URBAN NARCOTICS

Draft version Dec 29

Urban Narcotics in Boomtown China "新兴都市”麻醉品

William Tan and Ting-Ting Zhang (PingZhangChenLun)

We see in the past decade of economic boom a phenomenon whereby city-building is reduced to a business venture. Attracting foreign investments becomes the sole purpose of developing a city, bureaucrats posing as businessmen and the cities branded and packaged as commodities: Bilbao, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Hyderabad.

The governments of these states move swiftly from a model of providing basic social, legal, economic security for citizen’s pursuit of happiness to a technocratic, profit-minded amoral corporate entity. This results in a unique style of governance – a new kind of state different from the Western politics where the state acts as ‘a referee of competing interest groups’ and different from the Marxist definition where state is a tool of ruling economic class – a business-oriented authoritarianism. This phenomenon can be called 'Boomtown effect' and these cities 'Boomtowns'.

Boomtown-making is a singularly technocratic process - every aspect of urbanism and society is appraised through managerial, logistical or technological lenses. In this time-space compressed globalizing world economy, city planning becomes a business development exercise to attract the limited resources (material, financial and human) that roam swiftly and freely in search for investment opportunities. Boomtown has an authoritarian political power that allows it to reorganize and standardize its entire productive social and financial capital into ‘assembly lines’ that meet the demands of the targeted market objective.

Many Chinese cities are developing singularly by attracting and utilizing foreign investments. The incredible speed of these developments and their gargantuan scales will have unique physical, social and political consequences that can hardly be foreseen. The purpose of this article attempts to examine Singapore's unique situation, to draw parallel lessons from the making of the city-state and to envisage possible outcomes of Chinese developments, while accepting shortcomings of such speculative explorations. Why Singapore? Singapore is arguably one of the first Asian cities (if not one of the world's first city) to have successfully mastered the Boomtown method of city-making. Its brand of technocratic hegemony utilizes a micro-management method that blends Fordist-Taylorist methods with Asian social morality to create a systematically controlled and complacent citizenry so that national resources and popular sentiments can be effectively mobilized. More importantly Singapore's ethnic composition and the economic-development based urban development have many similarities with Chinese cities and we believe will provide a good future subjunctive for its Chinese counterparts.

From Singapore's independence in 1965, one of the main identities the city-state uses to attract foreign investments is good environmental, hygiene and health standards and the city's urbanism has been systematically altered to furthering this “Clean and Green” marketing strategy. Gardens, parks and green pockets are linked with street-side pastures and tree-laced park lanes. This green image is an important basis of Singapore's attraction and this becomes a great pull factor for investors and visitors alike. Chinese cities must understand that instant urbanization without long-term environmental, social and cultural development plans is not sustainable and will eventually have adverse effect on the economy.

Learning from Singapore

 In Singapore any building no longer in the latest masterplan is demolished. The entire city is tiled and re-tiled, paved and re-paved regularly to upkeep the sleek look of efficiency. Its highly effective modern urbanism is designed to provide the vital infrastructure for foreign-investment. Not unlike Beijing, the well-pruned roads networks are monitored by vast CCTV systems that scrutinize and analyze traffic conditions and dispatch accident recovery where necessary. A punctual and reliable public transport system of subway trains and buses that link the entire city is supported locally by ‘feeder’ buses that transport commuters from virtually their doorsteps to the town centers where they transfer to subways or express buses to their places of work. Covered walkways provide sun-shade for residents walking from their public high-rise housing to the bus-stops and car-parks; air-conditioned arcades connect office towers and shopping malls to each other so that consumers and office workers need not be exposed to the retarding equatorial heat.

This may all sound like an ideal urban dream for many developing Chinese cities but mere physical accumulation of these urban features is not enough. Attention must be given to actual performance of such physical amenities and even more care should be placed on social and environmental consequences of such urbanization at large. Case in point, the constant revision in Singapore’s urbanism removes all provenances of one’s past. While this ensures the presentation of a ‘well kept and renewed’ city-scape to wide-eyed foreigners, the society has nothing from the past to remember. It is not so much collective amnesia but a constant annihilation of the collective memory - a memory that in due course should become the backbone of the city’s spirit, pride and provenance.

