Urbanization and Utopian Community in Beijing

Urban Intervention

Name

Class

Date

Introduction

Urban villages have proliferated major cities of China over the past few decades. Economic and population factors drive this major development. Urban areas are known to serve as centers for trade and commerce, research and culture, education, and government. As a result, urban areas are bound to face significant growth in population, especially in developing nations. Approximately 41 percent of the global population lives in urban areas, and by 2025, the United Nations estimates that roughly 60.1 percent of the global population will be residing in urban areas. However, the growth of urban villages has also brought about various challenges. More specifically, urbanization has resulted in social and infrastructure problems, as well as environmental and ecological issues. As cities continue to develop, more people migrate from rural to urban areas in search of a better livelihood. This results in population growth in urban areas, which then leads to an acute shortage of housing units. Because of the shortage in housing, urban areas are bound to have issues of overcrowding and poor living conditions.

Urbanization also results in a poor state of infrastructure as cities face shortages in power supply, water, and even basic amenities. The lack of affordable housing is also another challenge brought about by urbanization as the majority of migrants lack enough money to pay for urban houses, mostly because of the low-income levels. Eventually, a large number of migrants unwillingly end living as squatters or in urban slums. An increased number of the urban population lives in slums, and in 2003, the numbers were estimated to be close to 924 million individuals. As a result, these living conditions can reflect on the quality of the workforce and productivity in these urban areas. Besides the living conditions, urbanization also increases health risks.

The Case of Beijing

Beijing, China’s capital, underwent swift urbanization over the past thirty years after the reform and opening up policy. Beijing’s development can be summed up in four stages.

Natural Progression

The stage of natural progression took place between 1949 and 1979. This period witnessed the founding of a new China as well as reform and opening up of policies. The nation experienced development and industrialization, but in a natural state without the need for programming or management.

Orderly Development

This stage occurred between 1979 and 1997: Beijing and other areas initiated rapid development projects, which included planning, management, and construction of ecological environments, public infrastructure, as well as the transfer to non-agricultural industries. This showed good progress in the phase of urbanization. On average, the population density in Beijing during this period was 236 persons per square kilometer.

Rapid Development

This period was between 1997 and 2002 when Beijing experienced most urban growth. A majority of the fundamental developments had been completed, including public and rural infrastructure. Moreover, the number of towns in Beijing grew from 115 to 132, whereas the population density increased to 262 persons per square kilometer. Employment also increased in the town in Beijing.

Stable Development

This stage represents Beijing’s urbanization from 2003 to the present. Beijing’s rural urbanization stabilized to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent per annum. This shows that the level of urbanization rose significantly from the first stage until its final stabilization.

Nonetheless, the urbanization in Beijing led to a high-density conglomerate of individuals. A majority of individuals migrated to the cities to look for jobs. These migrants are an integral part of Beijing and entire China. Since the founding of new China, the countryside greatly supported the city developments as a means of building a national industrial system meant to achieve industrialization. Resultantly, a majority of the workers who moved to Beijing came from the rural villages. They are relegated to the outskirts of Beijing and operate in an environment that is far different from that of the non-migrants. Despite the important role they play by working on construction sites and under cover of darkness to offer services and products to the middle class, the city's policies have greatly impacted their livelihoods. A total of 73 percent of people living in Beijing are migrants. However, the household registration system limits the migrants’ entitlements, whereas their rights are further impeded by the unsafe labor conditions and illegal employment practices. Furthermore, most of the migrants move with their families to the towns, and this leads to overcrowding.

Overcrowding is the major problem faced by the migrants. The migrants live in crowded houses that lack privacy and pose great risks to the dwellers. The lack of enough money to afford better housing forces individuals to stay in these homes. Beijing has three types of housing, which include low rent housing, economically affordable housing, and commercial housing. One square meter of housing costs 30,000 RMB, which is significantly higher for the migrants. The high cost forces them to live in slums on the outskirts of the city. Efforts by the government to reduce the number of migrants in the city has led to the eviction of millions of migrants to rural areas. The strategy was also employed by New York in 1908, as the city put strict standards on land use and housing to tackle bad housing, insufficient schools, and crime. Nonetheless, the strategy failed to work, and the same can also be said for Beijing. Therefore, a new strategy needs to be adopted to solve the issue of affordable housing, overcrowding, and urban-inequality.

Road Not Taken

The issue of relegating the migrants to houses that are overcrowded and that have the poor infrastructure in Beijing needs to be addressed as some workers are returning to their homes and staying there for good. If the trend continues, then Beijing is likely to lose individuals who play an important role in driving its economy. This issue can be solved by adapting to a utopian community. Utopian communities were formally adopted in American communities during the nineteenth century. Despite its growth regarding size, economy, and diversity, America wanted to establish a culture that would differentiate itself from that of countries like Europe.

Moreover, the need for self-development resulted in literary associations and debating clubs, which shared provoking and interesting ideas. This led to the creation of model communities within the general societies in America. The main reason for these utopian communities was for religious reasons. The first of which was formed by father George Rapp, who, after migrating from Pennsylvania, founded a group of 1700 followers in Beaver County, which was communistically organized.

Aside from George Rapp’s community of Rappites, Robert Owen also established a secular utopian community of hard workers who were open to the idea of free and equal privileges. Described as the ‘New Harmony,’ Owen’s communitarian approach attracted thousands of individuals, and at first, the community seemed to thrive. However, the lack of proper planning failed the utopian community as the people were only brought together by Owen’s ideas and personality. Owing to Owen’s failure, utopian communities ceased to exist until 1840 were when the Brook farm and Flourierist Phalanxes revived secular communitarianism. These utopian communities reflect on social perfectibility. For instance, Owen believed in political and economic equality, Fourier’s Phalanxes community was meant to bring social harmony by freeing government interference. Whereas, the Brook Farm was established to promote mutual aid and human culture. This meant that individuals working on the farm were supposed to adhere to social harmony, simplicity, and hard work.

The height of utopian trials was marked during the 1840s. However, all these communities failed because of some reasons. The most significant reason for failure was insufficient resources. A majority of these communities lacked enough housing for their followers and enough skilled labor to produce sufficient food. Lack of integrity was also a reason for the failure of these utopian communities. The collapse of integrity can be brought about by greed and generational issues.

An example would be in Owen’s community, where individuals disputed with each other and often failed to cooperate. The loss of community is also a significant reason for the failure of these settlements. It resulted from the leaders and followers feeling neglected and left out. This mostly occurs when communities grow to the extent that they are difficult to manage and control.

Utopian Community in Beijing

The development of utopian communities in Beijing can be useful in eradicating some of the issues presented by the urbanization of the town. The current global environment presents a distinctive, unique environment in which the utopian approach can be integrated. The utopian community can also be based on the underlying principles of creating a juster and more humane alternative for city dwellers, more specifically, the migrants. The plan can incorporate both country and urban to make it more convenient and desirable by offering sustainable and affordable housing for the community. Aside from the benefits offered by utopian communities such as health, good education, and equal resources for all, the contemporary utopian society can solve problems of globalization struggles, and sustainability. The creation of a Utopian community in Beijing can be focused on the aspect of social sustainability. The main reason why migrants in Beijing are facing endless challenges is that of the issue of disentangling the practical and political dimensions of social sustainability.

Social sustainability involves considering the needs of the people for them to be able to work and live harmoniously together. It focuses on environmental, economic, spatial, and social issues as they each relate to one another. As described by the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, social sustainability is a synthesis of the traditional areas of social policy, which incorporates principles of social justice and equity, as well as raising concerns of wellbeing, social capital, and participation.^18...