Saving Suzhou’s Vernacular Architecture – Part 3

In his preservation work on the city of Suzhou, Professor Ruan sets out by providing a historic contextualization of the city, by examining its current economic, political, and social status, and the character of the city as determined by its historic and cultural significance in relation to its architectural heritage. In this case, the canal network, particularly the canals, bridges, walkways and residences are crucial.

The first significant step that Ruan took in his preservation effort was to divide the city into fifty-four neighborhoods roughly according to the physical location and administrative authority of the locality; he sets up a comprehensive computer database for them; he then studies each neighborhood and approaches them differently according to their specific character. His conservation plan includes everything from a guiding working principle, to a reconfiguration of the use of land, to strict guidelines for the height of new developments within the city, and improvement of such elements as infrastructure.

He stresses continuously on the need to proceed cautiously; he encourages the local government to experiment with ideas of regeneration on single buildings and/or communities first, and proceeds and improves from there.

Professor Ruan incorporates the understanding, support and help from the local authorities and residents; he especially encourages the residents to participate in the process.All levels of government, as well as residents are involved, and his conservation and regeneration plan proves to be feasible since it does not depend solely or heavily on government approval and funding for it to work.

Though a strong-willed man with a “tough” personality,he also consciously makes efforts to work his successful practices into regulations and laws. Professor Ruan has been actively involved in the legislative process; as a result, more legislation has been formulated and put into effect since his conservation work started in the early 1980s. For instance, the city ofSuzhoupassed its Regulations for the Protection of City Canals in 1997 and the provincial government ofJiangsupassed the Ordinance for the Protection of Historic Cities and Towns in 2001.

The points mentioned above all contribute to the success of his approach, and they have proved to be feasible and practical elements of his work. Professor Ruan has also had the luck of working in a more favorable environment in Suzhou, as compared to other experiences he has had (One thinks of his earlier work at Jiuhuashan, a mountain resort famous for its Buddhist temples and sceneries in adjacent Anhui Province, where he risked his life dealing with the local population; and when he tried to talk sense into the local leaders of Zhouzhuang, a beautiful village now also on the UNESCO World Heritage Sites list, who decided to run a new road across the old town; Ruan had to threat with blocking the construction vehicles with his body. ).

The plan’s theory and practice emphasize the conservation of valuable cultural and historic heritage on one hand, and regeneration and development on the other, which poses questions that are worth investigating in greater detail. What are the specific criteria for such evaluations and who determines on what to preserve, alter, reconstruct, and even destroy? Are the reconstructions /changes reversible, if later research and circumstances suggest an approach different from the current one?

As for the first question, the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) Charter of 2003 provides a few general criteria and remedial measures and controls for this process. For example, items 2 and 3 of the general criteria states that “Value and authenticity of architectural heritage cannot be based on fixed criteria because the respect due to all cultures also requires that its physical heritage be considered within the cultural context to which it belongs,” and that “the value of architectural heritage is not only in its appearance, but also in the integrity of all its components as a unique product of the specific building technology of its time. In particular the removal of the inner structures maintaining only the facades does not fit the conservation criteria.”The final point is of particular relevance and significance, since a majority of current conservation practice inChinais just the opposite of what that principle states, as conservation crews maintain only the facades of buildings in order to attract tourism.

This charter also provides principles concerning the “reversibility” of measures undertaken in the conservation process. For example, item 4 and 9 of Remedial Measures and Controls state that “No actions should be undertaken without demonstrating that they are indispensable” and that “where possible, any measures adopted should be ‘reversible’ so that they can be removed and replaced with more subtle measures when new knowledge is acquired. Where they are not completely reversible, interventions should not limit further interventions”.In Professor Ruan’s conservation work, these aspects seem as though they deserve fuller consideration.

Professor Ruan takes into account the prospect of tourist development in his work, but fails to provide more detailed considerations for it: for instance, the space to accommodate tourists, the impact of tourism on both the physical structures of the city and communities as well as people’s conceptions of lifestyle, value system as a consequence of changing circumstance, etc.

A third question concerns his relocation of the residents of the old city, as happens elsewhere in the process of old city renewal all over China. As is mentioned earlier, the city proper is presently crowded beyond the ability of the infrastructure to maintain, which is what prompted Professor Ruan to suggest a strict control of residential population in the city. This inevitably entails partial eviction of people from the old city. Take his 1986 Conservation Plan for the city. In this plan, he proposed that the population within the ancient city be no more than 25,000, a significant drop from an initial 400,000 in the early 1980s. Disputes generated from this act, particularly over compensation for example, could be furious, and the action of eviction has provoked “what UNESCO politely calls ‘dissatisfaction and even social turbulence’.”