980s. Most of these buildings are low or medium rise housing of out-of-date

Phtograph of Typical Lilong in Shanghai

drainage, electricity, gas or water system, for which the residents live in poor condition.

34. China's Five-Year Plans are a series of social and economic development initiatives issued since 1953. The Tenth Plan validated from 2001 to 2005.

But the following plans will still follow some of its goals.

Block No. 115 is one of them. It is an area of old Lilong housing built more

From the Tenth Five-year Plan34 in 2001, the Shanghai government have

started the demolishment and rebuilding of old housing in the inner city, by classifying them in two kinds. The Level-2 Old Lilong (二级旧里 in Chinese)

with the worse living condition and less value for reservation will be torn down

and replaced by modern housing or other functions according to planning.

After 18 years, most of the old Lilong in Jin'an District have been replaced by new urban blocks, and the rest will be demolished in a few years.

than 80 years ago. Although the housing is 2 to 3 floors height, the density reaches 1.85 with more than 2,600 residents, because each Lilong housing

is divided into several separate dwellings occupied by different families,

with many self-extension areas. The average living area per person is 7.38m2, which is extremely small. As a result, this block was classified as the Level-2 Old Lilong, and planned to be demolished and rebuilt. In August 2018, the residents of the block were moved out and relocated in several different newly built public housing estates in other districts. The demolishment is now in progress. According to the planning documents of the government, this block will be developed into a high-rise market housing estate.

As an area of highly valuable land in the inner city, market housing is always

the choice for the replacement of old housing, which will bring immense

profit to both the government and the developers. Therefore, around the site, there are plenty of luxury market housing estates that stand on the ground of demolished old residential blocks. However, there are problems as argued in previous chapters, since these market housings are turning open urban blocks

with dense lanes and small yards into enclosed private neighbourhoods. As

more and more open green space is enclosed within the private neighbourhoods, A cross-section view of an unmodified individual unit in

A cross-section view of No. 111 Alliance lane around the 1960s. In

No. 111 Alliance Lane in the 1940s. Courtesy of Jie Li.

contrast to the unmodified unit in 1940s, five families lived in different

there is no public space in this area except those planned by the government.

rooms of the house from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s. Courtesy of Jie Li.

On the other hand, the inner city was developed a long time ago with a complete system of infrastructure, namely education, hospital, public transport and commercial. However, when it comes to community service, it is relevantly a

82

83

Chapter 3 Urban community

City of Shanghai

Jing'an District

Caojiadu Community

Block No. 115

High-rise Market Housing

Medium-rise Luxury Market Housing

The Distribution of Infrastructure near Site 1 Public Facillities of the Community Medium-rise Old Work Unit Housing

Educational Facilities

Medium-rise Old Work Unit Housing

Health Care Facilities

new issue. Although equipped with offices of Community Committee, activity

centre, service centre, etc., neither the quantity nor the quality is satisfying. As

land is valuable, the setup of public facilities is complicated, as there is no space for a new building. So many of them were converted from the old ones with unsuitable functional space. There is also no place for the extension of these services.

As a result, both public facilities and public space are in lack in this area, while building another enclosed market housing neighbourhood cannot help to improve the situation. By rebuilding this block into a public housing neighbourhood, however, complementary public facilities can be built along to

serve not only the neighbourhood itself but also the surrounding area, with its national ownership.

84

To coordinate with the surrounding urban fabric, the linear type is adopted in the design of site 1. Two linear blocks are arranged in parallel to form a

courtyard in between, which serves as the open ground space for the public.

Cooperating with that, the ground floor and the first floor are for commercial and public facilities. In this case, these two floors of the block by the street are

designed into commercial space to attract pedestrians, while of the other block

facing inner neighbourhoods are used as public facilities, serving all residents of surrounding neighbourhoods. Part of the ground floor is left open to allow cross-circulation between the street and inner neighbourhoods.

Above the commercial and public part of the building from the second floor, is the residential part. Residents of Block No. 115 can directly access their

apartment building from six different vertical circulation boxes of staircases and

85

Chapter 3 Urban community

Axo of Site 1 with Surroundings

86

87

Chapter 3 Urban community

Site 1 - Ground Floor

N

Bookstore

Restaurant

Supermarket

Site 1 - Second Floor

Gym Community Meeting

Community Library

Cafe

Restaurant

Supermarket

Dessert

0

10m

Community Centre

Nursery

Day Care

0

10m

Site 1 - First Floor

88

89

Chapter 3 Urban community

View from the deck looking into the courtyard in the middle

90

91

Chapter 3 Urban community

Open Space Entrance to The Residential Part Commercial Facilities Public Facilities of the Community

elevators with their keys or access cards. The circulation of them is separated from the general citizens.

