Page 130 - JCAU-6-4

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Socialist urbanism and cultural infrastructure facilities

for a socialist city was that it operated continuously as a philosophy of socialist general planning (Hoffman, 2003;
synchronized instrument of economic production and Reiner & Wilson, 1979; Wakeman, 2014). Its political-
social transformation in physical space.” In the classic organizational capacity depends on both ideational and
essay, “Planning the City of Socialist Man,” Fisher (p. 252) material socialist construction – both the vision, adjusted to
defines the socialist city as “the core of the ideal communist suit emerging futures, and material development, through
community” based on new forms and spaces that show multiple forms of construction – to socialize, mobilize,
“the inherent unity of the people.” Recognizing that the channel, monitor, and acculturate the populations. The
reform era did not end the relation between socialism material history of cultural infrastructure construction
and the city compels questions about what has continued became formalized in the early 1950s in China, with the
(Müller, 2019). establishment of state architectural design and engineering
Following this introduction (Section 1), Section 2 institutes. Thus, in the relationship between the city
introduces communist party authority over the cultural and infrastructure construction, urban infrastructure
sphere, the origins of cultural infrastructure, and the forms development is not accessory to the city or simply located
and functions of the socialist built environment. Section in the city; the construction of infrastructure should
3 examines the transfer of cultural infrastructure facilities anchor, contour, and propel the transformation of society
development to the PRC under Soviet advising, and the and economy.
types of facilities and their construction during the Mao era. The originating history of the significance of material
Section 4 identifies more than visual properties of socialist construction for socialist construction traces to the 1930s.
realism, including dynamic qualities of space and time, in In review of the first 5-year plan (1928 – 32) of the Union of
the design and construction of socialist urbanism. Cultural Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet leadership observed,
infrastructure facilities in new “city centers” are subjects of having laid the “‘foundation’ of socialist society…it was
Section 4, with evidence of cultural facilities planning and time to construct its ‘edifice.’” Planning turned to focus
construction in Guangzhou and cities of Pearl River Delta on architectural design for construction of new cities,
region, based on periodic site documentation since the early Clark (2003, p. 4-5) explains, in which “rebuilding of the
2000s. The empirical analysis focuses on comprehensive Soviet city came to stand in for the moral and political
cultural infrastructure planning in Guangzhou, based on transformation of the entire society into a communist
the Guangzhou Cultural Infrastructure Facilities Projects one.” Building new cities and rebuilding existing ones has
Plan (2003 – 07), and compares cultural infrastructure defined the material construction of socialism and socially
development in Shenzhen, Dongguan, and Shunde constructed regime legitimacy.
to show variation and continuity in cultural facilities The 1935 Moscow General Plan established concepts
development. The conclusion (Section 5) summarizes the for model cities nationwide. The Soviet Union built over
limits of treating the reform era breakpoint as if a one-way 900 new towns, planned regional development based on
transition to post-socialism, and affirms the continuity of functional areas, and coordinated rapid “city-building” for
elements of socialist urbanism in China. industrial modernization (Parkins, 1953; White, 1979).

2. Socialist urbanism and the origins of Functional zoning, characterized by industry-specific
cultural infrastructure facilities spatial concentration, and the planning and construction
of superblocks for entire neighborhoods, are indicative
In the history of socialist urbanism, cultural infrastructure of socialist forms of urban and regional planning. The
facilities are buildings that house and present state- significance of socialist planned urbanization for industrial
curated culture and information for the people. Chinese development made a new city an ideal city that transfers
Communist Party (CCP) control over culture and modernizing principles to society.
information, and its transmission, began in January 1949, The Soviet urban model prioritized new city centers
nine months before the founding of the PRC, when the CCP featuring government buildings for administration and
established the Committee to Control Cultural Affairs to display of socialist standards and ideals. “Rather than
organize cultural institutions under party control (Hung, a buzzing downtown with Western-style traffic and
2011). After October 1949, the new PRC government commerce, the center of the city was a measure of political
established the Ministry of Culture with governing control man” writes Wakeman (2014, p. 108), a space of grand
over cultural institutions and their built environments in stateliness with “a formal geometric ensemble” that would
cultural infrastructure facilities. contribute to “the mechanisms for social transformation.”
The planning mandate for the construction of cultural She continues, “The ideal socialist city was a glimpse of
infrastructure facilities exists within the political-economic tomorrow. It was imagined as a blank canvas on which a

Volume 6 Issue 4 (2024) 3 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.1995