Demolition of Culture: The Deviated Remediation in Sanfang Qixiang
Look at this building from top to bottom. You can see a gabled roof covered with dark green tiles, strings of Chinese lanterns swinging in the air, a quaint wooden exterior with delicate carvings, and a gigantic signboard saying STARBUCKS COFFEE. Walking on this street, you will see more of this awkward combination: McDonald’s, internet-viral bubble tea shops, business clubs, and saloons, all inlaid under traditional architectural facades. This is probably the first impression that Sanfang Qixiang (三坊七巷) leaves for visitors.
Fuzhou’s Three Lanes and Seven Alleys (abbreviated as Sanfang Qixiang in the follow) is a historic residential district that contains residences for commoners and historical celebrities in Ming and Qing Dynasties. Today, it consists of a central business street as well as side lanes and alleys. The Fuzhou government has attempted to fix issues such as fire hazards and illegal construction due to its outdated urban planning. The remediation stretches throughout decades, igniting civic and academic debates. While some argue that the remediation sustainably revitalizes the district, I contend that it destroys Sanfang Qixiang’s community culture with over-commercialization and gentrification.
Across the globe, from east to west, historic residential districts condense intangible civic memories and cultures. However, some, including Sanfang Qixiang, start fading away due to such inappropriate preservation in the rapidly developing world. Therefore, it becomes urgent to identify issues and seek solutions from successful cases. In this essay, I would like to examine Sanfang Qixiang’s problem and apply a global perspective to figure out possible alternatives to improve the remediation in cultural preservation.
Here, I believe I should first address my definition of Sanfang Qixiang’s culture, which is the community or folk arts and culture created, shared, and inherited by local residents. In Sanfang Qixiang, it is the slow community life of the past when there are tiny vendors where elders do sugar paintings and residences with distinct characteristics determined by owners. In a word, Sanfang Qixiang’s culture has its basis on people.
However, the remediation smashes this culture in its first step by forcibly removing the people. The government-issued document about the relocation of Sanfang Qixiang’s historical buildings states that the property owners of historical residences can move back after unified repairment only if they can pay the repair cost. Otherwise, they have to move away permanently (qtd. in “福州市人民政府关于印发”). As a result, more than 3,400 local households moved temporarily or permanently away during remediation (“三坊七巷再现”). Although community still exists in today’s Sanfang Qixiang, it has shrunk drastically both in size and function. In this case, people lost their rights to inspect the remediation process. The remediation then became a government-steered project to fit Sanfang Qixiang into the label of “museum of ancient buildings of Ming and Qing dynasties” and erase any reasonable diversity. With such massive resident relocation, the remediation significantly damaged the original community culture in Sanfang Qixiang.
Let’s stop this from being worse. Can we preserve the interior and function of these residences to maintain the culture? I believe that we could have, but the government says NO. The remediation introduces commerce into hollow residences to “revitalize” the district, replacing nearly half of them with business entities. According to Chen Ying, Sanfang Qixiang is a successful instance that utilizes community construction theory in revitalization. In her explanation, Chen analyzes that the functional replacement of ancient buildings “makes them more valuable for reuse, improves social and economic benefits, and recovers the vitality of the block” (Chen). While Chen correctly emphasizes the importance of community construction in residential culture protection, I argue that the commercial replacement fails to conform to this theory and is a misunderstanding of Sanfang Qixiang culture. Commercialization achieves economic vitality, but what we miss is the community vitality created by the presence of locals.
To clarify, I am not advocating for the complete elimination of commerce in Sanfang Qixiang as traditional cultural industries such as sugar painting vendors and horn comb stores benefit the reconstruction of a community atmosphere. Instead, I am pointing out the incorrect perception of revitalization, which, in consequence, might lead the remediation into over-commercialization. However, this is no longer a hypothesis. Research has exhibited a commercial inclination. Specifically, there are less than 25% of cultural facilities and over 70% general consumption “profit-oriented facilities irrelevant to local historic and cultural characteristics” (Zhang et al. 732). Even worse, due to poor-regulated public estate bidding, these cultural industries price their commodities relatively high and limit the cultural experience to pure consumption. In an announcement issued in 2018, the list price of a main street shop front could reach over $30, 000 per month (“2018年三坊七巷”). Such a high price tends to benefit general consumption entities and chain shops as it is not a small number for traditional small shops that operate individually. Furthermore, the unbearable rent has compelled the industries to raise commodity prices to avoid deficits. These factors combined result in the gentrification of cultural industries and an excessive amount of attention paid towards profit-making.