In compensation of public use of ground floor and the courtyard, a lifted garden is designed on the second floor to serve the residents only. It provides a

sizeable open ground of space for sports, walking, children playing, resting, etc.

The voids allow connection between the lifted garden and the ground, with

trees stretch into the garden and become part of it. The garden serves as both

the connection and division between the public part and the residential part of the neighbourhood.

The combination of large-scale public facilities for the general citizens, specific

public facilities and housing for the residents provides a possible solution of improving the quality and quantity of service provision in old neighbourhoods of the inner city where available land is limited and expensive. The idea is to make use of the ground floor and open the neighbourhood to the urban View of the courtyard with badminton field

92

environment under the national ownership of public housing.

93

Chapter 3 Urban community

(1) Site 2: Huinan Minle Residential District Huinan Minle Residential District is one of the 31 planned massive public

housing residential districts in Shanghai. The proposal was first put forward in 2009 as a solution of the housing shortage in the inner city, following the strategy for urban expansion of Shanghai, as well as the national policy

of massive construction of public housing in 2007. All these 31 residential

On the left shows the distribution of

districts are situated in the periphery of the city that used to be small towns

Public Facilities in the

or farmland.

rensidential district.

On the right shows the view from the main road.

Housing is the major component of these districts, taking up 30% to 40%

On both sides of the street,

of the land, including market housing, affordable housing and housing for 35. Guideline of Planning Massive Residential District in Shanghai, July 2009, by Shanghai Planning and Land Resources Administration Bureau

relocation. The commercial and industrial area, as well as public service and infrastructure, will also be constructed. The general area of these districts is vast, covering an area of around 5 km , with a population of 100,000.

2

35

As one of these projects, Huinan Minle Residential District was planned

based on the existing Huinan Town in the southeast of inner Shanghai. It 36. Regulatory Detailed Plan (Draft) of Minle Massive Residential District in New Pudong District, July 2010, by Shanghai Municipal Government

there is very few facilities.

covers an area of 5.99 km with a population of 162,000. Among the general 2

construction area of housing, 16.4% will be commercial housing, 9% will be housing for relocation, and 41% will be public housing.

36

Site 2 is part of the whole residential district, located in the northwest of the

district. This area was selected as the experimental site because most of its blocks have already been designed with available detailed site plans. It contains

19 plots that are going to be constructed into public housing, and the rest to be constructed into educational and public service.

Different from site 1, the significant problems of service provision in site 2

is the massive lag between the fast construction of housing and the gradual

development of commerce, infrastructure and public facilities. According

to the regulatory detailed plan, these urban functions will be distributed to

different plots among the whole district, but they will be difficult to reach by residents in some plots in the periphery. In the selected area of site 2, there is no planned large-scale public or commercial facilities at all. Unlike the inner city where the commercial facilities reach certain diversity and density, a newly developing area like site 2 is always lacking in commercial investment at the beginning. It will take years or even decades for the development of commercial

facilities to follow up the demands of the residents. Before that, insufficient

public service provision cannot be compensated by commercial facilities as it works in the inner city, which will bring huge inconvenience to the residents.

Huinan Minle Residential District is one of the 32 public housing massive developments planned by the Shanghai government. They are all situated in the periphery of the city as part of the strategy of urban expansion.

Therefore, the design of site 2 is a conceptual urban design, proposing a different development mode of housing and public service provision. The housing and the service will not be developed separately, but as integrity from

the beginning of planning and construction. At the neighbourhood scale, the

94

95

Site 2 - Layout of the urban design

residential blocks follow the strategy of site 1, with a combination of housing on the top, commerce, public service and open space on the bottom, as well as lifted garden in between on the second floor. In these plots, linear blocks are

arranged in parallel, facing north and south for best daylighting, with a few Site 2 - Layout of the whole residential district

in right angle at the edge of this area to form semi-surrounded courtyards. By the river where a linear park is designed, tower blocks are situated, occupying less land and providing more open space and better view. The partly opened

ground floor allows circulation of the pedestrians to walk across buildings and

courtyards, which forms a continuous walkable green space on the ground

floor, with easily accessible commercial and public facilities serving the citizens.

In this case, public service will be developed along with the construction of housing. With the common facilities of residential part on the top and

the general public service and space on the ground, each building itself is a

combination of residence and the provider of service provision. This can be

a solution to lacking infrastructure and public service in a newly developing residential district in the periphery of cities.