In Singapore, in addition to the constant erasure of the city’s physical record, its people are constantly driven forward, driven towards new professional destinations prescribed for them: manufacturing and engineering in the 70s, business administration in the 80s, bio-technology and banking in the 90s and presently, design and creative industry. Singapore's education system is altered for such economic themes. Those who have no affinity or aptitude for the 'industry-of-the-month' are often left behind. There is no unemployment benefit scheme in Singapore which leaves its people compromised en masse toiling after one-sided development.

Boomtown Contract

Boomtown technocratic hegemony requires a calibrated statesmanship and more importantly, business acumen. However, its success relies largely on the state's ability to uphold an authoritarian grip on the society and the reduction of governance to the “winning formula” of continual financial prosperity and urbanization. In Boomtown there is no 'Social contract' 1 but a 'Boomtown contract' 2 between the state and the people: a wealth for political consensus that started with a general consensus for wealth.

A Boomtown can usually be identified with these distinctive features 1) An Economic-themed alter ego 2) Authoritarian government 3) Transplanted urbanism 4) Forced-fed Identity 5) An immediate past that is all too painful 6) State policies driven mainly by economic gain 7) Political apathy.

Chinese cities in the Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Free-trade Zones, State-level Economic and Technological Zones and New and High-Tech Industrial Development Zones by virtue of their collective themed identities run the risk of becoming Boomtown cities.

Chinese cities can announce themselves as 'foreign investment-ready' Boomtowns by following the trialed and tested ‘Ideal City Check list’ 3. The problem of quality and banality remains. Large-scale traffic infrastructure, skyscrapers, buildings by famous architects, a new exposition center, monuments for tourism, a new performance arts center (to demonstrate a cultural dimension to the city), 'Beyond 5-Star' hotels, smog-free environments and Ferris Wheels 4 can all be built cheaply and quickly but since quality of these constructions are often overlooked, these urban features are merely signs and symbols of modernization that may have immediate visual impact but do not contribute to the legacy of the cities. Furthermore, such cookie cutter mode of city reproduction lacks the vital cultural reference that creates an attractive urban identity.

There is no local precedence for the Chinese boomtown. The speed and scale by which Chinese boomtowns develop offer little time to develop localized solutions. Infrastructure, urban-planning and residential estates are designed by foreign consultants or local authorities that use templates loosely based on foreign models. Singapore in the 1970s and 1980s depended greatly on the import of urban models to upgrade its urbanism - from the Dutch Ring City (Randstad)5 model to decentralize the island and Le Corbusian high-rise for mass housing and is successful in appropriating these foreign urban and architectural models to suit its social and climatic needs. The use of ready-made urban methods is inevitable for newly developing cities, but Chinese cities must avoid ‘cutting-and-pasting’ and adapt these imported models to their own context like Singapore did.

Singapore was much blinded by the limelight of presenting a “modern and new” city-scape and was relentless in removing traces from its colonial past from its urbanism. Consequently when it was deemed necessary to conserve old district for touristic purposes in late 1980s, there was little left to preserve. With ample land, Chinese cities may not resort to demolishing culturally and historically important sites for new constructions. However Chinese urbanism will become template depositories for alien designs if cities are not careful with what are being built by both local and foreign developers. In this case, it is ironic that while Singapore offers Chinese cities the privilege of hindsight, in preserving their urban histories during the expansion and construction for the future, Singaporean developers should be constructing housing communities in China with Disneyfied themes such as “New England” style single-family-housing.

Boomtown - The Utopia?

