Multiple Urbanisms - bayCHINA Project

• Pace and Scale of Urbanization

China´s urbanisation is characterised by extremly rapid, large-scale growth, with the creation of vast new urban areas and significant population shifts from rural spaces to cities. In contrast, European urbanisation has been more gradual, genealogical process, with a higher proportion of existing, smaller cities and a focus on re-densification and transformation rather than entirely new development. The longue durée (F. Braudel et al.) of European cities and societies stands against some more disruptive developments in China since the 1960ies, which also led to a rapid change of the urban morphology and appearance. 

• Governance and Planning

China typically employs a top-down approach in large-scale urban planning and development, though new forms of multilevel and network governance are emerging. Europe´s planning system is more comprehensive and systematic, incorporating more varied stakeholders and emphasizing collaborative governance for issues like urban biodiversity and climate change or societal inclusion (diversity management). This makes it slower to initiate change, but claims to be more aware of different stakeholders. 

• Urban Development Focus

European urban regeneration often involves detailed regeneration programs for existing city structures, while China´s urban transformation tends to the creation of entirely new cities and/or districts on a massive scale. Cities are not transformed as much as they are created or produced as projects of societal and economic innovation. 

• Emergence of New Governance

Both regions are facing a diversification of actors and a shift towards new modes of governance, including network and multilevel models, to address complex challenges like climate change. Thus there are core differences (as well as some similarities) that are in the focus of our comparative approach. 

• Methods of Comparison
  

Comparative urbanism uses interdisciplinary approaches, drawing from philosophy, anthropology, geography, and sociology to understand how urbanism develops. We compare aspects like governance structures, economic impacts, and sustainability practices to understand the diverse way cities are shaped and transformed in globalisation. 

• What are the constitutive dimensions of Chinese and European Urbanism?
• Which are the pathways and historical trajectories of Chinese and European cities to modernisation and globalisation?
• What are the different modes of urban governance that guide city development and planning in both contexts, from top-down-planning to self-organisation?
• Focussing on urban neighbourhoods: How differs the logics of every-day life in cities?
• Which kind of comparative methodologies and methods are useful for social science investigations?

Fostered and deepened exchange and knowledge transfer with international partners to develop a comparative scale for understanding the ‘culture’ of modernisation in different social, economic and spatial backgrounds. The current state-of-the-art in urban research (especially in urban geography and sociology) lacks comparative perspectives on Chinese and European urbanism in a deep societal and structural understanding.

Multidisciplinary Framework: Wu Xiao (Spatial analysis/remote sensing/Land use change), Rong Tan (Policy Implications/Institutions/Governance on urbanisation and ruralisation, Eberhard Rothfuß (Change of informal rules, laws, values, and social structure, urbanity-rurality), Thomas Doerfler (Urban and Regional Development, Comparative/Social Science Methods).

• Socio-geographical perspective and multiple modernities in urbanism (Prof. Dr. Eberhard Rothfuß & Dr. Thomas Dörfler)

•  Political science perspective on Multiple Urbanisms (Prof. Dr. Rong Tan)

From a political science and institutional economics perspective, my contribution focuses on understanding urban–rural transformation as a process of reconfiguration of property rights, governance arrangements, and state–market–society relations. Rather than treating rural revitalisation, brownfield redevelopment, or smart urbanism as purely spatial or technological phenomena, this perspective conceptualises them as outcomes of policy-driven institutional change, shaped by central–local relations, regulatory experimentation, and evolving modes of state intervention. This approach allows us to connect spatial patterns detected through remote sensing with the political logic behind land conversion, digital governance, and rural transformation, and to explain why similar spatial phenomena may produce very different social and distributive outcomes in China and Germany.

• Spatial analysis/remote sensing/Land use change (Dr. Wu Xiao)

Rural (re)vitalisation is not mainly boosted by governed land management, but as socio-ecological revival and the built environment flanked by consolidating strategies which lead to changes in the social structure. As a consequence, new life-styles, milieux and mentalities as patterns of rural change emerge and frictions between urban and rural dwellers may occur based on a diverging habitus. Some scholars even discuss this as rural gentrification« (Zwęglińska-Gałecka 2021, Li/Zhang 2024 et al) shifting sub- and peri-urban areas fundamentally.

To strengthen the analytical depth of the thesis, rural revitalisation should not only be analysed as a socio-cultural or lifestyle transformation, but also as an outcome of institutional reconfiguration. In the Chinese context, changes in land use, population structure, and rural amenities are deeply embedded in collective land ownership, village governance, and state-led policy instruments.

Key questions to address:

• How do village collectives, local governments, and external investors interact in shaping rural revitalisation?
• What formal and informal institutions regulate access to land, housing, and rural resources?
• How does state involvement differentiate rural revitalisation from market-driven rural gentrification observed in Europe?

Integrating remote sensing and POI data with institutional analysis will allow the thesis to connect observable spatial change with the governance mechanisms behind it.

Thesis 2 (Adrian Müller):  Challenges of »Smart Urbanism« in Hangzhou

Smart urbanism refers to integration of digital technologies, data platforms, and connectivity systems into urban planning and city governance. The implementation of AI and the linking of huge amounts of data promise great synergy effects in cities, especially for urban planning and the quality of life of citizens. There exists a huge amount of literature on ups and downs of smart technologies such as AI, sensors, cameras, etc.., but little attention is being paid to the changing governance landscape that accompanies the integration of smart technologies in the city. This fundamental Change in governance incorporates risks "especially in instances in which these tools are involved in decision-making processes that don’t have right or wrong mathematical answers but involve inherently political and policy questions" (Arcila 2022).

A case study of the city of Hangzhou and its Hangzhou City-Brain Initiative (HCBI) should provide insights into the structural changes between the state, private tech firms, and citizens. Through a social network analysis (quantitative), changes in the processes of urban planning and decision-making should be made visible. Additionally, mapping smart technologies in certain districts could show different spatial distributions of “Smart Urbanism” in Hangzhou. Besides the theoretical analysis, which merely concentrates on institutional changes, SNA and mapping provide methods that could be compared with other case studies (comparison China – Germany).