Shenzhen-Hong Kong (Dis)Integration

Notes on Shenzhen & Hong Kong Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism/Architecture 2007

 by Tao Zhu

Architect, Assistant Professor of the Department of Architecture, HKU

There are some fine works in the Shenzhen Biennale, yet in the composite currently displayed, they do not look fine. Conversely, there are some dull works in the Hong Kong Biennale, but with the way they are organized, they look all right. These contrasting views are the result of the different natures of the two curatorships that assembled each biennale: the Shenzhen Biennale appears to have incorporated some radical concepts but in fact did not successfully project any clear idea; the Hong Kong Biennale, which appears to be far less extreme, was conceived within the framework of a set of consistent and well-defined ideas, and equally important, it was accomplished with a high degree of professionalism and an engaging spirit.

For a ‘Special Zone’ city that no longer has any special status and is desperately looking for all-out efforts to ‘regenerate’ itself, the theme of the Shenzhen Biennale, “City Regeneration,” is certainly an appealing one. But, exactly what is the curator trying to accomplish; how many interpretations can the displayed works evoke? Visitors can barely find a clear answer, because of two main problems.

First of all, the curator has not made a clear statement on the theme. Visitors are bound to be puzzled by the two vague metaphors presented at the biennial— a biological one, which posits that as live creatures have life cycles and cities are also live creatures, it follows that they too have life cycles; and an agricultural one, which asserts that since crops grow and die, so does a city. In fact, both are invalid syllogisms. Leaving aside the fact that the cycles of many forms of life as well as the agricultural operations are far from simple, when discussing the “Expiration and Regeneration” of a city, one of the most sophisticated and complex forms of human civilization, shall we at least acknowledge that besides the many ‘innate’ natural elements, there are also ‘extrinsic’ social factors that have equally vital impacts on the fate of a city?  Simply exclaiming, ‘Let those who deserve life live and those who deserve death die’ is equivalent to persuading visitors to turn back, go home to sleep, or wait to die - a concept that is so aptly captured in the Chinese proverb, ‘Be resigned to your fate!’ On the other hand, what can really draw visitors to engage are rather those investigations of such compelling questions as why, for whom and how cities ‘expire’ or ‘regenerate.’

Secondly, several works have indeed examined these questions but most of them are unfortunately buried in the ambiguous categorization and chaotic exhibition display and are hard to figure out. For example, the “Tendering-Completion-Relocation” by Shi Jian and Wang Xu is a case study/exhibit that examines the developing process of the Shenzhen Urban Center from its early stages of urban/architectural design competitions to its most recent phase of realization. While it is an excellent work that explores the ‘dislocations’ between the ideal and actual reality during the process of a city’s ‘regeneration,’ it regrettably was interpolated into “Bai Ban (White Board),” an odd Chinese translation from Tabula Rasa, which would pose quite a challenge for the average Chinese reader to comprehend. The “Public Bicycle Project,” created by the Shenzhen cyclists group “City on Bicycle,” is the most constructive effort in exploring such issues as environmental protection and road-right equalization that must accompany the process of “city regeneration,” yet it was categorized under “Entertainment.” The short documentary, “City Regeneration” by Jia Zhangke meticulously depicts the poetry of abandoned spaces, the unsightliness of the city’s ruins and the hopelessness of the people who were uprooted in the process of “expiration” and/or “regeneration.” It is a calm yet powerful work that demands one to pause and reflect. Disappointingly, when it was shown in the euphoric opening of the Biennial, which resembled a CCTV New Year’s Gala that is always engulfed in theatricality and replete with superfluous greetings, it was inevitably considered ‘inconsequential’ by many VIP guests.