Though the remediation does preserve (or better to say reconstruct) some historical residences in their original form, they now face ignoration. According to a study by Wu Guining and YaoYunfang, Sanfang Qixiang’s current operation mode prioritizes the main commercial street, compressing the significance of lanes and alleys. More specifically, it means treating the side lanes as a supplement to the main commercial street by managing low-key traditional skill training or private food restaurants (Wu and Yao 69–71). While such operation mode does contribute to tourism and regional economy, Sanfang Qixiang now degrades into an empty title as this positioning shifts the center of the visitor experience to general consumption instead of the culture in lanes and alleys.
So, what is behind such over-commercialization and other cultural sufferings? I would argue that it is the local government’s goal to build a landmark at the expense of cultural protection. The remediation introduces cultural practices of other regions, such as the lantern performance in Sanming, Fujian, that have nothing to do with Sangfang Qixiang’s original communal culture (Feng Wu Jun). Recently, the government is even planning to build Sangfang Qixiang into a technological street (Feng Wu Jun). In other words, Sanfang Qixiang now evolves into a regional landmark combining technology, tourism, and commercialization, which silently weakens the original spirit of the place as a residential community.
Some might ask: “Are you saying that Sanfang Qixiang should completely go back to its primitive condition? No technology, no tourists, and no Starbucks?” Well, I hope so, but I also understand that it is almost impossible to freeze the atmosphere, especially in an urban historical district like Sanfang Qixiang. Nevertheless, Sanfang Qixiang could preserve the atmosphere better by moving back more locals and creating a balance between culture and commercialization. Specifically, it means keeping cultural industries from gentrification and limit general consumption to only supporting locals and a reasonable amount of tourists. At this point, I believe that it is helpful to turn to successful global instances such as Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo and Los Rios Historic District.
Founded around the beginning of the 20th century, Little Tokyo is the most populous Japanese American cultural center in Southern California. However, it now suffers from cultural gentrification problems similar to Sanfang Qixiang. According to Jonathan Jae-an Crisman, private properties are passing to “younger generations” who connect loosely to the community and “non-Japanese American interests who see the property solely as a business investment rather than part of a distinct community” (119). Moreover, many small Japanese businesses suffer from deficits due to high rents (120). In a KCRW podcast, Fugetsu-Do who has been selling Japanese sweets since 1903 worries about the increasing rents due to the downtown revitalization and future opening of Metro Regional Connector (Chiotakis). Little Tokyo’s original cultural atmosphere gradually gentrifies as profitable industries replace these small traditional businesses.
What measure does Little Tokyo take to fight back this trend? It turns out that the Japanese American society initiated the Little Tokyo Community Impact Fund to “control[ling] real estate within the community” (“Mission — Little Tokyo Community Impact Fund”). The project aims to collect fundings to purchase shopfronts and rents them to shopowners at a lower price. “If you don’t own it, you can’t control it,” says Bill Watanabe, the head executive of Little Tokyo Community Impact Fund (qtd. in Chiotakis). This ongoing project aims to back up individual businesses to ease their pressure on profiting and rents. However, there are also limitations and uncertainties, such as the difficulties in raising enough funds (Chiotakis). In my opinion, LTCIF has a well-intentioned starting point but slightly lacks practicality in its sole dependence on civic and business funding. Transplanting this idea to Sanfang Qixiang’s case, I believe the government could play a part. First, the community could form funds or associations that investigate and support the reintroduction of small businesses into Sanfang Qixiang. Moreover, the Fuzhou government could involve in the project by providing both financial and professional academic assistance. In this way, less financial burden falls on the community while it still involves in the decision process. Also, businesses could receive more reliable assessments in their qualification to look for support.
Little Tokyo not only fights gentrification through space control but also empowers the community culture with participatory art. In Crisman’s work, he points out how “creative placemaking,” multidimensional participation in community construction around art and culture, functions in such conditions (51). Creative placemaking requires the application of participatory art, which, separated from high-end fine arts such as oil painting or sculpture, requires civic engagement. According to an article in Hyperallergic, four artists have been holding interactive community art events and workshops, which promote the place’s existing cultural assets (Ahn). For example, the calligrapher Kuniharu Yoshida has been hosting calligraphy workshops where he interacts with local elders. Specifically, he “prompts[ing] memories with old photographs of Little Tokyo” to help elders “express their histories and emotions” with calligraphy (Ahn). Such a participatory art form breaks the border between spectators and creators, continuing the community culture and memories among residents. Aside from artist-spectator interactions, these artists also show healthy interactions between themselves as they “provide frank and insightful critique to further push the work and community” (Crisman 124).
From my perspective, participatory art is also applicable in Sanfang Qixiang. Currently, there are cultural industries that stand for Fuzhou’s regional culture. I believe that government guidance on these stores to encourage more artist-spectator interactions will benefit both the visitor experience and cultural atmosphere. Furthermore, with the support of previously mentioned funds, the government could undermine the unhealthy business competition between artists by leading more communication between industries that sell similar cultural products. In practice, it could be apprenticeships, friendly matches, or regulated experience exchange conferences. These communications help to invigorate and promote the local art development. Still, for both community funds and participatory arts, it is essential that government involvement only serves as a starting point and reliable assistance. We should beware of any formalism tendency or governmental monopoly. This requires genuine civic participation discussed in the following paragraphs about Los Rios Historic District.