One distinct problem of city-building purely from an economic standpoint is reducing matters of a humane and cultural nature into statistics and demographic data. This consumption-based planning sees the society only as 'income groups' with preconceived 'lifestyles' to cater for. However there is no prior native middle-class culture for planners and designers to take reference from. In fact the newly-minted Chinese middle-class may find that their immediate history of economic deprivation cannot be forgotten soon enough and therefore often find themselves having inflated and misguided expectations and aspirations towards all things foreign.

To create a successful Boomtown, it is imperative that everything about the city be primed for economic activities. The state has to implement political, fiscal and legislative policies tuned to attract investments. Being a labor-intensive exercise, citizens have to participate fully for this development to be successful. In this case, there need be very little convincing for the citizens to comply with the state policies. Unlike abstract political utopias, economic prosperity is a convincing ideology to solicit a following. Boomtown citizens find it easier to agree with state policies once they think these policies ultimately benefit them even if they do not have immediate appeal. Since Boomtown government focuses on economic development and ‘modernization’, all policies can be alluded to economic development and stability. Once everyone is used to the comfort of urbanization and has accumulated reasonable wealth, opportunity costs of dissent become greater: Unlawful arrests of political dissidents of no relation to oneself is easier to ignore when one has a well-paid office job, lives in a gated community and drives a brand new imported car than when being underpaid, living in low-standard housing and having no access to material goods

Boomtown is a political narcotic.
In Singapore, rising wealth and an illiberal internal security act compel the general populace to believe they can only gain from supporting the hegemonic control of the state. The Phantasmagoria of Boomtown convinces the first generation of Boomtown citizens to give in to the state for better living standards. Current generation of Singapore citizens inherited their parents’ addiction to Boomtown narcotics. Having been born into this addiction and educated to believe there is no better alternative for the society, they have little motivation to work harder for the society - they become thorough followers of Boomtown ideology. This is the political neutering effect of Boomtown contract.

This neutering process unfortunately removes not only the political will but also the entrepreneurial will. In recent years, Singaporeans’ lack in initiative is reducing the country’s responsiveness to global trends and thus reducing its ability to compete with upcoming markets in Asia. The government is trying hard now to amend such lack of social impetus and imagination in the people by organizing public campaigns to bring importance and awareness to “Creative Industry and Arts”. Developing China’s cities citizens and government alike may learn from Singapore’s predicament - state policies when treated as 'ideology du jour' to meet only economic goals or as socio-political tools to engineer the society may ultimately impair the people and the state alike. Economic liberalization in China prompted a renewed trust in the government, this trust is a great social capital that can either be a strength to these Chinese cities’ development but it can also be easily abused. Developing Chinese cities must consciously preserve the cultural and social wealth of being in a large and heterogeneous country. Policies that evolve with constant dialog between diverse representatives of the society – in their varied ambitions, talents and aptitudes may prevent one-dimensional development like that in Singapore.

Boomtown’s living standards and economic opportunities attract migrants who aspire to Boomtown life and are willing to subscribe to the Boomtown contract. Migrants moving to Singapore may come from adjacent Southeast Asian and Australasian countries which are worse off in political or economic conditions. Migrants may also be well-heeled professionals or oligarchs from countries such as India or Russia who find ownership of a Singaporean passport more travel-friendly than American passports nowadays. On the other end of the migration cycle, citizens of Boomtowns who do not wish to subscribe to Boomtown Contract can leave their native cities. In Singapore, individuals whose aptitude lie in professions that are not preferred by the state (which recently include creative industry and performing arts) have to seek greener pastures abroad. Individuals who do not agree with the ruling party’s governance but find no avenues for political dialog would also seek residences in other countries. This transfusion of Boomtown seekers and quitters creates a self-censorship – "if you don't like the theme you needn't join"; "if you don’t like Boomtown, you should leave".

Nothing is Free in the Free Market

The spectacle of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing is China’s proclamation of no longer being a “sleeping dragon,” but an international power to be reckoned with. The media success of this proclamation will produce a stronger urge from the people to be coached into a more powerful Boomtown formula as they will seek quicker financial gratification. It is possible that the newly initiated Chinese (into this capitalistic mode) may naïvely assume Boomtown to have the best of both worlds – a “free for all, grab all you want” economy and expect the state to facilitate their private economic pursuits and catch them when they fall.

