Ecocluster arguments

Balanced Black and White OR Large Shade of Grey?

We look at the urban and rural bubbles, and feel lucky that we’ve got the balanced rate both in Hukou and in urbanisation, 50% vs 50%, which perfectly aligns with the world’s status. The central government divided the population apart as rural and urban, like black and white, as if there were no room for vacillation, but we are in fact harbouring a large shade of grey, an increasing amount of increasingly ambiguous identities, migrating or living both in urban and rural areas. The income gap between cities and rural areas is growing, but migration is not following the same path of 10 years ago. It's not from villages to cities. The prospering villages are drawing people back. The bourgeoning areas can no longer be divided as cities and non-cities, it's more like with a grey area lying between, villages with quasi-urban living standards.

Can we all combine in to make it easier?

We have the eco-city concept since 1978; the Chinese government is promoting eco-city since 2005. But now the concept has derived into very different targets, like 100 new districts, 200 eco-sattlelites, 300 eco-green cities or 400 smart cities.However, Yichun alone is dubbed both as eco-city and smart city, which means as much as it sounds different, it may represent very much the same thing. To build an eco-city is hard enough, why make it harder by introducing confusing names and targets? Can we disengage ourselves from the toils of setting new targets or relentlessly placing new names on existing concepts?

Posted by esther zenn / 7.6 years ago / 7280 hits