Comments on 鈥淲andering in Hutong鈥  

I see his point. But of the interviews I鈥檝e done with self-proclaimed protectionists, I gather that this professor鈥檚 opposition is more nuanced than he let on. No one denies that the average family living in a hutong now is sharing a smaller space with more people than hutong residents 100 years ago were. And there absolutely are legitimate safety concerns associated with the fraying wires, ubiquitous space heaters, and risk of fire spreading among so many people in such close proximity. But it seems to many protectionists, foreign and Chinese alike, that there ought to be more components of the older, original structures that can be salvaged in the push to modernization. As an example of this, I think of one scene in this episode where we filmed a stand-up in the midst of hutong rubble. At the time of filming, about half of the block (originally built as one huge courtyard, and later partitioned into residences for a dozen or so smaller families) had already been torn down, and half remained basically intact. Among the chunks of concrete and wood scraps, there were shards of tile flooring, many squares of which were still pristine but were, essentially, left for dead. The expert escorting us told us that that tile was over 70 years old, and was made in a way that is no longer deemed cost-effective enough continue. With a rich black background and faded concentric circles in purple, blue, and yellow in the center, the tiles looked regal enough to have been made for the emperor himself. But for some reason, even the tiles that could easily have been salvaged were left to the same fate as the rest of the structure. Many of the protectionists would argue that even if extracting the old tile and reusing it required more time, more labor, and more money; and even if, reinstalled, the tile did not look brand new, the fact that the old tile was of such high quality to have lasted that long meant that it added character to whatever space it was in, and the extra cost was worthwhile.

And extra cost doesn鈥檛 seem to be a major deterrent for the buyers of these newly-built courtyards. At more than 10,000 RMB (about $1,200 USD) per square meter, these new structures do not come cheap. Many of the latest projects have an area of more than 600 square meters, coming to a total basic cost of over 6 million RMB (or over $700,000 USD). The average Beijing person knows this, and so, to live in a courtyard in downtown is an unmistakable status symbol. And as the professor himself stated, if the demand for these brand new 鈥渙ld鈥structures did not exist among China鈥檚 rich, his company would not exist either.

I can鈥檛 help but wonder if part of this difference in value systems stems from the ages of the respective societies themselves. I remember learning in elementary school that the oldest city in North America, St. Augustine, Florida was over 400 years old, and every student in my class gasped. 鈥00鈥was an age that was unfathomable to us. Was there really an Earth to be building cities on 400 years ago?! Similarly, perhaps because of their scarcity in America, we were taught to treasure buildings that had a history beyond the modern era. But 400 years isn鈥檛 even a blip on the radar screen of Chinese history. I have to wonder if some Chinese people very understandably grew up thinking, 鈥渨e鈥檙e not lacking in 鈥榦ld.鈥If I make it big and can afford to live anywhere I want, I want 鈥榥ew.鈥欌

Editor:Liu  Source:CCTV.com