Disappearing Shanghai: The History of Shanghai Housing

1949 to the present

China Culture Study Group – ShanghaiAmy L. SommersDecember 2011

2

What is Shanghai?

A distinctive mélange of old and new, Chinese and Western

A treasure trove of Art Deco buildings built when the rest of the world was struggling through the Depression and China flourished on the silver standard

Neighborhood clusters that invite exploration while offering refuge from the city’s fast pace

Most critically… Shanghai is the last major Asian metropolis retaining a significant element of its pre-WWII housing stock

3

In 2004...the juxtaposition in Shanghai of charm and decrepitude was striking:

4

These contrasts made me wonder..

Why did so many older single family homes appear to be crudely sub-divided?

In response to the answer the ‘Cultural Revolution,’ I queried how the political turmoil had translated into reconfiguration of Shanghai’s historic housing? And, why – three decades

after its end, were these houses still in limbo?

5

What is being lost?

The clearances of the Weihei Road neighborhood illustrate the scale and rapidity of change in 2010.

The city’s scale, texture and feel are being transformed before our eyes.

“Buildings continue to come down at a rate of knots, many of them architecturally important internationally as well as symbolic of the city’s history…” Paul French, 2009

6

What is being lost?

For a list of historic buildings/areas lost in 2009, see Paul’s list: http://shanghaiist.com/2009/12/22/shanghai_architecture_5_treasures_w.php#

For 2010, http://www.chinarhyming.com/2011/02/03/what-we-lost-2010-shanghais-architectural-losses-last-year/

“City living has to be organic and that means historic neighborhoods should be maintained. At the moment Shanghai is moving too fast.” Ker Gibbs, 2010

7

How did we get here?

Over the past 40 years, intersecting political, legal and economic factors ● Conspired to create a situation where

Shanghai – a unique place combining aspects of European, American and Chinese urban living into a blend not seen elsewhere – faces loss of considerable elements of its distinctive character.

8

Relevant time periods:

1949 – 1955 ►a rural party learns to manage cities

1956 – 1965 ►”Socialist Transformation” 1966 – 1976 ► Cultural Revolution Post-76 reform era onward ► recovery…

…then destruction

Aim in the post-’49 period on growing the industrial base ► state investment in urban housing as a % of GNP averaged only 0.78% from 1949 – 1978

9

CCP didn’t want to antagonize urban business people and didn’t have expertise to manage urban land ►focus of land reform on rural/agricultural land

At same time, housing stocks were grossly inadequate after 8 years of Sino-Japanese War + 2 years Civil War ► 85% of SH population living in an average of less than 2 m²/person

1949-55: Post-war recovery

10

1949 - 1955

Urban land reform focused on ‘villains’: retrieving housing belonging to KMT officials, war criminals, foreigners and absent overseas Chinese (more about their fate later…)

As urban populations rose, housing shortages actually worsened

Plus, housing was considered a ‘non-productive investment’ ► attempts to improve housing considered ‘revisionist’: ‘production first, living conditions later’ was the motto

11

1956 - 1965

As the CCP’s confidence in its rule increased, it began socializing industrial, agricultural and handicraft sectors.

As part of this effort, it took first steps towards housing socialization by introducing rent control mechanisms

Starting in ’56, rental properties owned by urban landlords were brought under joint state-private ownership, state management and rent control

‘Socialist Transformation of Private Housing’ ► rules- based reform

12

1956-1965

Housing was confiscated, but seizures undertaken in a rules-based, predictable fashion:

– Central gov’t delegated local gov’ts to set size limits on how to treat properties.

– Avg national size of residence requiring seizure was 150 m² in large cities, 100 in medium-sized cities and 50 in small cities/towns

– Govt managed property and paid landlord a share of rental income

Housing also became available through work units

Socialist Transformation extended to rural land (converted to collectives) and conversion of private enterprises to joint state-ownership – 合营

13

Effects of 1956 – 1965 reforms

Eliminated incentives for developing private-sector housing by controlling availability of land and setting rent controls to unprofitable levels.

