Li Jun: Public Space Fully Demonstrates the Core Essence of the People's City Concept [1]
Space is a core thread of research in urban sociology. The "Chicago School" in the United States, the founders of urban sociology in the modern sense, proposed urban spatial structures and concepts such as concentric zones, sectors, and multiple nuclei, which dominated urban spatial research well into the post-World War II period. In the 1960s and 70s, the French scholar Henri Lefebvre, drawing on Marxist analytical methods, elevated space to a new theoretical height. He proposed a series of viewpoints, including the circuit of capital from the first cycle in the sphere of production to the second cycle [1] in the sphere of space, and the transition of production from "production in space" to the "production of space." He argued that under the laws of capitalist operation, three sets of contradictions inevitably arise: between the quality and quantity of space, between the use value and exchange value of space, and between the global standardization and local significance of space. However, these views did not receive serious attention until the 1980s and 90s, after which they triggered a general "spatial turn" in the Western social sciences. The "New Urban Sociology" formed since the 1990s pointed out the limitations of urban ecology and absorbed the urban critical theories of Western Marxist scholars such as Lefebvre and David Harvey, placing heavy emphasis on global capitalism, political economy, and socio-cultural space. Generally speaking, Western urban space is primarily dominated by capital, and public space is threatened by commodification and privatization.
Chinese urban public space is also a major research topic in domestic academic circles. From the perspective of historical evolution, although there have been trends moving from autocratic politics to commercial society, from control to detachment, and from closure to openness—or oscillations between closed (fangshi system) [2]—open (jieshi system)—closed (danwei system) [3]—and open (jieju system) states—state power has always been the core force dominating the fate of public spaces such as streets. After the introduction of the market economy during Reform and Opening-up, capital began to become another major factor determining urban space. Some scholars have pointed out that Chinese urban public space is constrained more by the logic of power and the logic of capital, and thus needs to pay more attention to the "logic of life" to achieve a balance between the three.
While Western urban critical theory calls for the "socialist production of space" and domestic urban spatial research emphasizes "social logic," both remain at the theoretical level. They have not sufficiently valued a significant phenomenon since China entered the New Era, particularly since the 13th and 14th Five-Year Plans: the large-scale construction of urban public spaces. In 2019, when General Secretary Xi Jinping inspected Shanghai, he proposed the important concept that "a city built by the people is for the people." Since then, many of the "People’s Heart Projects" [4] implemented by Shanghai have been public space construction projects. Currently, Shanghai has formed a multi-level public space system covering the municipality, districts, sub-districts/towns, blocks, and communities. The typical representatives of municipal-level public spaces are the waterfront spaces along the "One River and One Creek" (the Huangpu River and Suzhou Creek). District-level public spaces have formed distinctive brands, such as the "Citizen Stations" in Hongkou District, "Neighborhood Centers" (mulin) in Yangpu District, "Neighborhood Hubs" (linli hui) in Xuhui District, "Neighborhood Centers" (linli zhongxin) in Minhang District, "Zero Distance" in Huangpu District, and "Doorstep Service Stations" in Pudong New Area. At the sub-district, block, and community levels, a matrix of public spaces has initially taken shape. The typical public space that connects all levels is the Party-Mass Service Center. It can be said that public space is the most intuitive manifestation and the fullest demonstration of the "People’s City." Researching the People’s City through public space and elevating practice to theory is of great significance for engaging in dialogue with Western urban spatial research and striving to construct the discourse power of urban sociology with Chinese characteristics.
Guided by the concept of the People’s City, urban public space should always adhere to and highlight "people-centeredness," which includes publicity, diversity, participation, and perceptibility.
First, prioritize publicity. General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed the People's City concept at the Yangpu Riverside, and the riverside represents Shanghai's urban public space, embodying the publicity of the People's City. Shanghai’s People’s Heart Projects have precisely seized upon public space as the "ox’s nose" [5] of People’s City construction, reserving the best public resources for the people, responding to public needs to the greatest extent, and safeguarding public interests to the maximum degree. While continuing to build and maintain multi-level public spaces from the municipality to the grassroots, emphasis should also be placed on the use of space, especially using space as a carrier to cultivate a public cultural spirit led by Socialist Core Values.
Second, emphasize diversity. The "people" are a whole in a political sense, but they possess diversity in a social sense. Most of Shanghai’s People’s Heart Projects clearly target key social groups such as the "old, young, old-neighborhood, and remote" (lao, xiao, jiu, yuan). However, beyond life-cycle divisions (old and young) and residential space differences (old neighborhoods and remote areas), social groups also possess diversity in terms of material interest differentiation and varying levels of demand. To better reflect full coverage of beneficiary groups and all-encompassing demand response, we must continue to focus on those social groups facing economic difficulties or lagging positions, so as to effectively promote common prosperity for all.