In the scale of the neighbourhood, two different sites of different scales are used to test the prototype of interfamily

living in public housing. They represent two major kinds of problems of building an urban community in the inner city as renewal, as well as in the periphery as urban expansion. First

of all, the building itself serves as the carrier of public service

at various scales between individual units and the community: small shared spaces among units in the module, medium shared space of specific functions among modules, lifted garden as Site 2 - Layout of the detailed plan of northwestern corner of the whole district

shared open space in the single neighbourhood. It enables the public service to enter the scale of the neighbourhood, filling

up the gap between residents' daily activities and the service

provided by the government as missions of politics and policies. Secondly, this public housing of interfamily living

becomes an intermedia that can help to deal with existing

problems of different sites through various approaches. In site 1, the design serves to complement the shortage of open space and public facilities. Whereas in site 2, the facilities brought along by the housing reduce the lag between the development

of housing and service. Finally, an improved system of public service is also presented, of how public facilities are organised

throughout multiple scales from unit to urban community, which densifies the distribution, clarifies the responsibility of management, as well as motivates public involvement. Public housing of interfamily living should become an instrument

to encourage the improvement and reformation of existing public service provision system.

96

97

Chapter 3 Urban community

Site 2 - Axo of the urban design 98

99

Conclusion: housing as an instrument

CONCLUSION:

HOUSING AS AN INSTRUMENT

The problem of inefficient public service provision in China came from a

series of social transformations of economy, politics, urban governance, and

are eventually reflected on housing privatisation of market housing, which prevents the interfere of the state, namely the planning and construction of

public facilities, from entering the scale of the neighbourhood. As a result, several scales between individual dwelling and community are missing, leaving a gap between basic daily demands of the citizens and general service provided by the community. The gap results in not only low-quality service but also the

low engagement of the residents, which leads to inefficient urban governance with adequate participation of the general public.

Therefore, with its distinct ownership pattern that allows more interfere from

the state into the neighbourhood scale, public housing should be something more than residential. It should be considered as a potential instrument to

encourage the reformation or the improvement of the existing service provision system, rather than just another pure residential housing copied thoroughly from current market housing, along with all the problems it has.

This dissertation enters the problems from the scale of interfamily living, proposing a more hierarchical service provision system that reach down to the bottom of people's daily life at multiple scales of interfamily living, providing

them with facilities that meets their demands and can actually be used, as well as encouraging the involvement of the general public. The research provides an angle of understanding housing as a more complex subject related deeply

to ownership pattern, privatisation, service provision and urban governance, which should be considered in the process of decision making and planning

of public housing by the government. While the design offers one example

101

solution, there are many other possible ways to approach these problems, either through interfamily living or not, which shall be proposed by future researches and scholars.

On the other hand, the dissertation also opens up the further discussion of

how much housing can be integrated into the administrative system of urban

planning and policy making, as well as how much architects can be involved as core members for professional suggestions and coordinates with other

subjects, rather than just providing design of housing or unit plan. In the case of interfamily living, for example, the application of public housing should be

coordinated by a system for decisions of whom to live with whom in the same

module, designed through the communication among architects, residents, engineers, government officers, etc.

Due to the limitation of time and length, the dissertation does not go further into the broader problems of planning, density, policy making, building

technology, construction, etc., which are also potentially different angles to look into the problem of public housing and service provision. If we question

the high current density in inner city or countryside, for example, a different

housing typology might be needed as a different approach to the same problems.

Even the concept of interfamily living might not be the most suitable solution, while the relationship within and between families need to be rethought.

Moreover, instead of limiting on public housing, housing as a broader context is also worth to look into, especially in the case of China, where public housing

still takes a small proportion. While the changing household structure and service provision are still the major problems, it is worthwhile to question how can interfamily be realised under the context of private housing, either

from the perspective of a different possible development mode, new housing typologies or others.

At last, housing should never be seen as a building of pure residential. The

lifestyles defined by housing as well as the living activities interacting with

the surrounding urban environment, play essential roles in shaping the urban morphology and administration. Housing should be regarded as an instrument for improving modern urban life.

