The Piano Building in Huainan, Anhui Province, is an architectural design that uses a 50:1 scale of a grand piano and a violin, designed almost entirely with black and transparent glass. It was designed by architectural students at the Hefei University of Technology in collaboration with the Huainan Fangkai Decoration Project. It has constantly made the list of the world’s most bizarre buildings.

---

On Jan. 25, the General Office of the State Council and the Office of the CPC Central Committee issued a directive that calls for a reexamination of traditional architectural culture and innovation of Chinese architectural traditions in urban repair and ecological restoration. Earlier this month, a spokesperson for the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee further elaborated that urbanization, city planning and design need to incorporate traditional cultural elements. These remarks echo the statement made by the Central Urban Work Conference in December 2015, which urged officials to step up urban planning and preserve the distinctive landscape as well as the cultural and architectural identities of cities. These statements represent a call for urban planners to stop blindly following the West and plot out a distinctly Chinese path in urban design.

 

Lost in the West
Some 10 year ago, a former city planning director of New York once said that China has not yet found “the soul of cities.” The truth is that the Chinese have never even looked for it. Instead, we drown ourselves in the worship and pursuit of Western urban design.

Since Western powers first forced their way into China with warships and cannons in the Opium War, China has fallen far behind in material wealth and military prowess. In the early 20th century, the West introduced democracy and science to China, shaking up the nation’s political and social system. Later in the 1980s and 1990s, it brought modernization theory and post-modern culture to China.

Western standards and doctrine have left a deep impression on the nation, leading to the deconstruction and distortion of excellent Chinese traditional culture in terms of both content and form.

The directives were issued in hopes of reversing the trend seen in the educational sector and cultural market of diminishing and ignoring fine Chinese culture. This is evident in textbooks, publications, research, art, films, and audio products. In the meantime, such a trend is also prevailing in urban planning, design, construction and development strategy, where Western brands receive the utmost admiration and respect.

Nowadays, buildings that feature Western designs and concepts are ubiquitous in Chinese cities. However, as vehicles and symbols of Western urban management, lifestyles and aesthetic tastes, many buildings are not suitable for Chinese cities and also fail to meet the demands of local people.
Furthermore, a number of expensive city skylines have become objects of ridicule, and some landmarks have even been brought down soon after completion because they are an odd fit for the cities where they are located.

Some worry that absurdly unpractical architecture is growing at an alarming speed, posing a huge threat to urban governance. Needless to say, the matter needs to be addressed immediately and only when we realize its severity and complexity, can we understand the importance and urgency of the return to traditional culture in urban design.

 

‘Weird’ architecture
At a literary symposium in October 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for an end to “weird” architecture. He was referring to those designs that abandon Chinese cultural traditions and the realities of contemporary urban development while blindly catering to Western aesthetic and values, singling out those that are “oversized and xenocentric.”

For example, some cities model themselves on New York, Paris and London, giving rise to “oversized” buildings without respect to the needs of urban development and the people. Others are oriented toward Western architectural design and style, showing little concern for the utilization of existing space and cultural heritage. And then there are “weird” edifices based on Western modern or post-modern concepts that have attracted media attention by catering to vulgar fashion trends.

This is a typical space “alienation” phenomenon. That is, the more we work to design and construct, the more we depart from the form, function, spirit and temperament of Chinese cities. Awkwardly, more and more Chinese cities are taking on the appearance of their Western counterparts.

Under the guidance of this severely alienated urban design philosophy, many cities forsake the idea of building landmarks that embody urban history and legacy as well as capture the essence of cities in favor of simply hiring a foreign designer and building an exotic structure, tricking themselves into believing the cities have achieved modernization or become more globalized. In essence, how is this different in terms of intellectual and aesthetic sophistication from a 5-year-old wanting a Louis Vuitton bag?

For years, buildings that seem like more of a work of art than a building have been popping up across China. In general, architecture that is “oversized, xenocentric and weird” has brought two major consequences.

One is in culture. Essentially, these eye-catching edifices represent a “de-Sinicization” tendency in urban landscape, lifestyle, social and cultural ecology, which not only undermines China’s time-honored space layouts, architectural style, cultural features and aesthetics, but also secretly drains the philosophy, spirit, lifestyle and value out of the Chinese culture.

Today, some residents in China’s modern metropolises find it hard to get a sense of happiness and belonging partially because they could not identify with “Westernized” cities.

Secondly, China has long been ground zero for daring and bizarre architecture. Western design concepts are put into practice here in this nation with little concern for China’s urban development and the actual needs of the people, which is why there is serious imbalance in supply and demand even in the construction boom. In particular, some exotic public construction projects are quite expensive and “impressive” but lacking in functionality.

In this light, the directive clearly pointed out the strategic direction of urban design with the object of setting Chinese cities on the right course.

 

Revival of Chinese genes
In a sense, China has strived to address the tendency of “de-Sinification” in multiple fields, including urban design. On the basis of building a socialist cultural power, China has made great strides in promoting traditional culture, academics, thought and values. For example, the hot Chinese Poetry Conference that aired on CCTV demonstrated the charm of ancient poems in inspiring modern minds.

Last February, the government released a sweeping directive to ban architecture that is “oversized, xenocentric and weird” and called for buildings that are “suitable, economic, green and pleasing to the eye.”

In fact, overtures toward revival of traditional Chinese culture and the implementation of a series of urban development policies all create a favorable atmosphere for the “lost art of urban design” to fully embrace cultural traditions.

However, such a revival will not happen overnight. Therefore, to better carry out the new directive, three principles must be upheld.

First, the incorporation of ancient culture into modern cities is neither a negation of Western design nor a salute to traditional Chinese culture. We must not repeat the history of leaning entirely toward one side.

Second, it is imperative to differentiate between “learning from the West” and “xenocentric,” as well as “weird” and “innovation.” It is absolutely necessary to enhance communication in urban design between China and Western countries. “Closing the door” and “bragging about its own culture” did China nothing but harm in the past, and it will continue to do so in the future.

Finally, the directive simply provides a broad framework for urban design. To truly make it down to the earth, concrete measures at all levels of the governments are required. Going forward, China should explore a plausible development model to make the strategy grounded and fruitful.

 

Liu Shilin is head and chief expert of the Institute of Urban Science at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.