Third, improve participation. From "a city built by the people" to "constructing a urban governance community where everyone participates, everyone is responsible, everyone contributes, and everyone shares," the participation of the people is the living soul of People's City construction. We must continue to strengthen the whole-process participation of the people from both the source and the process, implement long-term mechanisms for the construction and operation of public spaces and People’s Heart Projects, and demonstrate whole-process people’s democracy.
Fourth, enhance perceptibility. The effectiveness of public space and People’s City construction ultimately depends on the perceptibility of the masses. We must strengthen the evaluation of the people’s sense of experience. In terms of content, this includes a sense of gain, happiness, and security, as well as a sense of identity, belonging, and achievement. In terms of methodology, we can rely on satisfaction evaluations of government "practical matter" projects, utilize public opinion surveys by professional institutions, and leverage real-time interactive big data platforms such as the "12345 Citizens' Hotline," the "Government Online-Offline Shanghai" (yiwang tongban), and the "Unified Urban Management" (yiwang tongguan) platforms.
Research has found that problems still exist in the construction and operation of urban public spaces, such as the waste of spatial resources, low utilization efficiency, excessive self-construction/self-operation, weak cost awareness, overly rigid functional regulations, insufficient refined management, limited types of activities, and a lack of appeal to diverse crowds. To improve the level and potential of creating high-quality urban life through public space, we can start by improving public space governance and strengthening supply-side structural reform.
First, the spatial goal is to lead the public spirit. Public space carries public spirit and a sense of community, emphasizing "commonality" (gong). Spiritual commonality needs to be reinforced by visual commonality. The current state of cluttered spatial names and imagery must be changed; similar to Community Party Service Centers and Community Affairs Receipt Centers, identification standards should be appropriately unified. Spiritual commonality, more importantly, needs to be led by political commonality. Party building leadership should not be limited to Party-Mass Service Centers but should cover more community public spaces, so that people can recognize at a glance that these are public spaces provided by the Communist Party of China, engendering a sense of closeness, trust, and identification with the CPC upon entry.
Second, spatial functions should highlight public governance. Spatial functions have an "outer skin" and an "inner core": service and activity spaces are only the skin, while deliberation and governance spaces are the core. The two must be integrated; one must avoid having the skin without the core. The "explicit function" of space is to transition from "going in" to "inviting in"—providing services and activities within the space under the new situation where door-to-door mass work has become difficult. The "implicit function" of space is to turn "strangers" into "semi-acquaintances," making the space a platform for community deliberation and public governance, allowing grassroots democracy to truly function. Specific "life politics" issues such as waste sorting, civilized pet ownership, and elevator installation can be discussed in public spaces, which is beneficial to social governance.
Third, spatial planning must improve its level of refinement. The "15-minute community life circle" [6] should coordinate as many public space construction plans as possible. The focus should not be on residents' committees (which are too small) or sub-districts (which are too large), but on the intermediate level: the block (jiequ). In spatial layout, full consideration must be given to the status of existing commercial, governmental, and public facilities. In spatial models, public space can compensate for commercial deficiencies, engage in staggered competition with commercial services, integrate with commercial spaces, or cooperate with government service receipt. In site selection, a scientific, detailed, and comprehensive analysis of the demographic, economic, and social composition of surrounding residents should be conducted, much like commercial site selection. In spatial design, professional full-space design and socialized full-process participation should be emphasized. At the starting point, the three forces of administration, professionalism, and society should be integrated.
Finally, spatial operations must promote successful experiences. For instance, "integrated operation": attempting to operate all spaces in a block or even a sub-district together to solve the problem of fragmented institutional barriers and isolated spaces. Integration can also bring scale; only with scale can there be break-even points and diminishing marginal costs, leading to economic benefits. Another example is "professionalized operation": entrusting space to third-party social organizations or social enterprises. They possess professional knowledge, processes, and methods that can effectively solve the problems of limited activity types and lack of appeal. Furthermore, "socialized operation" is key: integrated and professionalized operations should not be limited to the interior of a sub-district or area performed by localized social organizations; instead, sub-district and regional boundaries should be broken to promote the socialized operation of space. Attention must also be paid to "Internet+ operations." As the scale grows, the crowd increases, activities become denser, and areas expand, management and coordination issues will inevitably arise. Online applications must be promoted to achieve seamless integration between online and offline operations.
(The author is the Director and Researcher of the Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Source: Guangming Daily, January 23, 2025