梦想中的城市

ZCG: As part of the plan, public transportation trips are also to be increased by 2020. In cities with a population greater than five million they are supposed to make up at least 40 percent of all trips, in cities with a population greater than 1 million the target is 30 percent, and for medium-sized and small cities it is 20 percent. So how will and should this be achieved? DA: Within China, Guangzhou is already about 50 percent, so I think they should be more, but I think they should also be aiming at restricting automobile usage. Congestion charges are a great idea but go farther than that. If enough public transportation is provided on the large arterial roads that separate out all the superblocks, people will be able to give up driving cars much more easily. SY: Also, it takes the other part of the equation, which is to limit parking in the city area, so that people need to choose other modes, for example public transit and bicycling and so on. And also it needs to have a value change, through education and other programs, for example from TV and other social media programs so that people would bicycling as a trend, and as a fashion. DA: We can’t expect people to bike if the air isn’t clean. And clean air is certainly one of the most fundamental elements of livability. Clean air, clean water, shelter – the basic needs of life. Of course, it goes much beyond that, but when it comes to air pollution, I think it’s going to have such an effect on people’s choice of travel that it first – can’t expect to the kingdom of bicycles, which I think would be a wonderful goal, until people have already gotten out of their cars and probably into public transit or something that will produce less air pollution, so it’s a two-step process. BK: What do you think should be the most important goal in improving livability for Chinese urban planners? DSF: The most important thing is for planners to design using wisdom, not just using knowledge. This is the big thing, because for the past decades, it has been too easily that planners just follow what the regulation does, and doing in an engineering way, and that really forgets about who is living there, what is the biggest aim for the society really works. And I think people needs to think about who is actually using it and if they themselves want to live in it. ZCG: The guidelines also stated “Bizarre architecture that is not economical, functional, aesthetically pleasing or environmentally friendly” is not to be constructed. So who can say what is or is not aesthetically pleasing? How do you define weird or bizarre architecture? DA: This is, a very subjective thing. Frankly, I don’t think this guideline is very helpful, but I do understand where it comes from, I think. But it really doesn’t matter if it’s strange. If it’s innovative, and it’s economical, functional, environmentally friendly, if it works, then it’s fine. You don’t want to restrict creativity if it serves a purpose.