Developing Chinese cities need to cultivate from their rich tradition a modern cultural and social scaffold to support their mercantile growth and contemporary life. At present the new financial elite can only rely on Western imageries they absorbed keenly when they are receiving education abroad or from advertisements of luxury goods to fashion their lifestyle and social disposition. This mimicry can only result in a disingenuous borrowed culture. However, if governments of these developing Chinese cities continue to encourage native social and professional diversity as mentioned earlier, this social character will bear the hallmarks of native culture and not just a borrowed one.

What then for fast-tracked Chinese cities?

It may not be hard to make an argument for Chinese planners to take a more cautious and pluralistic view on their development plans. Besides understanding that pluralistic social policies drafted with public opinions are more economically and politically sustainable6, developing cities in China must see the adverse effect of repeating centrally designed urban plans. These pre-packaged formulae may get quicker authority approval and faster response from foreign investors but they are not carefully designed to suit these Chinese cities’ varied social and cultural needs. Growth must not be measured by the immediacy of economic success but also through sustainable socio-political development. Imported urban models and development proposals (from Chinese institutions or foreign firms) must be calibrated to meet local social needs so that these developments can truly improve the citizens’ lives. A government that tries to meet the people’s need and actual improvements to quality of life of the populace can only build a stronger society, economy and consequently a stronger China.

Ironically, the party that is harder to convince of the downside of blinkered Boomtown developments are the citizens themselves. The extraordinary success of Chinese economy is in no minute part contributed by the pragmatic and industrious nature of the Chinese people. So, how does one prevent these people from suffering a “Refeeding Syndrome” – a material excessiveness as a result of a sudden reinstitution into a financially abundant system after such prolonged material starvation?

How does one explain intangible ideas of cultural dignity and identity, when the temptation of tangible and marked elevation of their living standards is so huge? While we can propose to the state alternative plans of development and even alternative method of sustained hegemony that prevent the creation of Boomtowns, what alternative can we give to Chinese citizens that can better the prospect of quick wealth and material comforts? What proposition can one conjure that will pre-empt the people of developing Chinese from falling into social coma after working so hard and so long towards their country’s economic awakening?

From the success story of Singapore, China will learn that environmental care and meticulous urban planning are vital to create a platform for economic excellence. Singapore’s civic and cultural inefficiency that comes from an economic biased society demonstrates that there social sustainability is as important (if not more important) as the speed of physical and financial growth. Developing Chinese cities will also learn that urban, social and cultural heterogeneity affects the longevity of a city's development. If Chinese cities are built with strong and modern local identity that allows and encourages social participation, they may ultimately have the efficiency of Singapore and the cultural wealth that it has not. 