Little Tokyo not only fights gentrification through space control but also empowers the community culture with participatory art. In Crisman’s work, he points out how “creative placemaking,” multidimensional participation in community construction around art and culture, functions in such conditions (51). Creative placemaking requires the application of participatory art, which, separated from high-end fine arts such as oil painting or sculpture, requires civic engagement. For example, four artists have been holding interactive community art events and workshops, which promote the place’s existing cultural assets (Ahn). For instance, the calligrapher Kuniharu Yoshida has been hosting calligraphy workshops where he interacts with local elders. Specifically, he “prompts memories with old photographs of Little Tokyo” to help elders “express their histories and emotions” with calligraphy (Ahn). Such a participatory art form breaks the border between spectators and creators, continuing the community culture and memories among residents. Aside from artist-spectator interactions, these artists also show healthy interactions between themselves as they “provide frank and insightful critique to further push the work and community” (Crisman 124).
From my perspective, participatory art is also applicable in Sanfang Qixiang. Currently, there are cultural industries that stand for Fuzhou’s regional culture. I believe that government guidance on these stores to encourage more artist-spectator interactions will benefit both the visitor experience and cultural atmosphere. Furthermore, with the support of previously mentioned funds, the government could undermine the unhealthy business competition between artists by leading more communication between industries that sell similar cultural products. In practice, it could be apprenticeships, friendly matches, or regulated experience exchange conferences. These communications help to invigorate and promote the local art development. Still, for both community funds and participatory arts, it is essential that government involvement only serves as a starting point and reliable assistance. We should beware of any formalism tendency or governmental monopoly. This requires genuine civic participation discussed in the following paragraphs about Los Rios Historic District.
Located in San Juan Capistrano, California, the Los Rios District is the oldest occupied neighborhood in the state. It currently consists of about 40 homes, including three old adobe houses and the younger wooden constructions. The Los Rios residents are surprisingly active when it comes to community affairs. In 1997, the residential atmosphere of Los Rios changed due to the newly opened restaurant, gift shop, and teahouse. Steve Rios, a local attorney, fiercely criticized it as “blatant over-commercialization” (Hall). In 1997, the San Juan Capistrano City Council initiated a Specific Plan update process to address this issue with the Los Rios Ad-hoc Committee, including members from the City Council and various local commissions (Demmer). This collective effort has protected the community atmosphere from commercialism: by 2021, only about 25% of the buildings transform into business entities (Clark). Plus, the business owners are all locals that care for the community’s legacy. In conclusion, civic participation in Los Rios Historic District has succeeded in maintaining the nature of a historical residential district by restricting commercialization and prioritizing residents’ needs.
I believe that, along with governmental assistance, Sanfang Qixiang’s remediation also requires such active public participation. Yet, Sanfang Qixiang’s remediation has exhibited a lack of civic participation. For example, Zong and He criticize that there were no actual stakeholders on the consultation meeting held by the Fuzhou government in the name of public participation (39). Furthermore, looking through online forums and blogs, I found tons of dissatisfaction towards Sanfang Qixiang’s remediation and sarcastic discussions about whether the government permits such expression of discontent. The possibility is that these people cannot or are unwilling to provide constructive advice through formal channels. Nevertheless, it seems that the Fuzhou government should pay more attention to civic reflections instead of monopolizing the protection process.
However, will public participation in Sanfang Qixiang skyrocket as soon as the government removes its monopoly? Unfortunately, the answer is probably NO. Expanding the conversation to general Chinese communities where there are fewer governmental constraints, public engagement is still problematic. A widespread comedic figure in Chinese skits and television shows is the “residential committee auntie” (居委会大妈). Although they are encouraging public engagement in community affairs, people view these elder committee members as annoying neighbors who have a finger in every pie and care about meaningless daily trivia. What is the problem here? The answer could be the fading neighborhood connections due to isolation brought by technology development. As technology gives people convenient access to almost anything, the interdependence between neighbors becomes less indispensable. In consequence, caring for other people becomes “having a finger in every pie.” Therefore, to genuinely increase public participation, the Sanfang Qixiang community has to first address interpersonal networking issues. I believe that the community could host more intriguing and private social activities such as friendly matches. Also, the community could investigate the residents for advice, establishing a sense that their opinions matter and do make a difference.
