See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263187746

The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International

Eco-City (China)

Article  in  Journal of Urban Technology · April 2013

DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2012.735411

CITATIONS READS

117 2,037

2 authors, including:

Simon Joss
University of Glasgow
147 PUBLICATIONS   3,328 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Covid-19 related research @Urban Studies View project

Urban Big Data Centre View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Joss on 27 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Westminster - ISLS]
On: 15 February 2015, At: 12:23
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Urban Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjut20

The Eco-City as Urban Technology:

Perspectives on Caofeidian
International Eco-City (China)
Simon Joss & Arthur P. Molella
Published online: 31 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Simon Joss & Arthur P. Molella (2013) The Eco-City as Urban Technology:
Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City (China), Journal of Urban Technology, 20:1,
115-137, DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2012.735411

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735411

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Urban Technology, 2013
Vol. 20, No. 1, 115–137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735411

The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives

on Caofeidian International Eco-City (China)

Simon Joss and Arthur P. Molella

ABSTRACT Caofeidian International Eco-City, in North-East China, is among several

large-scale new eco-city initiatives currently in development across Asia. Built from
scratch across an area of 74 km2, with an expected population of 800,000 by 2020, the
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

city’s plan boasts an abundance of urban sustainability features, from integrated public
transport services and advanced water and waste recycling systems, to public parks and
an extensive wetland area. This article uses the historical and conceptual perspective of
“techno-city” to analyze the city’s urban technology features. It highlights the relationship
between the city and its hinterland, discusses the focus on science and technology driving
the city’s concept, and explores the international, modernist design language used. In
doing so, the analysis points to several key tensions and contradictions at work, including
a disconnect between the city’s green technology focus and the high-carbon heavy industry
of the surrounding area, and a lack of engagement with the local culture and community.
Caofeidian Eco-City exhibits several features of twentieth-century techno-cities, although
these are re-cast within the twenty-first-century context of global climate change policy
and China’s ongoing rapid urbanization processes.

KEYWORDS Eco-City; Techno-City; Technological Urbanism; Urban Sustainability;

China; Caofeidian

Caofeidian Eco-City is the newest and most beautiful of pictures, painted on to a

blank canvas, a brand new city planned, designed, and constructed under the
guiding ideology of the Scientific Development Concept. (Lin et al., 2010: 430)

Introduction
At the center of efforts about urban sustainability is an inherent and often unre-
solved tension: a tension between the ideal of environmentally benign, healthy
urban living, and the reality of high-energy, polluting, and sprawling cities;
between the notion of nature embedded in the urban fabric and a focus on high
technological forms and solutions; and between calls for social engagement and
community and the practice of centralized, technocratic master planning.

Correspondence Address: Professor Simon Joss, School of Social Sciences, Huma-

nities, and Languages, University of Westminster, 32 Wells Street, London W1T
3UW. Email: josss@westminster.ac.uk

Copyright # 2013 by The Society of Urban Technology

 116 Journal of Urban Technology

Among the various types of “eco-city” initiatives currently underway across

different parts of the world, this tension is arguably particularly pronounced in
the case of entirely new, large-scale cities. According to a recent global survey,
of the 80 or so recent eco-city initiatives—which include the retro-fitting of existing
cities and urban expansion through variously sized “eco-districts” and “eco-
towns”—there are a dozen or so brand new cities in the process of being realized
(Joss, 2011). Dongtan (China) gained world-wide attention in 2005 as the first such
model eco-city to be built near Shanghai, although progress has since stalled due
to financial and political difficulties. In its place, Masdar, built from scratch on
desert land near Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), became the first new eco-
city to be partially completed: in autumn 2010, phase one of the self-proclaimed
world’s first “carbon-neutral, zero-waste” city was unveiled to the public under
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

the glare of the international media. Meanwhile, work has been under way on
several new large-scale eco-cities, mainly across Asia, including Sejoing and
Songdo in South-Korea, Nanjing Eco High-Tech Island and Yinggehai low-
carbon city in China, and four new “eco-friendly” cities (Changodar, Dahej,
Manesar Bawal, Shendra) planned along the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor
(DMIC) in India.
Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City (henceforth, Caofeidian Eco-
City), in China, is another example of a new, large-scale eco-city currently
under construction, and the subject of analysis in this article (See Figure 1).
Work on this 74 km2 city began in 2009, aimed at accommodating an additional
population of 1.5 million expected to settle in the surrounding, rapidly growing
Caofeidian New Area (Lin et al., 2010). Planned with input from the Swedish
engineering group Sweco, the city’s design consists of: a 12 km2 high-rise city
center; an 18km2 mixed-use district to the North incorporating a city service
quarter including a multifunctional resource management center (including
water/waste/material recycling and district energy systems); and a 44 km2 district
to the East to be built as part of phase two of development. The city will be