---

“新兴都市”麻醉品

陈威廉与张婷婷

经济的繁荣让城市开发在过去十年已沦为商业投机的猎物。 吸引投资成了城市开发的唯一目的，官僚政客都成了商人，把所管辖的城市包装成商品，以便卖出。比如： 毕尔巴鄂、迪拜、阿布扎比、成都，海得拉巴等。
政府摒弃了为人民提供社会﹑法律﹑经济保证的宗旨，变成了追逐利润的商业机构。一种独特的政治形态也随之生成，它既非美国政治‘政府是财团、党派竞争的裁判’的模式，也非马克思主义‘政府是当权经济阶级的独裁工具’。我们称这种现象为“新兴都市效应”，这些城市则是“新兴都市”。
新兴都市的创造过程是“技术统治论”(Technocratic)的贯彻结果。城市规划和社会建设的每个方面都通过管理、后勤或科技的角度来决定。在这时空被全球化压缩了的世界经济中，市政规划异化为吸引快速流动着的有限资源（如资金和人才等）的商业实践。新兴都市政府有整顿、规范整个社会人力和财力的政治权力。新兴都市政府能把整个城市改造成一条流水线，产品是市场经济。
不少中国城市仅仅通过吸引外资来开发，其庞大的规模与极端的速度必将导致出乎预料的社会和政治后果。这篇文章试图参考新加坡的实例，为中国城市的发展提供经验与教训。为什么选择新加坡呢？这是因为新加坡有可能是世界上或亚洲城市第一个成功掌握新兴都市发展策略的城市。新城的技术统治 (Technocratic)至上，混合亚洲价值观以及Fordist-Taylorist管理方式，从而促成了一个全面受控而且满足感强烈的社会，国家资源和人们的情绪亦得到有效地动员。更重要的是，新加坡以民族和经济发展为基础的发展策略与中国颇为相似。我们相信，新加坡是中国城市未来的一面明镜。
从新加坡1965年独立以来，卫生与环境标准一直是吸引国外投资的主要优势。整个城市都为了“清洁、绿色”的市场营销战略而规划发展。绿色的城市景观是新加坡的主要魅力，庭院、公园和绿色草坪与沿街的绿化带以及绿树荫荫的停车道相连，这是吸引外资和游客的重要因素。中国城市必须了解，没有健康的环境、社会和文化发展目标的都市化必然不能长期维系。
向新加坡学习
在新加坡，所有与最新发展规划相抵触的建筑都会被拆。街道与人行道都一铺再铺，以保持整洁感。高效的现代城市规划为外资准备好了重要的基础设施。好比北京，浩大的监视系统详细地监视着整齐的、带绿化的交通网，并为意外事故派遣救护车。地铁﹑电车与巴士把人们从家门口送到市中心。有井盖的走道为公共住宅与公共停车场提供连接; 冷气走廊将办公大楼与商场相连，以便消费者和办公室员工无需暴露在炎炎烈日下。
这在许多开发中的中国城市听上去，更象是个理想的都市，但是对于一个社会来说，单纯的物质累积仍是不足够的。这些看上去很美的设施的功能效率以及如此大规模城市化的社会与环境后果更应该被重视。而新加坡不间断的城市改造消灭了所有历史的遗迹与社会根源。这虽然保证了让外人赞不绝口的妥善打理的崭新的都市景观，但损失了社会的记忆。这不是社会的失忆，而是对社会集体记忆的不断消磨- 这记忆本该成为支撑一座城市的精神和尊严之源。
在新加坡，除了不断抹除城市物质印记外，人们的思想与职业也被政策不断推向新方向：在70年代是制造业和工程业，在80年代是工商管理﹑生物科技业和银行业，从90年代开始是设计和创造业。整个教育体制都为这些经济题材更新。没有对‘新行业’有兴趣或才能的人们很容易被社会抛弃。在一个没有失业救助计划的社会里，这些被抛弃的人会觉得更加无望。
新兴都市合同
新兴都市的专家统治需要极高的政治手腕和商业敏感。然而它的成功主要依靠的是政府对社会的控制并把治国方略包装成持续经济繁荣和城市化的“多赢策略”。在新兴都市里人民与政府之间没有‘社会契约’，而只有‘新兴都市合同’：一种交换财富的政治共识。