In conclusion, an in-depth examination of global instances, such as Little Tokyo and Los Rios District, could help to address over-commercialization and gentrification in Sanfang Qixiang’s remediation. At the end of this paper, I want to go back to a fundamental question: What are all these for? In my opinion, appropriate cultural preservation of historic residential districts is not only for grand terms such as “the greater good of the world.” At the end of the day, it is keeping our invaluable old houses, old cultures, and old memories from fading away in development.
Works Cited
Ahn, Abe. “Artists Are Addressing the Tide of Gentrification in LA’s Little Tokyo.” Hyperallergic, 27 July 2018, https://hyperallergic.com/453166/artists-are-addressing-the-tide-of-gentrification-in-las-little-tokyo.
Chen Ying. “The Practices of Community Construction Based on Sanfang- Qixiang in Fuzhou.” IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 638, no. 1, IOP Publishing, 2021, p. 12015–, doi:10.1088/1755–1315/638/1/012015.
Chiotakis, Steve. “Can the Japanese Community Save Little Tokyo From Gentrification?” KCRW, 15 Nov. 2019, www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/an-effort-to-save-little-tokyo-from-gentrification/can-the-japanese-community-save-little-tokyo-from-gentrification.
Clark, Carol A. “Posts From the Road: Los Rios Historic District.” Daily Post, 18 Apr. 2021, http://ladailypost.com/posts-from-the-road-los-rios-historic-district-in-san-juan-capistrano.
Crisman, Jonathan Jae-an. Civic expression in Little Tokyo: how art and culture empower communities and transform public participation. 2019. University of Southern California, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California Digital Library, http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll89/id/181802
Deemer, Susan. “SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO; Panel Formed to Update Plan for Los RiosNeighborhood: [Orange County Edition].” Los Angeles Times, Dec 20, 1997, pp. 2. ProQuest, http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/newspapers/san-juan-capistrano-panel-formed-update-plan-los/docview/421189210/se-2?accountid=14749.
Feng Wu Jun. “福州的灵魂‘三坊七巷’是如何被保护下来的” [“How is Sanfang Qixiang, Fuzhou’s Spirit, Protected”]. Phoenix New Media, 25 Mar. 2021, culture.ifeng.com/c/84tetlkxn6x.
Hall, Len. “Los Rios Opens for Business, but is the Price Too High?; Land use: Too Much Commercialization Threatens the Charm of San Juan’s Historic Neighborhood, some Residents Say.: Orange County Edition.” Los Angeles Times, Mar 10, 1997, pp. 1. ProQuest, http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/newspapers/los-rios-opens-business-is-price-too-high-land/docview/421143315/se-2?accountid=14749.
“Mission — Little Tokyo Community Impact Fund.” LITTLE TOKYO COMMUNITY IMPACT FUND, WordPress, littletokyocif.com/mission. Accessed 23 Apr. 2021.
Wang Wei, and Ruiming Guan. 三坊七巷历史街区旅游资源的保护与开发 [The Protection and Development of Tourist Resources in Sanfang Qixiang Historical District]. Journal of Fuzhou University, vol. 28, no. 3, 2014, pp. 99–103.
Wu Guining, and Yao Yunfang. 浅析历史街区的保护更新与商业化改造 [On the Protection, Renewal, and Commercialization of the Historic District]. Chinese and Foreign Architecture Journal, Jan. 2020, https://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/ZWJC202001022.htm
Zhang Jingjing, et al. Research on the Positioning of Protection and Utilization of Historic Districts Under Big Data Analysis. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences., vol. XLII-2/W5, Copernicus GmbH, 2017, pp. 731–35, doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5–731–2017.
Zong Xiaorui, and Hailun He. 福州“三坊七巷”保护中话语权再分配研究 [Study on the Redistributive Right of Discourse in the Protection of Sanfangqixiang in Fuzhou] Sichuan Building Materials, vol. 45, no. 1, 2019, pp. 38–40.
“福州市人民政府关于印发《福州市三坊七巷历史文化街区古建筑搬迁修复保护办法》的通知” [“Notice of the Fuzhou Government on the Issue of ‘Measures for the Relocation, Restoration and Protection of Ancient Buildings in Sanfang Qixiang Historical and Cultural Blocks in Fuzhou’”]. Lawtime, law.lawtime.cn/d664062669156.html. Accessed 22 Apr. 2021.
“三坊七巷再现明清风貌 传统工艺保留原有样式” [“Sanfang Qixiang Reconstructs Ming-Qing Styles and Traditional Cultures”]. Fuzhou Sanfang Qixiang, 21 Sept. 2010, www.fzsfqx.com.cn/Articles/2010/0921/4164.shtm.
“2018年三坊七巷第八批商铺院落招租公告” [“The 2018 Sanfang Qixiang Shop Rental Notice”]. WeChat Public Platform, 27 Nov. 2018, http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/7mMp8l9lQ6QnWY6fubtziw.