The theme of the Hong Kong Biennale is “Re-Fabricating City” and the curatorial statement is both clear and flexible enough to accommodate a broad range of interpretations: the evolution of a city is not, nor should it be, framed in a ‘live-or-die’ situation but it should rather be part of a continuous process of fabricating and re-fabricating. Within this process, all of the components and fragments can be integrated into the urban fabric and also remain as open entities and ultimately be interwoven into a multi-layered, multi-dimensioned urban space. Based on this theme, the biennale was conveniently divided into seven sections and remarkably, after being assigned to their rightful categories, many works have managed to evoke their own unique interpretations and have had even deeper meanings realized from their subject lines.

This type of carefully thought-out organization guarantees a high degree of unity, professionalism and diversity of thoughts. For example, in the section “Mapping Fabric,” the “Ten Books on Hong Kong Architecture” that was produced by 10 groups of architects, explores the unique character of Hong Kong’s architectural spaces and urban conditions based on 10 topics such as high-rise housing, section urbanism and the urban skyline. Its thorough researches and fine installations can be seen as a highlight of the Biennale. In “Building Fabric,” Taiwanese architects are divided into two groups: “New Place” and “New Landscape.” The former promotes social consciousness through community architecture serving grassroots interests, while the latter advocates spatial language and the reconstruction of local public spaces through landscape architecture. This exhibit conveys the unique position and strength of Taiwanese architects, demanding serious reflection by architects, both in Hong Kong and mainland China.

It is important to remember that the diversity of classes and contrasting points of view of the exhibitors in the Hong Kong Biennale demonstrates that this city has developed a foundation for building up a civil society: the public sphere. Or, to state it differently, it at least reflects the curator’s passion for moving in this particular direction. For example, on the one hand, visitors can recognize the official propaganda of an urban renewal plan titled “Kai Tak: Place, People and Plan” that is displayed by the Planning Department, HKSAR in the section “Modeling Hong Kong.” On the other hand, in “Mapping Fabric,” visitors are also able to see “Look! This is Our Lee Tung Street!” produced by the “H 15 Concern Group,” a group of activist local residents who advocate a bottom-up planning approach embodying community participation as opposed to the “bulldozer” approach that has so frequently been adapted by the government in their urban renewal projects. By allowing the various classes to speak out and air their views, the Hong Kong Biennale has become a Public Sphere in a political sense, a significant development that has not occurred in the Shenzhen Biennale, nor at any other similar event throughout mainland China.

Looking beyond the exhibitions, the contrast between the two backgrounds of the twin biennales is also noteworthy. A central feature of the Shenzhen Biennale is the support it has from major forces including a powerful government with a zeal for promoting cultural development, enthusiastic entrepreneurs willing to shell out a great deal of money, numerous volunteers, and abundant publicity resulting from close ties with mass media. In fact, the Shenzhen Government was not only the founder of the first Shenzhen Biennale of Urbanism/Architecture in 2005 but it was also the initiator of the Bi-city Biennale, this year’s joint endeavor between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. It is certainly respectable for a government to devote its efforts to constructing such a cultural platform, and to a great degree, it shows Shenzhen’s open-mindedness and adventurous spirit, both of which are needed to construct a modern and forward-looking city. To create a better biennale in the future, what Shenzhen needs are wisdom and professionalism.

The first Hong Kong Biennale this year faced a completely different set of problems: as an essentially non-official event, it has much less support from either the government or the general public. Yet through the expertise and dedication of its curatorial team and exhibitors, the Hong Kong Biennale has emerged as an excellent presentation and is on a par with international standards. However, if this success is to continue, the Biennale has to persuade the government to assume a greater role in promoting the development of architectural/urban culture, and the Biennale itself must engender a more open attitude toward the media and become more proactive in its efforts to attract members of the public to participate.”

In hosting the Bi-city Biennale, there are numerous issues that have to be explored by the twin cities in order for them to share their information and learn from each other. Today, with accelerating interaction presenting new opportunities and also new challenges, anticipation for the next Bi-city Biennale has already begun.

(Originally published in Hinge magazine, Vol. 152, Mar. 2008. Its Chinese version is published in Times + Architecture, 08/02)