The Fragmented Politics of Urban Preservation: Beijing, Chicago, and Paris

Conclusion: Political Boundaries and Beyond

C O N C L U S I O N Political Boundaries and Beyond The real meaning of this word [city] has been almost wholly lost in modern times; most people mistake a town for a city, and a townsman for a citizen. They do not know that houses make a town, but citizens [make] a city. —JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU, The Social Contract Urban preservation is fraught with paradox and controversy. Despite the original goals of urban preservation to protect the architectural integrity and social sustainability of cities, the practice of urban preservation in modern cities is motivated by different political and economic concerns. In Beijing, urban preservation is a tool for the local government to promote economic growth and to create a better image for the city. Preservation projects do not stop the destruction of the historic city but smooth out the function of the growth machine and facilitate the commodification of cultural heritage. In Chicago, urban preservation has evolved into the equivalent of tax benefits. No longer exclusively belonging to white neighborhoods, it began to be used in diverse ethnic communities to increase property values and promote community revitalization while being entangled with the issues of gentrification and racial inequality. In Paris, the urban preservation narrative is defined quite differently by the state and the municipality. The former considers urban preservation as its own privilege exercised to protect French cultural integrity and national pride, whereas the latter conceives it as part of the agenda for more balanced citywide urban development. Whereas the content of preservation initiatives is shaped by the interests and values of different actors, the policy process of implementing their initiatives is constrained by the fragmented power structure in cities. The analysis of the evidence in the previous pages reveals that a preservation 148 C O N C LU S I O N initiative is more likely to be implemented if it is within the boundaries of single jurisdictions and less likely so if it crosses multiple jurisdictions. This is observed in the three major types of political fragmentation: functional , territorial, and intergovernmental. Different types of political fragmentation are associated with predictable patterns of policy processes and settlements regarding cross-boundary issues, in turn generating different patterns of urban preservation. Beijing, Paris, and Chicago each demonstrate one of the three major types of political fragmentation. Although Beijing is the capital city of a centralized one-party state, the political structure of urban preservation in Beijing is characterized by the functional segmentation among various municipal agencies. In Chicago, despite the dominant role of the mayor in downtown development and citywide issues, the real power of landmark designation and zoning is controlled by aldermen and is territorially fragmented along ward boundaries. In contrast to the functional fragmentation in Beijing and the territorial fragmentation in Chicago, urban preservation in Paris was long the privilege of the national government, but decentralization reforms have reinforced the central–local conflicts so that urban preservation is increasingly subject to the intergovernmental fragmentation between the national government and the Paris municipality. The three different types of political fragmentation suggest a general rule in processing preservation initiatives. They tend to facilitate the processing of preservation initiatives within jurisdictional boundaries, yet they inhibit the processing of those across jurisdictional boundaries. Historic monuments are under a unified administrative structure in Beijing, thus their renovation and restoration are carried out more smoothly than preservation projects in historic districts. Urban areas within a single ward of Chicago are more likely to be designated as landmark districts than those across multiple wards. And preservation projects are more easily implemented in Paris if they are within the domain of either the state or the municipality and less easily if they are within the overlapping jurisdictions of the two actors. In a word, the fragmented political structure operates like a filter, facilitating or inhibiting the government’s processing of preservation initiatives, depending on whether the initiatives are situated within or across jurisdictional boundaries. For cross-boundary issues, different types of political fragmentation are associated with predictable patterns of policy processes and settlements, thus creating different patterns of urban preservation. In Beijing, bureaucratic segmentation at the municipal level leaves the protection of urban texture unattended and devolves power to district governments. Combining the restoration of monument buildings and the marginalization of C O N C LU S I O N 149 historic neighborhoods, urban preservation becomes increasingly symbolic. In Chicago, preservation...