Figure 1. Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City: visitor center map. (Lower-left quadrant:
12 km2 city center, with waterfront; upper-left quadrant: 18 km2 North district; center-right: 44 km2 East
district; 45 km2 wetland area surrounding city.)
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 117
surrounded by a 45 km2 wetland park, which also acts as a natural barrier separ-
ating the fresh water habitat from the sea shore to the south of the city. The public
transport system is designed to put 90 percent of residences and offices within 500
meters of transport services (including monorail and rapid bus transit). Ninety-
five percent of energy use is to be met from renewable sources, with wind,
solar, and geothermal energy generated onsite. Planning (including master and
individual zone and site plans) is based on an elaborate, specially developed
141 eco-city indicator system. Horizontal and vertical developments take place
in parallel in different parts of the city to allow initial completion by 2020 when
the first 800,000 residents are expected to have moved in. Overall investment
and construction costs are expected to be in the region of US$15 billion (Yuan
98 billion), with the local government of Tangshan City having provided
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

upfront investment of approx. US$3 billion (Yuan 21 billion), mainly for the
initial horizontal development, through two public-private companies.
This article seeks to analyze the plans and recent early development phase of
Caofeidian Eco-City from a “techno-city” perspective, by focusing on aspects of
urban technology at work in this exemplar of twenty-first-century Chinese eco-
city innovation. Technology typically features centrally in contemporary eco-city
initiatives in general, and in Caofeidian Eco-City’s plans in particular; and yet,
relatively little explicit attention has been paid to date in the literature on the nor-
mative, conceptual, and practical role played by technology—as socio-technical
visions, systems, artifacts—within these new urban innovations. How the
techno-city perspective can help pinpoint and critique some of the key features
and relationships at work in contemporary eco-city initiatives is outlined
further below. First however, Caofeidian Eco-City needs to be contextualized in
terms of recent Chinese urbanization, urban planning policy, and eco-city devel-
opment processes

Situating Chinese Eco-cities

Caofeidian Eco-City and its surrounding New Caofeidian Area are representative
of the emergence of city-regions, or “new polycentric spatial forms” (Xu and Yeh,
2010: 17), across China resulting from the twin forces of internal economic reform
and external globalization (the following is based, among others, on Shen, 2010;
Vogel, 2010; Wang, 2010; Wu, 2010; Wu and Zhang, 2010; Xu and Yeh, 2010; and
Chung and Zhou, 2011). The economic and planning reforms of the last 30
years or so—and in particular since the mid 1990s (the period of the 9th –12th
five-year plans)—have resulted in the substantial decentralization in territorial
development and the rise of “city-based entrepreneurial governance” (Wu and
Zhang, 2011: 62), with local government (province, prefecture, municipality)
having to a certain extent become a “local developmentalist state with its own
policy preferences” (Wu, 2010: 23). At the same time, globalization processes
have increased, especially since China’s entry in the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 2001. As a consequence, cities have competitively engaged in strategic
positioning aimed at becoming iconic regional centers with global reach.
Coastal cities in particular have sought to attract foreign direct investment and
to orient themselves internationally as regional hubs for global companies.
In recent years, some of the negative externalities of the unprecedented scale
and pace of Chinese urbanization have become only too apparent. These include:
 118 Journal of Urban Technology

the fierce inter-city competition resulting in the construction of redundant infra-

structure and industries; the lack of effective policy co-ordination; the serious
stresses put on urban infrastructure and services, agricultural land, as well as
on the environment. In response, attempts have been made to strengthen regulat-
ory control by, among others, supporting inter-city and regional co-operation
through the promotion of spatial plans, regional development strategies, and
“soft” regional institutions (such as economic partnership agreements, and
mayors’ conferences). Still, according to Wu and Zhang (2010), the two logics of
entrepreneurial governance—with cities jostling for dominant position—on one
hand, and the national government’s attempt to consolidate regulatory control,
on the other, remain contradictory. The fragmented nature of (regional) planning
is exacerbated by a lack of effective national co-ordination and by overlapping
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

policy functions across various ministries, here in particular the National Devel-
opment and Reform Commission (NDRC), the Ministry of Housing and Urban-
Rural Development (MOHURD), the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR),
and the Ministry for Environmental Protection (MEP) (Xu and Yeh, 2010: 19).
And while recent reforms, such as the Urban and Rural Planning Act (2007),
have sought to improve public accountability of planning decision-making,
there has been criticism of the lack of adequate transparency and public engage-
ment (for example, Chung and Zhou, 2011; also Wu and Zhang, 2010).
China’s recent enthusiastic embrace of eco-cities is a clear attempt to redress
the negative environmental consequences of rampant urbanization. (By 2007,
some 45 percent of the population lived in cities; by 2025 this is projected to
rise to over 60 percent covering an additional urbanized land area of
65,000 km2; see World Bank, 2009). Under the recent paradigms of “ecological
modernization,” “eco-civilization,” and “circular economy” both the national
government and regional and local authorities have embarked on ambitious
eco-city development programs. One of the most high-profile current initiatives
is Tianjin Binhai Eco-City, which was officially endorsed by Premier Wen Jiabao
and is a show-case of China’s international engagement and ambitions: it is being
developed through bilateral co-operation with Singapore, and has been host to
the annual China International Eco-City Forum since its launch in 2010. Else-
where, eco-cities are developed with key input from foreign governments and
private firms, such as the bilateral agreement (2010) between the Chinese and
French governments to give the cities of Chengdu, Chongqing, and Shenyang
an éco-quartier make-over, and Finnish private sector involvement in Mentougou
Eco Valley near Beijing (Joss et al. 2011). Sweco’s involvement in the concept and
master plan for Caofeidian Eco-City was jointly facilitated by the Swedish and
Chinese governments.
By 2009, an estimated 100 or so eco-city initiatives were underway (World
Bank, 2009; see also reference to 100 “low carbon city” initiatives in Wang 2010).
According to a more recent survey, a total of 259 cities (above prefecture level,
representing 90 percent of cities in this category) declared an intention to
develop as “eco-cities” or “low-carbon cities” in the near future (Chinese
Society for Urban Studies, 2011a). These range from new build to “retrofit” devel-
opments, and from towns to large cities and city-regions. Many of the new eco-
cities are strategically located in new urban agglomerations, city clusters and
metropolitan areas—including Caofeidian Eco-City, which is situated in the
nationally designated Circum-Bohai-Sea growth region. As such, they serve to
absorb urban migration, respond to environmental challenges, and, as iconic
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 119
developments, help enhance regional economic aspirations both in the national
and wider global contexts.
While eco-city development programs seek to address some of the negative
externalities of recent urbanization, they are arguably to an extent also caught
up in them. This is apparent, for example, by the partially overlapping and frag-
mented policy efforts by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
(MOHURD) and the Ministry for Environmental Protection (MEP): the former
issued “National Standards for Eco-Garden City” in 2004; the latter “Indices for
Eco-County, Eco-City and Eco-Province” in 2007; each has pursued its own dem-
onstration projects and approval processes (World Bank, 2009). It is also apparent
by the unilateral pursuit by local governments and real-estate companies to
launch their own eco-city initiatives, resulting in a lack of effective policy co-ordi-
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