新兴都市的特征是1)一个以经济为主体的；2)专政政府；3)舶来的城市规划；4)强制的社会性格；5)贫困的近代史；6) 只发展经济的治国方针；7)消极的政治态度。
中国城市的经济特区、自由贸易区、国家即经济技术开发区以及高新科技开发区都因为主题十分单一，所以有成为新兴都市的危险。
中国城市很容易通过完成‘理想城市的清单’上所有的项目，而成为‘取悦外资’的新兴都市。质量和单调的问题将不可避免。大规模交通基础设施、摩天大楼、著名设计师的新建筑、崭新的博览中心、为旅游业新建的丰碑、(为展示有文化的)新表演艺术馆、‘超五星’的酒店、干净的环境虽然都能被又快又经济地修建，但是这些建筑质量往往被忽略，这些都市的特征只有短暂的视觉的现代化冲击，却对城市的遗产毫无贡献。如此炮制城市的方式所创造的只会是一个缺乏文化依据与身份的都市。
高速和大规模的开发让中国新兴都市没有本地化的时间。基础设施、都市计划和住宅发展都是根据外来模式拷贝，或由外国顾问设计。新加坡在70年代和80年代也靠进口都市模型来提升它的城市规划-例如荷兰圆环城市(Randstad)模式和勒科布西耶的高层住宅，并且成功地把这些外国都市和建筑模型与当地的社会和气候需求相结合。换句话说，如今运用外国发展模式新建都市在所难免，但中国城市必须避免不顾后果地剪贴复制，仅仅像新加坡一样把外来模式略加以本地化。
新加坡的发展意识一向被它呈现“现代的、崭新的” 都市景致，和消除殖民地遗迹的欲望所主导。结果在80年代后期，当新加坡发现保存有历史价值的建筑被视为有利于旅游业时，值得保留的区域已所剩无几。中国领土广阔，不需为了新建工程而拆除有文化历史价值的旧建筑。如果当地政府让地方和外国开发商随各自的利益而发展，一不小心中国城市将很容易成为存放外来设计的棋盘。但戏剧性的是，尽管新加坡像是能瞥见中国城市未来的水晶球，能为中国借鉴如何吸纳外来城市设计的方法，新加坡的开发商却在今天的中国开发了迪斯尼主题公园般的住宅项目，比如“新英格兰”风格的分户式住宅。
新兴都市是乌托邦吗?
从纯经济的角度来发展社会的一个大问题，即是把复杂的人道与文化问题简化成了人口统计的数据。此类基于消费的规划只把社会划分为各个‘收入阶层’以及与之匹配的‘生活方式’，然而这些新兴社会缺乏土生土长的中产阶级文化根基，规划师和建筑师亦无从参考。事实上，新生的中国中产阶级无法很快忘却离去不久的贫困，从而也对一切外来事物产生扭曲、过度膨胀的期待与兴奋。
要创造一个成功的新兴都市，城市的一切都得以经济为首要目标。政府要将财政和法律往吸引投资的方向调整。这是需要全民参与才会成功的行动。所幸的是，在经济利益的诱惑下，人民会很容易就被说服并服从所有的政策。与抽象政治乌托邦所不同的是，经济繁荣主义很有说服力。一旦人们认为某项政策是符合个人利益的，即使没有直接效益，新兴都市公民也容易支持该政策。因为新兴都市政府的政治标题是‘发展经济’ 和‘现代化’，它所有政策都可以自称是为了经济发展和稳定而确立的。一旦大家习惯于都市化的舒适并积累了一定财富，持有异议的机会成本便增加了：当你有一个待遇优厚的事业、住在封闭的住宅小区、拥有崭新的进口汽车时，和自己没有直接关系的不合法的拘捕则更容易被忽略。
新兴都市是政治麻醉品
在新加坡，财富的增加和苛刻的内政法律让平民相信，只有支持新兴都市政府的强权控制才是有利的。新兴都市‘幻觉效应’ 让第一代新兴都市公民屈从于政府以换得更好的生活水平。这一代公民则继承了上一代对新兴都市的麻醉品的成瘾性，加上后来的社会教育让他们深信，没有比现在更好的社会了，他们丧失了为社会发奋向上的意志 - 他们已成为新兴都市意识形态彻头彻尾的追随者。这是新兴都市合同所培育的政治后果。