At same time, gov’t wasn’t directly investing in housing so supply not increasing greatly ► new housing flowed from employers ► if your employer didn’t offer good housing, your options were limited

Share of Housing in Private vs. Public Sector:

1949 100%

1956 52%

1958 25%

1977 15%

14,035,00 M² of Shanghai housing was socialized during this process.

14

From Gradual Transformation to Revolution:

In contrast to the Socialist Transformation period, the Cultural Revolution era did not involve top-down regulatory pronouncements

Nor was there even a formal policy adopted Rather, events on the ground took their

course and as they gained momentum, the officials later acted to ratify or reinforce them.

15

From Tiananmen to Nanjing Lu

On August 8, 1966, the CCP adopted the ‘Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Revolution,’ which came to be called the ’16 Points.’

Housing wasn’t mentioned in the 16 Points ► emphasis on the stultifying effects of the bourgeoisie on the revolutionary transformation of the country

16

“Put daring above all else and boldly arouse the masses”

“Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, still trying to use old ideas, culture, customs & habits of exploiting classes to corrupt the masses…[and] endeavor to stage a comeback.”

“Trust the masses, rely on them and respect their initiative….Don’t be afraid of disturbances”

17

From Tiananmen to Nanjing Lu

Aug 10, students visited the Central Committee’s offices, where Chairman Mao exhorted them to concern themselves with state affairs & carrying out the great proletarian cultural revolution…until the end.

Aug 18, Mao and Lin Biao wore 红卫宾armbands as they watched 1 million students march through Tiananmen Square.

18

Tiananmen to Nanjing Lu

As the revolution spread,students began to invade homes ► either to remove possessions representing the ‘4 olds’ ► or, the residentsthemselves● “Stealing homes” 抢房 be-came a preferred way to punish the bourgeois + secure housing space.

4 olds ( 破四旧 ) : old ideas, culture, customs, habits

19

Pattern emerged:

Someone initiated criticism of your family ► Red Guards, work team, ‘proletariat’

One’s possessions and ownership of housing would be used as evidence of guilt as a parasitic member of the exploiting classes

Your home might be invaded ► often it would be the younger workers, the family members of Red Guards or others with poor housing who actually moved in

20

Pattern (cont.):

Some homeowners destroyed or turned in their property certificates (which caused problems later when seeking to recover the property)

Some sought to select who would occupy their homes

21

Pattern (cont.)

“The  house was purchased by our mother in the 1940's.  We grew up  in it.  We moved to the US in the 60:s, leaving the house to a former relative, my sister's former husband.  

“He later invited  his own relatives to move in in order to ‘help keep the  house from other squatters’.  

“Our mother who died in 1990, bequeathed the house to us, and we were successful in transferring the title to us and properly registered the new deed with the Shanghai Housing authorities in 2007.  

“The issue now is the remaining occupants of the house refused to move out until we buy each of the three of them a similar house in the same area.”

Nanjing Road, Lane 612, #59

22

‘Ground Zero’ for Housing Seizures

抢房： 3 Waves of Housing Seizures

8/66 BJ RG start attacking ‘4 olds’ & take over houses

as HQ; homeowners restricted to small rooms

12/31/66SH citywide – poor families adopt RG techniques & slogans; spon-taneously occ-upy houses, ousting owners

7/25/67Shanghai Workers

Revolutionary Rebel General Headquarters

orders confiscation of

housing

‘头头新村’

23

Stealing Houses

A total of 28,860,000 SQM of housing was confiscated during the Cultural Revolution and 388,615 families were affected.

In Shanghai 1,817,000 SQM of housing were confiscated, affecting 26,104 families.

Even though the number of square meters stolen in Shanghai was 13% of the total confiscated during Socialist Transformation period, the lack of a rules-based approach created a high level of trauma

24

And what happened next?

On Fuxing Rd. near Huashan Lu: beautiful street…dilapidated housing.

25

Post-1976 Reforms

Over 2 decades, China designed and implemented a real property ownership system that preserved a socialist veneer of state ownership while creating transferable, marketiz-able rights.

By creating long-term leases of “land use rights,” the building blocks for creating a market in urban real estate were put in place.