nation and regional cooperation. Caofeidian Eco-City, for example, is an initiative

by Tangshan municipal authorities, with its own tailor-made, eco-city indicators
system. Elsewhere in the same province (Hebei), another seven or so, seemingly
unconnected eco-city initiatives are currently underway (Baoding, Huanghua,
Shijiazhuang, Tangshan Nanhu, Wanzhuang, Zhangjiakou, Zhuozhou). Further-
more, there is little evidence of public engagement and consultation—routinely
called for in the international urban planning literature—as the discussion
further below illustrates.
In 2011, the Chinese Society for Urban Studies (CSUS, 2011b) proposed an “eco-
city development index system” to redress the lack of co-ordination and agreed
standards, which it had previously flagged up as a problem in need of urgent
action in its development report (CSUS, 2010). This was echoed by Baoxing Qiu,
the vice-minister of MOHURD, in his address to the 2nd China International
Eco-City Forum in September 2011, in which he warned of the risk of “false eco-
cities” and “fake elements of eco-cities” due to a lack of adequate regulation and
policy co-ordination (Qiu, 2011). He called for the introduction of a unified eco-
city planning system with approval and regular review mechanisms, and suggested
that underperforming projects be struck off the proposed official eco-city register.

Eco-City as Urban Technology: The Techno-City Perspective

Technology is an integral part of contemporary eco-city initiatives, in China and
elsewhere: most typically, this takes the form of various “green” socio-technical
solutions aimed at reducing environmental impact and transitioning cities to a
low-carbon era. Less visible but just as pervasive, various “smart” technological
systems—such as “smart grids” and digital information and communication tech-
nology operating systems—are envisaged to structure, steer, and monitor the
modern eco-city, from infrastructure (energy distribution, waste collection, inte-
grated transport systems, etc.) to public life (public service provision, information
management, etc.). Interestingly, the role of socio-technical systems and solutions
in fashioning eco-city initiatives ideologically, conceptually, and practically has
been relatively under-investigated to date. Yet, viewing Caofeidian Eco-City’s
plans and visiting its early phase development, the centrality of technology
becomes abundantly clear, revealing various tensions and contradictions that
define the nature of this eco-city in key ways.
It should be useful, therefore, to deploy a Science and Technology Studies (STS)
perspective to consider what is planned for Caofeidian Eco-City. The “techno-city”
 120 Journal of Urban Technology

perspective, used here as a conceptual-analytical framework, was first developed

by Kargon and Molella (2008) in a wide-ranging comparative analysis aimed at dis-
cussing the interaction between technology and planned urban environments. As
defined in Invented Edens: Techno-Cities of the Twentieth Century, techno-cities are
cities specifically planned and developed in conjunction with large technological
and/or industrial projects. They come in various shapes and forms, each embody-
ing a particular relationship among technology, urban development, and concepts
of community. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century examples range from early
“Garden City” projects, the common inspiration for all techno-cities, to interwar
initiatives inspired by the “New Deal” and military technology, and from moder-
nist cities conceived during the Cold War period to postmodern initiatives that
attempt to reconcile modern technology with notions of the community.
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

The techno-city perspective is particularly useful for analyzing the evolving,

and frequently ambiguous, role played by technology in fashioning urban devel-
opments across cultures and eras. In particular, it goes to show how heavy technol-
ogy—in the case of twentieth-century exemplars typically based on heavy industry
complexes—is absorbed in urban planning models and approaches informed by
the Garden City. In doing so, the techno-city perspective, as an analytical category,
helps to identify and characterize various forms and functions of urban technology,
and to reveal conceptual, structural, and ideological tensions and contradictions
arising from the attempt to reconcile the ideal of modern technology and industry
with the ideal of environmentally and socially sustainable urban places. Table 1
highlights key elements of the techno-city perspective. These elements form part
of complex, historically derived and context-specific relations between technology
and its urban and social environment. While the techno-city, as a conceptual per-
spective, typically exhibits all these elements, in practice individual techno-cities
vary in content and form according to the particular configuration and relations
between these elements, and their wider socio-political and cultural contexts.
In addition to its conceptual dimensions, the techno-city perspective helps
put current eco-city initiatives in a wider historical perspective. This allows us

Table 1: The techno-city perspective: key elements and interrelationships.