培育过程消灭的不仅是政治意愿，还磨平了人们的创业精神。近年来，新加坡人民缺乏创造性的社会问题已开始削弱了全球化对新加坡的兴趣，亦降低了它在亚洲市场的竞争能力。政府现在设法通过组织公共运动给“创意工业和艺术”赋予重要性和意识，从而改变缺少动力和想象力的社会症结。正在开发的中国城市可从新加坡的特殊困境中学到：为了短期经济目标而忽略社会文化影响的政策，终将上海国家和人民的利益。中国的经济自由化让人民重新信任政府，而这信任可以成为中国城市发展的巨大社会资本，但也很容易被滥用。发展中的中国城市必须认真保护这广袤国国土上多元化的文化和社会财富。由社会不同阶层对话产生的政策才能迎合不同人的志向、天赋与才能，也许能防止像新加坡那样的单一发展的问题。
新兴都市的生活水平和经济机会吸引着向往新兴都市生活并愿意服从新兴都市合同的移民。来新加坡的移民往往来自政治或经济稍逊的邻国，如东南亚国家或澳洲。也有移民是印度的专业人士或俄国的寡头，他们发现新加坡护照在今天要比美国护照更为好用。不认同新兴都市合同的公民也会离开。在新加坡，那些才能在政策并不惠及的行业 (直到近期也包括创造业和表演艺术) 或不同意执政方针的人民都只能去海外发展。这些新兴都市支持者和反对者的出入循环创造了人口的自我审查——“不喜欢的不来”；“不喜欢新兴都市的请离开 ”。
自由市场无自由
北京08年奥运会的壮观宣告了中国不再是沉睡的巨龙，而是需要严正对待的大国。媒体对这一宣言的成功报道将刺激人们对新兴都市公式的全盘接受。新加入（资本主义模式）的中国人民往往天真地认为新兴都市兼具两重世界的有点——一个‘完全自由，各取所需’的经济并期望政府支持他们的经济诉求，并在跌倒的时候将他们扶起。
发展中的中国城市必需从富有的文化传统中找到现代文化和社会的支撑来平衡贸易增长与现代生活。现今的新富阶层只依靠他们在西方受教育是吸取的、或从奢侈品广告所倡导的形象来塑造他们的生活方式和社会地位。这样的模仿只会形成虚伪的舶来文化。然而，如果这些发展中的中国城市持续地鼓励本地的社会和职业的多元化发展，整个社会将带有当地文化的印记。
应对高速发展的中国城市
事实上，中国城市的规划委员会采取谨慎而多元的规划观不是没有道理的。除了借民意起草的多元社会政策会更具有经济和政治的可持续发展性以外，开发中的城市必须了解复制纯粹自上而下的城市规划的弊端。这些成熟的公式或许能更快被有关当局批准，也能更快吸引外资，但它们不是为这些城市多样的社会和文化需求而量体设计。城市和社会的发展不但是由直接的经济成果来计算，也得通过社会和政治的持续发展来衡量。进口的都市模式和开发方案(不论是中国还是外国事务所设计)都得经过一番本地化，才能真正改进人民的生活质量。政府只有让人民生活得到真正的、长期的改善，国家才能长治久安。
而具讽刺意味的是，人们反而更难相信新兴都市发展论的副作用。中国近年来经济发展的非凡成就是中国人民辛勤劳动换来的。所以我们应该如何避免这些人民患上“再喂食综合症” - 因为突然而来的财富的而对物质过份依赖？
当人们全力以赴地提高生活水平时，怎么向他们解释文化尊严和民族身分这些无形的问题呢？即使我们能说服新兴都市政权选择有利人民的社会发展计划，我们又能给中国人民什么比迅速致富还要更有吸引力的远景呢？我们如何才能事先避免为了社会经济的复苏而长期努力后又陷入社会的昏迷状态呢？
从新加坡成功的案例，中国的城市将了解保护环境和缜密的城市规划对社会经济的重要性。新加坡由于侧重经济发展而产生的社会与文化的问题，证明了社会文化发展的持续比财富积累的速度要更为重要。中国开发中的城市也会明白城市、社会和文化的多样化将影响到城市发展的寿命。如果中国城市的发展允许并鼓励社会的参与，它们将不但会有新加坡财富积累的效率，也不需要以后再来弥补在发展中失去的文化财富。