The rise of Asian cities
Saturday, 16 June 2007
Recent favourable economic conditions have led to dramatic advances in urban development in Japan and throughout Asia. Highrise buildings are shooting up one after another, transforming the urban landscape at an astounding pace.
Architecture matures at a much slower rate than other cultural fields. Musicians or painters, for example, don't need a huge outlay of capital for a project. This means that it is relatively easy for them to be influenced by what is happening in other countries and produce work with an international flavour. Architects, on the other hand, are forced to bow to the wishes of their clients despite being artists in their own right. It takes a very long time before an architect is able to attract clients who are both understanding and intelligent--in other words, people who will allow the architect freedom in his or her designs.
However, such understanding clients are gradually appearing in Asian cities, in particular in China. The moneyed classes in China may be only about 10 per cent of the population, but out of a population of 1.3 billion that adds up to some 100 million or so people-their economic clout is considerable. Many Chinese who have lived abroad are now starting to return to cities such as Shanghai and Beijing, and there is increasing interest in bringing in aspects of outside culture regardless of national borders. This has spread to the world of architecture, and there are now some very exciting works being produced. I think this trend will gain momentum in the future as China plays host to the 2oo8 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Shanghai Exposition.
Looking back over the years, in Japan Kenzo Tange designed the main stadium for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Arata Isozaki was in charge of the design of the site for the 1970 Osaka Exposition. More recently, in the Republic of Korea, Kim Su-gun designed the main stadium for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Time lag aside, Japan and Korea are very similar; economic growth has allowed both countries to host large-scale events, and these have produced architects who have become national heroes.
China, however, is quite different.
Architecture tends to be seen as the achievement of policy-makers rather than of individuals. For example, the name most associated with the construction of the Great Hall of the People is not that of the architect, but Chou En-lai, the politician who provided the driving force behind the project. Unlike in Japan and Korea, these projects do not produce architects who go on to become national figures. In fact, foreign architects are often commissioned to undertake large projects in China; the stadium for the Beijing Olympics, for example, is the work of Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron. While both approaches are examples of urban development, they also reflect significant differences in each country's civilisation.
It must be said, though, that there are major problems with this sort of large-scale urban development. Scrap-and-build projects that ignore the architectural legacy of the past are now commonplace. In Shanghai, for example, most of the buildings from the 1930s were still standing in 1981, but now only about a fifth of them remain. The same thing is happening in Southeast Asia, where economic growth is leading to the destruction of many of the wonderful buildings constructed in the colonial period of the 19th and 20th centuries. Not only is this clearly a waste of resources, I think that it is also the destruction of "urban memory."
There is certainly the view that the Asian cities now undergoing development were shaped during the period of modernisation by the outside influences of Westernisation and colonisation. Nonetheless, they are part of Asia's hertage. In Shanghai, for example, many Chinese still live in what used to be the foreign settlements and many have memories of how the city used to look. I believe it is necessary to reassess the value of this modern heritage of Asian cities, and for this purpose I established an international network called mAAN (modern Asian Architectural Network) six years ago. We hold international conferences every year in such cities as Macao, Singapore, Surabaya, Shanghai and Istanbul, and this year's meeting will be held in Tokyo in November (see http.-m-heritage.org./maan2006). In recent years, there has been a move in Japan and other countries toward conversion and renovation; old office buildings are being converted to residential use, and old homes are being renovated with stylish makeovers. At the Tokyo conference we will be giving presentations on projects like this from different countries.
Of course, there is no escaping the fact that insisting that old structures be left standing can hinder development for the future. How do we resolve the dilemma posed by the conflicting needs of preservation and development? I hope that this meeting will be a chance to put across from Japan the philosophy needed for new urban development in Asia.
— Japan plus
Architecture matures at a much slower rate than other cultural fields. Musicians or painters, for example, don't need a huge outlay of capital for a project. This means that it is relatively easy for them to be influenced by what is happening in other countries and produce work with an international flavour. Architects, on the other hand, are forced to bow to the wishes of their clients despite being artists in their own right. It takes a very long time before an architect is able to attract clients who are both understanding and intelligent--in other words, people who will allow the architect freedom in his or her designs.
However, such understanding clients are gradually appearing in Asian cities, in particular in China. The moneyed classes in China may be only about 10 per cent of the population, but out of a population of 1.3 billion that adds up to some 100 million or so people-their economic clout is considerable. Many Chinese who have lived abroad are now starting to return to cities such as Shanghai and Beijing, and there is increasing interest in bringing in aspects of outside culture regardless of national borders. This has spread to the world of architecture, and there are now some very exciting works being produced. I think this trend will gain momentum in the future as China plays host to the 2oo8 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Shanghai Exposition.
Looking back over the years, in Japan Kenzo Tange designed the main stadium for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Arata Isozaki was in charge of the design of the site for the 1970 Osaka Exposition. More recently, in the Republic of Korea, Kim Su-gun designed the main stadium for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Time lag aside, Japan and Korea are very similar; economic growth has allowed both countries to host large-scale events, and these have produced architects who have become national heroes.
China, however, is quite different.
Architecture tends to be seen as the achievement of policy-makers rather than of individuals. For example, the name most associated with the construction of the Great Hall of the People is not that of the architect, but Chou En-lai, the politician who provided the driving force behind the project. Unlike in Japan and Korea, these projects do not produce architects who go on to become national figures. In fact, foreign architects are often commissioned to undertake large projects in China; the stadium for the Beijing Olympics, for example, is the work of Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron. While both approaches are examples of urban development, they also reflect significant differences in each country's civilisation.
It must be said, though, that there are major problems with this sort of large-scale urban development. Scrap-and-build projects that ignore the architectural legacy of the past are now commonplace. In Shanghai, for example, most of the buildings from the 1930s were still standing in 1981, but now only about a fifth of them remain. The same thing is happening in Southeast Asia, where economic growth is leading to the destruction of many of the wonderful buildings constructed in the colonial period of the 19th and 20th centuries. Not only is this clearly a waste of resources, I think that it is also the destruction of "urban memory."
There is certainly the view that the Asian cities now undergoing development were shaped during the period of modernisation by the outside influences of Westernisation and colonisation. Nonetheless, they are part of Asia's hertage. In Shanghai, for example, many Chinese still live in what used to be the foreign settlements and many have memories of how the city used to look. I believe it is necessary to reassess the value of this modern heritage of Asian cities, and for this purpose I established an international network called mAAN (modern Asian Architectural Network) six years ago. We hold international conferences every year in such cities as Macao, Singapore, Surabaya, Shanghai and Istanbul, and this year's meeting will be held in Tokyo in November (see http.-m-heritage.org./maan2006). In recent years, there has been a move in Japan and other countries toward conversion and renovation; old office buildings are being converted to residential use, and old homes are being renovated with stylish makeovers. At the Tokyo conference we will be giving presentations on projects like this from different countries.
Of course, there is no escaping the fact that insisting that old structures be left standing can hinder development for the future. How do we resolve the dilemma posed by the conflicting needs of preservation and development? I hope that this meeting will be a chance to put across from Japan the philosophy needed for new urban development in Asia.
— Japan plus