Technology
† purpose-driven invention
† in conjunction with large technological/industrial projects
† modern technology integrated in infrastructure/built environment
† scientific multidisciplinary methods; “scientized” and engineered city
Built environment
† “walkable,” pedestrian-friendly streets, neighborhoods and city centers
† separate but closely connected work and residential areas
† open air, recreational areas; greenbelts
Ideology
† reaction against classical industrial (i.e., polluted, overcrowded) city
† modernist reform: reconciling nature-technology-community / town-
country-industry
† “echno-nostalgia”: tension between technological modernism and
traditional (communitarian) values
Historical context
† built on “Garden City” concept; descendants of company towns of
Industrial Revolution; rooted in particular times and historical contexts

Source: Based on Kargon and Molella, 2008.

 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 121
to consider eco-cities—as a twenty-first-century manifestation of urban sustain-
ability efforts chiefly shaped by the dual challenge of global climate change and
rapid urbanization—in a line of initiatives that, across decades and centuries,
have sought to redress the perceived shortcomings and contradictions in urban
developments. While the global eco-city phenomenon has developed its own dis-
tinctive set of characteristics, centered chiefly on the application of advanced
“green” technologies, Caofeidian Eco-City reverts to its techno-city heritage in sig-
nificant ways to be identified below.
Methodologically, the following analysis is based on field research visits to
both the emerging Caofeidian Industrial Area and Caofeidian Eco-City in Septem-
ber 2010, and again in September 2011, as part of which site visits were undertaken
and a series of discussion meetings and interviews held with a dozen or so project
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

officials (including the Director of the Caofeidian Eco-City Management Commit-

tee), planners (including the Director of Planning), and members of CSUS. The
authors were guests of CSUS, which facilitated the site visits and discussion meet-
ings and acted as interpreters. No audio-recordings were made; instead, contem-
poraneous notes were taken by both authors, who also kept research diaries. The
analysis also makes use of the materials on display at the visitor center, the
Swedish Pavilion of the Shanghai World Expo 2010 (now located in Caofeidian
Eco-City), as well as those contained in various official documents, including
the promotional reports The City of the Future (Administrative Committee of Tang-
shan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009) and Tangshan Bay Eco-City (Tang-
shan Bay Eco-City Management Committee, 2011).
Based on this on-the-ground observational, interview, and documentary
research, the main focus of analysis here is on the plans and first development
phase of Caofeidian Eco-City, with particular attention paid to how the authorities
and developers conceptualize, promote, and set about implementing this brand-
new eco-city.

The Eco-City and Its (Technological) Hinterland

One of the immediately apparent and most characteristic features of Caofeidian
Eco-City is the relationship—spatial, functional, and technological—between the
eco-city and its surrounding hinterland. Driving south-east of Beijing through
Hebei Province towards the Tangshan Bay on Bohai Sea, one cannot help but be
struck by the sheer physical and industrial scale of the region’s development.
(See Figures 2 and 3.)
While the scale of Caofeidian Eco-City is in itself vast—an entirely new city
being built from scratch and through rapid planning and implementation across
74.3 km2 of land (with long-term plans to expand the city to 150 km2)—the sur-
rounding development is much larger still: a zone of some 1,900 km2 forms the
Caofeidian New Area. At its heart is the 400 km2 Caofeidian Industrial Area,
which is developed with central government support and with focus on four
main industries: steel, coal, oil (and related petrochemical technology), and ship-
ping. This focus is explained partly as a consequence of the 1976 earthquake that
leveled much of Tangshan City and led to the discovery of coal and oil reserves,
and partly as a consequence of the strategic relocation of the steel industry—
including Shougang Iron and Steel Company, one of China’s largest steel pro-
ducers—and various equipment manufacturing away from the Beijing area.
 122 Journal of Urban Technology
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

Figure 2. Oil fields, Caofeidian Industrial Area.

Figure 3. Iron and steel works, Caofeidian Industrial Area.

In developing the area, Tangshan pursues “a strategic vision of stepping into

[the] ocean age,” which will lead to the “sleeping sand island [being] awakened
by the tide of marine economy” (Administrative Committee of Tangshan Caofei-
dian International Eco-City, 2009: 12). The new district will serve as the main port
area for the capital Beijing.
Tangshan Caofeidian Eco-City is intended to form a dual core with Tangshan
“inner city” (located some 80 km further north), which in turn forms part of a
wider city-region, the “Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei metropolis.” Given the vast dis-
tances involved, the relational meaning between “downtown” (Tangshan) and
“new district” (Caofeidian Eco-City) is quite unlike that found in, say, European
or American cities. Within the new district itself, according to the planners
involved, a physical separation is deliberately maintained between, on the one
hand, the Caofeidian Industrial Area and Caofeidian Port and, on the other, the
eco-city as an “environmental space,” so as to allow ongoing, separate develop-
ment of both (Lin et al., 2010).
Caofeidian Eco-City, then, exhibits a central techno-city characteristic: it is
being built in conjunction with a large industrial and technological program.
It derives its raison d’être from the wider development of the Caofeidian Indus-
trial Area and Caofeidian Port and stands in direct (physical and functional)
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 123
relationship to it. Furthermore, it offers up a counterpoint, the eco-city—as quasi
Garden City, and “environmental space”—within an industrial-technological
complex. And as a result, not unlike the experience of past techno-city initiat-
ives, it exhibits certain tensions, or contradictions, arising from this relationship.
Thus, while Caofeidian Eco-City prides itself on being developed according to
strict “eco-city indicators” – of which, more later – specifying a whole range
of quite ambitious urban sustainability performance measures, it effectively con-
stitutes a small “eco-enclave” (see Hodson and Marvin, 2010, for a critique of
eco-cities as “ecological enclaves”) in a much larger, far less sustainable develop-
ment zone focused on heavy industries. Beyond a general commitment,
prompted by China’s 11th and 12th five-year plans, to a “circular economy” (a
principle of industrial ecology, referring to circular flows of materials and
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