102

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neville Mars, Adrian Hornsby, 2008. The Chinese Dream: A Society Under Construction. (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008) Michael J. Crosbie, 2003. Multi-family Housing: The Art of Sharing. (Victoria, Australia: Images Publishing, 2003)

Print Books and Journals Wang Yuesheng, 2015. ‘An Analysis of Changes in Chinese Family Structure between Urban and Rural Area: On the Basis of the 2010 National Census Data.’ (Social Sciences in China, 2014) Song Jian, Huang Fei, 2011. ‘Intergenerational Relationship between Adult Only Child and their Parents.’ (Population Research, 05.2011) Lu Duanfang. 2006. Remarking Chinese Urban Form: Modernity, Scarcity and Space, 1949-2005.

(Routledge, 2010) Lu Junhua, Peter G. Rowe and Zhang jie, 2001. Modern Urban Housing in China 1840-2000. (Munich : Prestel, 2001) Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, 1988. Cohousing: A Contemporary approach to Housing Ourselves. (Ten Speed Press, 1994) WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, 2016. China Country Assessment Report on Aging and Health. (WHO Press, 2016) David Bray, 2005. Social Space and Governance in Urban China: The Danwei System from Origins to Reform. (Stanford University Press, 2005) Song Jian, 2013. ‘The Capability and Threat of Elderly Care in 4-2-1 Household Structure’. (Journal of Renmin University of China, 2013) Feng Xiaotian, 2009. ‘Household Structure of The First Generation of Single Child and Their Parents, Based on Survey of Top Five Chinese Cities’. (Social Science Research, 2009) Fang Xianfu, Xiao Dunyu, Yang Yide, 1982. ‘The Planning and Design of Tianjin Petrochemical Neighbourhood’. (Architectural Journal, 1982)

104

Laurence Liauw, 2008. New Urban China. (Chichester: John Wiley, 2008) Karel Teige, 2002. Minimum Dwellings. (MIT Press, 2002) Chen Jie, Mark Stephens, Yanyun Ma, 2013. The Future of Public Housing: Ongoing Trends in the East and the West. (Springer, 2013)

Website, Electronic Journals and News China Youth Daily. ‘54.6% Interviewed Young Adults Enjoy Living Alone’. 2017. Web. China.Org.CN. ‘History of Community Building’. 2003. < http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/zhuanti/ minzheng/367215.htm> Tencent News. ‘60 Years Transformation of Community Committee’. < https://news.qq.com/zt2010/ ghgcd004/index.htm> Zhang Wennan, Zhao Ning. ‘Community Building: Fundamental Work of Urban Society Integration of 21th century – Interview of Tang Zhongxin, Researcher of Tianjin Academy of Social Science’. 2002. < http://www.people.com.cn/GB/paper85/7081/685839.html> Gooood. ‘Longnan Garden Social Housing Estate, Shanghai, China, by Atelier GOM’. 2018. < https:// www.gooood.cn/longnan-garden-social-housing-estate-by-atelier-gom.htm> Hao Qianjin. ‘The Characteristic and System of Public Housing Policy in Shanghai’. Housing Express, 2010. < http://www.cih.org.hk/publication_dnload/HousingExpress201009/04_cover_story.pdf>

Niklas Maak, 2015. Living Complex: From Zombie City to the New Communal. (Munich : Hirmer, 2015)

Chen Jie. ‘General Introduction of Public Housing Policy in China’. Housing Express, 2010. < http:// www.cih.org.hk/publication_dnload/HousingExpress201009/04_cover_story.pdf>

Tang Zhongxin, 2000. Theory of Urban Community Building in China. (Tianjin People’s Publishing House, 2000)

Zang Ming. ‘First Block of Recolation of The Year in Jin’an, Shanghai’. The Paper News, 2018. < https:// www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2321539>

Lu Jihong. 2018. The Path Choice and Several Problems in the Urbanisation of Population Equilibrium.

(Southwestern University of Finance and Economics Press, 2018)

Michael Brooks. ‘Adam Curties – The Great British Housing Disaster’. 2018. < https://www. designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Adam_Curtis_-_The_Great_British_Housing_Disaster>

105

Dick Urban Vestbro. ‘Cohousing in Sweden, history and present situation’. 2014. < http://www. kollektivhus.nu/pdf/SwedishCohousing14.pdf> Shanghai Street Stories. ‘Understanding Lilong Housing and Shikumen Architecture’. 2010. < http:// shanghaistreetstories.com/?page_id=1288> Karin Andersson, Caroline Glabik, Ellen Persson, Megan Prier. ‘Hej Stacken: Project portfolio, Design and Planning for Social Inclusion 2012/2013 Chalmers Architecture’. 2012. < https://suburbsdesign. files.wordpress.com/2013/04/stacken-portfolio1.pdf>

106