Page 86 - JCAU-5-4

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism The role of planning

implementation. Comprehensive redevelopment, guided by land between state enterprises and local governments.
a planning-led approach, results in large-scale site clearing Industrial development, led by state enterprises, was the
and significant improvements to the physical environment overwhelming priority in cities. The land was allocated to
in a relatively short time. On the other hand, incremental state enterprises for free without a limited period of use.
redevelopment, following a practice-led approach, leads to Urban development was based on sprawling industrial
more moderate changes in the neighborhood. work-unit compounds in random patches rather than
The major differentiator between the two categories of following urban planning to balance conflicting land use
industrial redevelopment in Shanghai lies in institutional interests. The individual self-sufficient state enterprise
arrangements and associated implementation strategies. compounds were located within the territories of the city
Comprehensive redevelopment strictly adheres to administration. However, state enterprises held more
planning regulations, making it more extensively shaped decision power in land use than local authorities since they
by planning policies and existing master plans. Public reported directly to central ministries. In contrast, sectoral
participation is secured through planning regulations, departments were responsible for planning project-specific
and original landowners are irrelevant to developers’ sites based on 5-year plans instead of local authorities.
work. In contrast, incremental redevelopment has an The situation changed with the introduction of the
ambiguous legitimate status and relies on decisions made land leasing system in 1988, allowing local authorities to
by government agencies on a project-by-project basis. lease urban land for commercial use. With political and
Therefore, developers need close relations with government economic decentralization, the control of urban land by
agencies, original landowners, and other influential actors local governments strengthened. Revenue generated from
to obtain permission. Consequently, close collaboration land commodification provided substantial funds for local
among these actors is encouraged, while the general public governments to invest in urban (re)development projects,
is excluded from the decision-making process. leading to an increased emphasis on urban planning to
Both types of redevelopment approaches aim to coordinate development interests and achieve ambitious
repurpose underused industrial land for non-industrial development goals.
use, suggesting a common direction. Incremental Since local governments only own a small proportion
redevelopment changes the de facto land use of former of urban land, they are eager to convert land owned by
industrial land but does not shift the de jure land use of the state enterprises into leasing land, particularly land with
sites, as it is not considered as “planning implementation.” advantaged locations. Theoretically, local governments can
Thus, incremental redevelopment can be viewed as reacquire land from state enterprises by paying compensation
temporary land use projects or a transitional stage fees and then selling the land to commercial users at a
toward comprehensive redevelopment, which eventually higher conveyance price. Urban planning is one of the legal
“implements the plan.” instruments employed by local governments to legitimize
land acquisition activities for land redevelopment. It serves
5. Discussion the needs of a development a list state for rapid economic and
5.1. Challenges of planning-led industrial urban growth (Wu, 2015). However, negotiations with sitting
redevelopment: Why alternative approaches are landowners are not always successful (Hsing, 2006). As de
needed? facto landowners, state enterprises tend to hold the allocated
land. The competition between state enterprises and local
The formal approach of industrial redevelopment faces governments for land is complex, depending on their relative
several constraints, mainly related to land transactions power and strength (Wu et al., 2007, p. 92). State enterprises
and rent gap levels. One significant challenge is that the are often referred to as “entrepreneurial bureaucrats” (McGee
land use plan does not fully address implementation
challenges, such as land ownership. Developed by the et al., 2007, p. 14), enjoying both economic and political
municipal government in a top-down approach, the land status. Unlike private residents who may not have bargaining
use plan aims to regulate the type of land use within its power in giving up land use rights, state enterprises have a
administrative boundary. However, it does not consider certain level of political hierarchy, sometimes even higher
how the local government may gain the de facto control of than local governments (Zhu, 2004, p. 1255). The acquisition
the land. Ambiguity exists in the ownership of industrial of existing administratively allocated urban land in inner
land, as both state enterprises and local governments cities is much more difficult than acquiring rural land and
can represent the state in owning the land, and their unoccupied urban land (Yeh & Wu, 1996; Yeh, 2005).
power in controlling land varies. During the socialist In the land acquisition process, state enterprises
planned economy, there was no competition for urban have strong bargaining positions with local government

Volume 5 Issue 4 (2023) 9 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.0433