energy)—whereby the industrial area is to form a “compound system” with

the city (Lin et al., 2010)—there is little tangible evidence of a symbiotic relation-
ship being forged between the city and its hinterland around the issue of sus-
tainable development. For example, the planners interviewed (September
2011) confirmed that there do not appear to be any concrete plans for the
city’s renewable energy or public transport strategies to be rolled out more
widely across the region, or for the city to act as a hub, or niche, for developing
urban sustainability technologies and businesses to replace or transform the sur-
rounding carbon-intensive heavy industry. Rather, there seems to be a discon-
nect between the eco-city—as a separate “environmental space”—and its
hinterland, with contradictory approaches to sustainable development. This, of
course, matters directly in terms of the environmental benefits to be achieved:
while Caofeidian Eco-City may in itself achieve a relatively low carbon footprint
and act as a model of sustainable urban living, once completed, its significance
as part of the wider regional development may end up being quite limited. (In
its analysis of Tianjin Eco-City, the World Bank highlights the risk of viewing the
city’s sustainability features in isolation, with limited wider impact unless these
are treated as part of a larger regional and economic context: World Bank 2009).
It is interesting to note here that the provincial political leadership recently
changed the official name of the eco-city from “Caofeidian International Eco-
City” (Administrative Committee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-
City, 2009) to “Tangshan Bay Eco-City,” suggesting a re-focusing on the regional
level. (The change of name is also reflected in the renamed administrative commit-
tee.) Indeed, the updated promotional brochure now emphasizes the “benign
interaction and coordinated development of harbor, harbor area, and harbor
city” (Tangshan Bay Eco-City Management Committee, 2011: 6). The planning
staff interviewed (September 2011), however, did not attach great significance to
the change of name, responding that the original name is still more widely used
and putting it down to a recent change within the regional political leadership.
Significantly, on the same site visit, the planners revealed that the original plan
for the eco-city to act as residential base for workers employed in the surrounding
Caofeidian Industrial Area and Caofeidian Port has been largely abandoned in
favor of catering mainly for residents employed locally within the city in the
planned medical, green technology, and tourism industries. The reason given is
that the volume of commuters between the city and the surrounding area
would exceed the capacity of the planned public transit system. Perhaps
another reason, though, is that residential properties may well end up being out
of reach for blue-collar workers. Among the first developments completed on
 124 Journal of Urban Technology
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

Figure 4. City in the sea—Caofeidian Eco-City’s construction through land reclamation.

the site visit in September 2011 is a gated community complex; and planning staff
confirmed that no affordable housing will be available in the 12 km2 city center
(only in the north and east districts). If anything, then, in spite of the new
name, the disconnect between the eco-city and its hinterland appears to have
grown.
There is another significant tension in the city—hinterland relationship,
arising from the particular location of Caofeidian Eco-City: the city (as well as
much of the wider industrial zone and port) is being built into the sea through
land reclamation achieved mainly by large-scale dredging (see Figure 4).
A visit to the site in autumn 2010—only 18 months after ground was broken
and building began—revealed the extent to which the city is not just built from
scratch in terms of its vertical developments, but also in terms of literally
having to put in place a horizontal base in the first instance. Dozens of dredging
ships and a long queue of trucks can be observed creating extensive landfill. A
look at a map (Google maps, May 2011) shows just how far into the sea the new
city is being built. The same map also shows the existing city of Tanghai situated
approximately 50 km from the new city, and approximately 15 km from the
natural coast line. During the competitive selection process run by the Chinese
authorities in 2007 – 2008, Tanghai was unsuccessfully proposed as the site of
the eco-city by CSUS, which favored the expansion and retro-fitting of an existing
urban infrastructure over a new-build approach. (The decision against expanding
Tanghai was explained by the planning staff interviewed in terms of the threat to
the surrounding agricultural land. On the second visit to Tanghai, in autumn 2011,
it was evident, however, that the city is nevertheless undergoing substantial
expansion.)
This, then, raises further questions about the limits of Caofeidian Eco-City in
terms of environmental sustainability: the greenhouse gas emissions generated by
the massive building efforts may well cancel out some of the savings to be
achieved once the city is fully built, especially in comparison with alternative
approaches, such as consolidating Tanghai. Notably, the official literature (e.g.,
The Administrative Committee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City
2009; and Lin et al., 2010, whose authors are Caofeidian Eco-City management
and planning officials) stays silent on the carbon emissions of the construction
process. All goals and indicators relate to the performance of the city once
completed.
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 125
The Science of Eco-City Planning
While the surrounding region is characterized by a reliance on heavy industries
and associated technologies, the plans for Caofeidian Eco-City boast an “inno-
vation science and technology park” and a “science and education city” center
(Lin et al., 2010: 412– 413), as well as an abundance of sophisticated “green” tech-
nologies integrated in complex urban structures and systems.
Among the many technological features envisaged are: (i) an elaborate city-
wide underground pneumatic solid waste system (using vacuum tubes—See
Figure 5) aimed at achieving complete waste sorting, with 60 percent of waste
to be recycled and 80 percent of biodegradable waste to be transformed into
methane gas, and less than 10 percent waste to go to landfill; (ii) an integrated
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

