Page 71 - JCAU-6-4

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Regeneration of Xinmalu, Ningbo

Document on Authenticity, 2007). Limited heritage gain traction. The experiences from previous decades have
assets (natural and cultural) are facing major threats proven that there is no universal method for preserving all
and existential challenges. In addition, the increasing historical objects. Rather, context-based approaches proved
global interconnectedness has raised concerns about the to be more effective and relevant (Wachter & Zeuli, 2013;
disappearance of local cultural identities (Alraouf, 2014). Wagner et al, 2014). This shift opened the door to more
For several decades, heritage documentation was active nuanced approaches aimed at the holistic incorporation
and perceived as a principal objective. Despite its necessity, of cultural heritage within economic and spatial settings.
documentation alone is insufficient, as numerous cases There was a growing recognition that valuable historical
have illustrated the loss of well-documented heritage in buildings and urban settings could be integrated as
contemporary cities. More significantly, simply restoring distinctive elements within a wider contemporary urban
and preserving heritage areas and buildings is not an ideal context. This transition shifted the focus from object-
solution, as many restored buildings, once closed, will centered conservation to the regeneration of entire urban
deteriorate again. The more effective solution, as proven areas, enabling the involvement of new stakeholders
in various cases around the world, is the rehabilitation of and fostering partnerships between public, private, and
restored heritage buildings (Chapman, 2014; Ding, 2018; civic actors (Cody & Siravo, 2019; Kammeier, 2013; Nara
Kalman & Létourneau, 2020). Document on Authenticity, 2007).
The shift from documentation as the sole measure As organized heritage preservation in Asia progresses
for securing authenticity to a focus on preservation and rapidly, China is no exception. China’s rapidly growing cities
conservation has been significant. As Engelhardt (2007) reflect its exceptional growth, showcased by an impressive
argues, the conservation of cultural environments across array of novel and iconic architectural designs. The country
different geographies illustrates that tangible and intangible offers invaluable insights, experiences, and solutions for
heritage plays a pivotal role in the urban development. effective cultural heritage conservation and management.
However, approaches that preserve only the building As cities in China struggle to remain competitive on the
or heritage area without engaging the local community global platform, their deteriorating old urban fabrics are
often result in “negative conservation.” (Alraouf, 2019) being transformed into vibrant places through effective
This outcome is essentially a result of conservation efforts and community-oriented urban regeneration (ICOMOS
conducted without any form of rehabilitation, leaving the China, 2004). Shan (2023) illustrates how the past decade
local community out of the process and failing to establish has witnessed China’s unprecedented experience of cultural
a sense of local ownership. Restored buildings are often heritage protection, providing numerous successful
cases. The literature suggests that new questions have
closed and disconnected from the aspirations of the emerged, marking a significant shift in Chinese urban and
surrounding community. Success in heritage conservation architectural discourse. Among these questions are how to
has come with the emergence of “positive conservation,” protect historic communities and villages, how to safeguard
which goes beyond mere maintenance of heritage. It heritage sites while reusing them to enhance well-being
involves introducing new functions into old buildings, of the community, stimulate the economy, foster urban
determined through dialogue with the community and by life, and preserve the local memory (Shan, 2023; Stubbs
considering the needs of people living within the heritage & Thomson, 2021; Xu & Sofield, 2019). In the Chinese
site as not just stakeholders, but as key partners in the context, heritage also holds political power. To achieve
development process. This new paradigm of heritage political legitimacy and assert itself as an international
conservation is based on eliminating any process that would superpower, the Chinese state utilizes heritage governance
lead to the separation of heritage from the community and to construct new modern conditions. As Ludwig et al.
its isolation from the holistic context. (2020) explore, the Chinese state uses heritage not only for
As Moustanjidi and Luo (2019) argued, planners tourism, educational, and commercial purposes but also as
responded to the challenge by engaging in the complicated part of broader political strategies on both the national and
task of classifying and listing heritage sites. This approach international stage.
often prioritized the architectural value of individual
buildings but detached them from their immediate urban 3. The dynamic nature of identity
context or their potential as economic or spatial assets for In the context of contemporary heritage conservation and
the city. At this stage, urban heritage preservation mainly preservation discourse, this study provides an alternative
served as a therapeutic option during times of relentless interpretation of the notion of identity. Identity is not a static
modernization and rapid social change. By the 1970s, a concept tied to a specific timeframe in a nation’s history.
more flexible approach to heritage management began to Alternatively, a shift toward a more dynamic and time-

Volume 6 Issue 4 (2024) 3 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.2623