earendil31 | an exercise in architectural intellectualism (Reply)

I read this story today in the NY Times, about the changing look of Beijing architecture. After reflecting on the article for a little while, I realized the reason it rubbed me a little bit the wrong way was because a part of it, not too important a part overall but still a piece of the writer's atmospheric build-up, was based on an assumption that was competely wrong. The whole idea was that the walled compounds that are so profligate throughout Beijing are based around the same feeilng of Fear of Poor People that gave rise to the gated communities of the United States. This is completely false. Since this had to do with China, and not just any China, but my China (Beijing), I was a little bit upset that this had occured. So I wrote a reply, my first ever reply to a newspaper article.

Dear Mr. Ouroussoff,

In your article of July 13 2008, "In Changing Face of Beijing, a Look at the New China," you make reference to gated communities and their presence as a sign of the growing gap between rich and poor in Beijing. As someone who recently spent a good deal of time exploring Beijing and making comparisons to previous visits, and a sometime resident of one of those apartment blocks, I must disagree.

Gated communities in the U.S. are gated 24 hours a day, every day. They are meant to be island fortresses in a sea of perceived danger. They are the exception, not the rule. In Beijing, walled compounds are very much the rule. They are more or less completely open during the day, and become somewhat more guarded at night, when vehicle traffic may be restricted. What they are not, however, are the besieged citadels of suburban America.

Most Beijing walled compounds are filled with residents that would strenuously deny any level of affluence, unless compared to the standard of living in their family's home village. This is not an act. Most of Beijing is inhabited by people that make modest or even low incomes doing basic service or manufacturing work. They are the lower-middle and working class from America's late 1940's. The walls around the lower income compounds are just as high and thick (or higher and thicker, if the compound is old enough) as those around the gleaming glass and rebar towers of Beijing's power brokers.

If one were to take a walking tour of an older Beijing apartment sub-district, one would find that in addition to residential space, each has its own commercial, industrial, educational, and sanitation services within the walls of the compound. Many of these were first laid out in the more tightly controlled environment before and during the Cultural Revolution, when it was deemed necessary to restrict movement between sub-districts. The result is sometimes kilometer long blocks that cannot be walked through; one must go around. One could say the motto of modern Beijing is "You can't get there from here."

Another result is that in most apartment blocks, rich or poor, new or old, you must pass under the eyes of a (sometimes) watchful security guard to enter the compound. This is not to keep out the poor, or the less fortunate, as visitors with legitimate reasons for being there are allowed in, as are all manner of workmen, street vendors, and other non-residents during the day. At night, vehicle drivers are questioned (just the basic "What building are you going to?"), but most pedestrians are allowed in.

The real purpose of all these walls is not to keep people out, nor is it to insulate the compound inside from the dangers of the greater city. The true function of these walls is best illustrated by the SARS epidemic of 2003. All of those gates were closed, not to keep SARS out, but to keep any possible infected residents from spreading the disease outside of their compound. As it was in the 1970's, so it remains today; the real purpose of Beijing's walled compounds is so that, if necessary, the government can keep its people in.

Respectfully,

--Kale Jones

Not pulitzer work, I know, but still, its a start...