water sourcing and grey/black water treatment system designed to achieve 100
percent waste water treatment (with black water to be used to generate
methane), collect and store 90 percent of rainwater, and use less than 10 percent
groundwater; (iii) an extensive public transport system consisting of a series of
transport nodes serviced by monorail, trams, and trolleybuses, each arranged in
a pedestrian-oriented layout, giving 90 percent of residents access to public trans-
port within a 500 meter radius; (iv) an array of renewable energy generating
systems including wind, solar, tidal water, and geothermal energy sources, calcu-
lated to meet 95 percent of the city’s overall energy demand; and (v) a “green eco-
logical corridor” to be created through water and park networks, the
improvement of soil quality, and the restoration of wetland areas.
At the heart of the city’s technological infrastructure system is the “multifunc-
tional resource management center” in the city service quarter located in the
North district. This will house the district energy and various water, waste, and
material recycling plants. According to the “sustainable city concept” used by
Sweco, the city’s design is based on the separation of diverse functions into dis-
tinct systems and layers, and their interconnection through various (transport,
energy, landscape, etc.) nodes and central co-ordination through the multifunc-
tional resource management center. As the information panel in the visitor
center explains: “the development of Caofeidian International Eco-City must
follow the principles of ‘divided function, scattered distribution, comprehensive-
ness, group development, integration, from west to east and from south to north’”
(the geographical direction indicating the sequencing of development across three
main construction phases: 2008 – 2010; 2011 – 2020; and post 2020).
Guiding the various technological systems and planning approaches is an
elaborate 141-strong indicator system (in comparison, elsewhere in China stan-
dard city planning is based on only half a dozen or so indicators mandated by
the planning system): “the eco-indicator system constitutes the core content of
Caofeidian Eco-City, and is the quantitative embodiment of eco-city principles
and eco-planning” (Lin et al., 2010: 415). It integrates two sub-systems: specifically
developed “eco-city” indicators, and “land use” indicators based on the existing
Chinese planning system. The indicator framework is applied at three levels:
the overall master plan for the city as a whole, zone-specific plans, and individual
building/site plans. Of the 141 indicators, 109 are planning indicators (of which,
68 operate at master plan, 16 at zone, and 25 at site, level), with the remaining
32 indicators specifying (services) management criteria.
As noted, Chinese eco-city development currently takes place within a
context of partially fragmented policy-making, a lack of unified regulation, and
 126 Journal of Urban Technology

Figure 5. Caofeidian Eco-City: pneumatic waste collection system.

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

strong inter-city competition. Thus, the heavy emphasis on elaborate eco-city indi-
cator frameworks—in the case of Caofeidian Eco-City and elsewhere (for example,
Tianjin Eco-City boasts a similarly extensive framework)—can be understood as
an attempt to define “scientifically” what makes an eco-city, to specify quantifiable
benchmarks to support rapid development and, in turn, to compete within an bur-
geoning, vying field. In the words of one of the planners involved in Caofeidian
Eco-City, justifying its rationale, “there is a fever of eco-city in China, and what
we urban planners and researchers should do urgently is to identify, clarify, and
put in practice the eco-city principles scientifically and rationally” (Qiang, 2009:
519). Caofeidian Eco-City’s developers, then, are clear about the city’s mission
as pioneer in “concept innovation”: “this is a more vigorous eco-city mode,
which will become a model and sample [sic] for China and even the whole
world” (Tangshan Bay Eco-City Management Committee, 2011: 14).
Considering these features, it comes as no surprise that Caofeidian Eco-City is
described in the visitor center as a “city based on science and technology,” and as a
“scientifically developed model city.” In similar vein, the official brochure empha-
sizes: “after scientific estimates, a city begins its perfect and calm transformation.
With its natural advantage, Caofeidian will go down into history of the scientific
attempt to build an innovative eco-city” (Administrative Committee of Tangshan
Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: Preface); and “under the guidance of
scientific outlook on development . . . Caofeidian International Eco-City has a
new way of China’s urbanization” (ibid: 13). This is echoed by the city’s planners,
who define it as “a brand new city planned, designed, and constructed under the
guiding ideology of the Scientific Development Concept” (Lin et al., 2010: 430).
The conceptualization of Caofeidian Eco-City as a “scientific” city resonates
with current efforts elsewhere across China to develop eco-city initiatives accord-
ing to scientific principles. The 1st and 2nd China International Eco-City Forum,
for example, were replete with references, made not least by politicians and func-
tionaries, to the scientific underpinning (“the scientific basis,” “the theories of
scientific development”) of Chinese eco-city developments (see, for example,
China Binhai Tianjin International Eco-City Forum Journal, 2010: 74; 2nd China
Binhai Tianjin International Eco-City Forum Monographs, 2011: 55, 62, 75). As
the first and second paragraphs of the end-declaration of the 1st Forum make
clear:
. . . we shall identify a correct concept for urban development, and estab-
lish an index system for the scientific assessment of eco-city development
. . . we shall follow the developmental path that accords with natural laws
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 127
and combines cities into the balance of matter and energy circulation in
the entire eco-system. (1st paragraph)
. . . in resources development and utilization, based on actual conditions,
proper measures shall be taken, unified plans shall be formulated, sys-
tematic management shall be executed, and rational distribution shall
be conducted. . . (2nd paragraph)
In addition to ongoing attempts to standardize eco-city development, this empha-
sis on science and rationality appears to be influenced by two interrelated cultural
and policy factors: first, there are strong ideological undertones in play (as illus-
trated by Lin et al., 2010) based on a cultural belief in scientific rationality, techno-
logical determinism, and the mastery of nature. This chimes with China’s
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

