Talk:Urban village (China)

Changed the Causes and Solution Section into Three Separate Sections: History, Stakeholders in ReDevelopment, and Demolition or Regeneration

XFLgz (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC) I divided the Causes and Solution section into three separate sections to explain the nuances of urban villages. I also deleted the second half of the Baishizhou example and merged it with the language in the new sections. I also avoid using the term solution because it gives urban villages a negative image.

Section "History" addresses 1) the institutional causes of urban villages, which are the hukou system and the dual-land policy, 2) the disorganized rapid urbanization that allows villagers to keep the residential land, 3) the increasing demand for affordable housing in the city that complicates the removal.

Section "Stakeholders in Redevelopment" addresses the power and interests dynamics among the stakeholders and the challenges to coordinates their needs.

Section "Demolition or Regeneration" captures the evolving dialogue of using the urban village as an anchor to rethink the urban-rural relationship and the recent public events related to urban villages.

Untitled

Is it unique to China? Vietnam has many villages like this, totally incorporated into Hanoi but still keeping their name and physical boundaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.56.85 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

XFLgz (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC) I believe there are similar villages like urban villages in China. In fact, UN has defined some general criterions for defining slums and urban village in China will fall into the category as well. I think it is okay to keep this page only to talk about the urban village in the Chinese context because every place has its own terms that may have a unique reference to its own context.

Add Baishizhou case and related books

Lakita0520 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Baishizhou case and related books that describe the situation of urban villages in China are added to this topic, which especially illustrates the urban village case in China.

Bias in the article

This article is heavily biased to the typical middle class Chinese development-ist perspective that urban villages are a bad thing and should be demolished and replaced with huge roads and skyscrapers.

Most people in the post-modern west (and the actual people who live in the urban villages) would have a different perspective, because we see the benefits of life in the urban village, and the superiority of the natural urban form of the urban village when compared to typical modern Chinese urban planning. Urban villages are lively, provide cheap convenient homes and shops for the workers that make Shenzhen what it is, and have irreplaceable historical and heritage value. The narrow streets that cars can't drive down are actually a lot better than wide highways, because they create a safe, peaceful and environmentally friendly neighborhood where people walk everywhere. Also, urban villages are interesting, unlike boring modern Chinese urban planning, where every road is in a grid, and every building is the same. Urban villages are the best part of Shenzhen, and it would be a tragedy if they were all demolished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.85.222 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree this article definitely needs work, the problem is that it's quite hard to find reliable secondary sources on this issue. Please feel free to add stuff if you can! Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks to the wikipedia library I was able to find sources this time round, which I plonked in further reading. I'm not sure if it's best to nuke the article and start again or to hope a Chinese speaker takes an interest to improve it. Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)