26

Rectification: starting in late 80’s

Campaign to restore improperly seized private property was started

Whether one’s property was restored depended on many factors:

– Generally, housing taken from ‘villains’ period (‘49-55) wasn’t restored;

– Housing ‘mistakenly’ taken during rules-based reform period of Socialist Transformation (‘56-65) could be restored (if house was used as owner’s residence or didn’t meet size limits)

27

Rectification (cont.)

Grounds for return– Property confiscated by ‘extra legal’ acts or

‘revolutionary violence’ during the CR was to be returned to owners.

– Property belonging to intellectuals, famous individuals, overseas Chinese was to receive priority & special policies were adopted to address this group to improve relations and foster investment.

28

Process of Return

Claims were to be resolved by housing administration agencies and not through courts (Supreme Court promulgated an opinion on this point in ’87)

No statute of limitations appears to have been applied, but functionally window to seek return appears to have closed

29

Process of Return (cont.)

Challenges include– Evidentiary ► such as obtaining access to

archival property records (where certificates destroyed/lost during CR) to prove ownership

– Relocation of current residents may be the largest challenge ► many have occupied the properties for decades and if they have documentation proving their tenancy, may have ‘usage rights’ 使用权’

30

Rectification (cont.)

Whether occupants hold long-term tenancy rights or usage rights, the housing bureaus are reluctant to forcibly remove them

Lawful owners can charge them rent, but not force them to leave

As housing values in Shanghai have risen, occupants have used their status to negotiate compensation, and refusing to leave until their desired payment received

31

Rectification (cont.)

Even where owners can legally obtain title, they face significant practical challenges:

– They must repay gov’t for fees it paid during the 4 or 5 decades to maintain the property;

– If occupants refuse to leave, the owner must enter into a lease agreement with them;

– Rental rates are set by the gov’t at low levels;– Owner must fund the repair of the property

As a result, some owners determined they could not afford to retake back their properties ►remedy offered was without equitable characteristics

32

End Result:

According to statistics published in 1988, the Shanghai housing bureau still held 270,000 SQF of pre-1949 housing that was confiscated during the CR and 360,000 SQF that was ‘voluntarily transferred’ to the government ► 630,000 SQF total

Much of gov’t held pre-War housing is in poor condition. Negotiating buy-outs household-by-household time and capital-intensive ►

what is the pay-off or benefit to the housing bureau? By contrast, a single developer can come in, fund the relocation of hundreds of

families in a neighborhood, pay a sizeable land use grant fee to the local district government and create a dazzling new development in place of shabby, run-down lanes.

Is it any wonder what choice the government elects?

33

Coming full circle…

Their dilapidated appearance in turn eases arguments in favor of replacing them with gleaming, new, ‘efficient’ and modern structures…some of which now evoke ‘old’ Shanghai, such as this project in Baoshan.

绿地公元 1860Baoshan District

34

Fuxing Lu Redux

Yet, given how beautiful these old homes can be after

renovation, and how dynamic the old neighbor-hoods are, wouldn’t it be preferable to preserve more of what already exists?

Thank you for attending!

35

Notes:

Slide 4: Photo by Cai Xianmin in Global Times

Slides 18, 20 – 22: Photos by Mandy Wu Slide 24: Photos by Beth Bunnell

36

Amy L. Sommers

Amy L. Sommers is a lawyer resident in Shanghai whose involvement in China goes back over 25 years, when she first started studying Mandarin, later developing deep appreciation of China’s history, politics, culture and legal system. Her clients benefit from her ability to bring these insights to bear on their strategic China projects. Ms. Sommers is a frequent writer, speaker and commentator on China issues, including most recently "Tragedy of the Commons: Property Rights Issues in Shanghai Historic Residences," a research article examining the effects tensions between China's newly privatized model of urban housing ownership and underlying questions about legal title in pre-1949 property is having on Shanghai's dwindling stock of architecturally-distinctive historic housing. For the 2010 Shanghai Literary Festival, Ms. Sommers presented a talk on "China's Literary Legacy: Outsiders Looking In - Forgotten Memoirs." The Expatriate Professional Women’s Society of Shanghai awarded her their award for Professional Excellence in 2007.

37

Copyright:

All rights, including copyright, in these materials are owned by Amy L. Sommers. and may only be used for personal/non-commercial purposes.

For further inquiries, please contact Amy L. Sommers: amylsommers@gmail.com