modernist approach towards eco-city design (see next section). Second, more
specifically, this emphasis relates to the “scientific development concept” – or
“scientific outlook on development”—guiding current Chinese development
policy. Originally promoted by President Hu Jintao in 2003 and since widely
adopted by the party and government, this policy aims to rationalize governance
and enhance the role of science and technology, in order to achieve more “social”
and “sustainable” development (in balance with economic development) (Few-
smith, 2004). Eco-cities are seen as an embodiment of the scientific development
concept; and developers appear keen to emphasize its centrality as a means of
legitimizing their efforts and achieving “model” status and competitive advan-
tage within the national context. Similar to Caofeidian Eco-City, the scientific
development concept is described in the case of Tianjin Eco-City as the “healthy
development standard . . . in [sic] which the city can constantly enrich and
perfect itself, its institutions, and society” (Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City
Administrative Committee, 2009/10: 4).
The strong emphasis on science also allows the notion of the eco-city as an
almost machine-like system to come to the fore, defined by the integration of
various distinct technological structures and functions. As such, it appears to
borrow from a particular kind of conceptualization of ecosystems—namely, that
of a finely calibrated, stable system. As the official brochure confirms: “Caofeidian
uses the perfect combination of the ecosystem circle model” (Administrative Com-
mittee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: 20). The city is, thus,
conceived of as an artificially constructed urban ecosystem characterized by the
interaction of various socio-technological systems and functions, and by the
flow of information between the various sub-systems. (Concerning the latter, we
also find reference to Caofeidian as an “information eco-city:” Administrative
Committee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: 9). It is interest-
ing to consider that the term “eco-city,” in this case at least, appears to have a
dual meaning—namely, relating to certain environmental measures and benefits
(renewable energy generation, public transport, etc.), and relating to a particular
kind of planned, urban technological ecosystem. This also resonates with Tianjin
Eco-City, which is described as “a typical artificial complex ecosystem” (Zong,
2011: 66).
What is largely missing from such a conceptualization of the eco-city is the
role and place of people. (This stands in contrast to many twentieth-century
techno-city models that sought to embed communitarian values.) To be sure,
people get a mention: thus, the first principle guiding Caofeidian Eco-City is
quoted as “people-first:” “putting people first is the basic objective of eco-city
 128 Journal of Urban Technology

construction, in striving to achieve harmony between people, harmony between

people and nature, and harmony between people and society” (Lin et al., 2010:
411). This is echoed in the visitor center, where Caofeidian Eco-City is described
as a “people-oriented, scientifically developed model city” (authors’ highlight).
The official brochure explains that the ecosystem circle model “brings clear air
and water for life to you, nursery school, old people’s home, hospital, rehabilita-
tion center etc, give us healthy life, healthy city” (Administrative Committee of
Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: 20); and various theme parks
(sports, youth education, holiday, etc.) “will satisfy your work and living needs,
increase your spiritual wealth” (ibid: 23). The same brochure even refers to Cao-
feidian Eco-City—with reference to Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of “Republi-
can China”—as realizing the dream of “democratic revolution” (ibid:11).
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

However, despite these assertions and commitments, the eco-city plans do

not include any discernible role for the future population in either the current
development process or the future governance of the new city. This was also con-
firmed in the interviews with the eco-city planners. This may, of course, reflect
the wider customs and practice of urban planning in China at present (see, for
example: “because the public’s expert knowledge is limited, there are not
many with the sufficient ability to participate in the process of developing
low-carbon cities,” CSUS, 2011a: 328). However, the above analysis suggests
that it reflects as much the underlying eco-city concept and model at work
here. This is further supported by the observation that—in spite of the central
involvement of Sweco, reference to Swedish innovation, and Malmö as inspi-
ration—none of the Scandinavian traditions of open democratic discourse,
public consultation, and community engagement are reflected in Caofeidian’s
eco-city model.

The Lure of the Future

“The 21st Century belongs to China,” proclaims Caofeidian Eco-City’s colorful
and striking promotional brochure The City of the Future (Administrative Commit-
tee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: Preface), pointing to the
city’s ideal dimension. Charting the path into the new century will be this new
green city, described also as China’s “first information city” (see above), to under-
line its scientific, innovative, and high-tech bonafides, but, above all, as the “city of
the future.” Thus is revealed an ulterior purpose for Caofeidian Eco-City: not only
to point the way toward a new form of environmental and urban sustainability,
but to pull China into the modern era and, beyond that, to seize the future.
Although buildings and roads are arising from mud and seawater at a furious
pace at Caofeidian Eco-City’s vast construction site, it is still too early to see
precisely how its futuristic, idealized concept will eventually materialize in
steel, concrete, and brick. But, as noted above, one can see glimpses of “enviro-
tech-modernity” in the ranks of windmills, solar panels, and recycling plants
already erected. Rising rapidly as well are buildings of striking modernist
design within the modern infrastructure.
But, at this still early stage of construction, the best available view of the
future Caofeidian Eco-City utopia can be had through the developers’ and gov-
ernment’s aggressive advertising campaign—brochures, posters, architectural
renderings, and exhibits, especially impressive room-size models, in the city’s
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 129
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

Figure 6. Caofeidian Eco-City’s modernist architectural style (visitor center models).

