“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
— Mark Twain

Shanghai – The Destruction Side of Things

Posted: July 19th, 2010 | 2 Comments »

Far too many glowing government issued images of Shanghai around this year what with all the unsustainable pavilions and new towers in Shanghai attracting the fly-in, fly-out journo crowd who mostly have little to say about the destruction of older properties and heritage in the city. A useful contrast is this series of very sad pictures in Foreign Policy from Sue Ann Tay. Hongkou particularly has suffered this last two years as a few structures are left to be surrounded by blocks of ugly high rises eventually creating a very strange landscape of constant same-ish tower blocks with the odd poorly preserved (i.e. usually ripped out inside and then painted a non-traditional colour that makes it look rather odd) occasionally popping up.

Click here to see the photos


2 Comments on “Shanghai – The Destruction Side of Things”

  1. 1 ScottLoar said at 9:32 am on July 19th, 2010:

    These photos of overcrowded hovels long past needing tear-down do nothing to advance understanding of true architectural gems and historic districts bulldozed flat in Shanghai. I rarely agree with the high-rises that replace them but in any other country these would be properly called “slums”.

  2. 2 Paul French said at 10:57 am on July 19th, 2010:

    Certainly a percentage have been allowed to become slums to hasten their demise and allow the government and property developers in. At present that is still occurring in areas the government doesn’t see a sale opportunity on them such as parts of Hongkou and Yangpu. Elsewhere, where the government sees money in gentrification or political issue in refurbishment and protection they remain. Surely the places people live are as worthy of saving and restoring as banks and theatres or a rather one-sided view of the past will emerge. We heard the same arguements as this in Peking and elsewhere about ‘slums’ where the government saw no profit to be derived.


Leave a Reply