Figure 7. Caofeidian Eco-City’s modernist architectural style (visitor center models).

exposition hall (address: 1 Future Boulevard). There the advanced futuristic vision
comes brilliantly forth. (See Figures 6 and 7.)
Certain aspects of that vision stand out. The Caofeidian Eco-City concept fea-
tures futuristic buildings by international architects and a public transport system
built around a sleek, ultramodern monorail designed to speed urban movement,
while alleviating traffic congestion in the city’s densely populated core. (See
Figure 8.) Caofeidian Eco-City will “invent the future,” boast its developers (Admin-
istrative Committee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City 2009: 16).
Its general architectural impression is unmistakably European modern, with
a hint of the post-modern, such as one would see in many contemporary western
metropolises. In some ways, with its forward thrust, the overall picture is reminis-
cent of the sort of futuristic, science-fiction-inspired cityscapes that have been ima-
gined in Western Europe and the United States since as far back as the 1930s. In a
sense, it is a case of going “back to the future.” This is, of course, the aesthetic
favored by Caofeidian Eco-City’s Swedish developer, Sweco. Although the
 130 Journal of Urban Technology

city’s Chinese sponsors obviously endorsed the plan, strangely missing, at least to
our eyes, is a distinct Chinese or even Asian flavor. But more about that further
below.
It is worth briefly considering here the World Expo 2010 held in Shanghai, for
it gives further insight into what is in store for Caofeidian Eco-City. Its theme of
“Better City, Better Life” prominently featured the eco-city among technology-
driven urban futures, not only in China but globally. This theme was in the
grand tradition of the twentieth-century World Expositions, which have been all
about material progress and imagining technological futures. The hope of rein-
venting the urban future was a keynote of the modernist movement ever since
it emerged at the beginning of the last century. But there is one noteworthy differ-
ence. The futurism that shaped the World’s Fairs in the United States in the first
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

half of the twentieth century was born of a desire to escape the harsh realities
of that era—two World Wars and the Great Depression. In contrast, the current
Chinese version seems much more a product of optimism, boosted by two
decades of sustained double-digit economic growth.
A virtual tour through the World Expo 2010 website (Shanghai World Expo,
2010) offers evidence of this continuing theme of inventing a new technological
future. Among the most tantalizing areas was what was designated “Zone E,”
containing the “Pavilion of the Future,” where visitors were invited to imagine
what cities will be like in the future. Prospective scenarios included five “dream-
like street settings”—Ecological City, City of Wisdom, City of Water, Space City,
and City of Energy. Specific examples were Low-Carbon City and Harmonious
Environment, the latter a testament to the Chinese recognition of the “spiritual
elements that have always driven human progress”. Similarly, the SAIC (Shang-
hai Automotive Industry Corporation)—General Motors pavilion looked at
how vehicles will change cities in 2030. Envisioned there was a new role for
the car, scientifically redesigned to meet future energy, environmental, and
communications needs. The car is seen bringing people face to face, not
virtually, but physically, thus serving as an “emissary for love.” In this respect,
Shanghai’s World Expo 2010 echoed the 1939 New York World’s Fair theme of
“World of Tomorrow,” where the automobile took center stage in the famous
theme ride created for the General Motors Corporation by industrial designer
Norman Bel Geddes. Called “Futurama,” this ride gave visitors a preview of
the car-dominated but miraculously traffic-free world of 1960 as they glided
in speaker-equipped armchairs over an enormous model of rural and city
landscapes.
The similarity between the “Better City” ideal of World Expo 10 and Caofei-
dian Eco-City was not coincidental; the link was direct. Sweco was awarded the
contract to develop the Shanghai Expo’s Swedish pavilion. The Pavilion’s theme
was the “spirit of innovation.” And its stated goal was to reinforce Sweden’s
[and, obviously, Sweco’s] “public profile . . . in China” (Sweco Group, 2010).
The Sweco ad campaign notes that the architectural and building firm has
been “on the Chinese market for the past 10 years, mainly in the planning and
development of buildings and entire cities.” It promotes its role in bringing
the Swedish innovative spirit to “Caofeidian Green Eco-City.” The overall
design concept is “the meeting of city, man, and nature.” It comes as no surprise
that, by agreement with the city of Tangshan, the Swedish pavilion was dis-
mantled and relocated to the site of Caofeidian Eco-City (Sweden Abroad
News, 2010).
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 131
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

Figure 8. Caofeidian Eco-City’s monorail system.

Building a “Harmonious” Community

In the resolute modernism of its urban plan, Caofeidian Eco-City’s overall concept
departs in one significant respect from its garden- and techno-city predecessors.
While modernity shaped these progenitors, it also served as a foil, creating a
tension between past and future. Planners of the earlier new towns sought to
avoid the cold, austere, and some would say inhuman, side of modernity, with
its seeming defiance of the past and heritage itself (Kargon and Molella, 2008).
Their advocates rejected Le Corbusier’s notion of the City as a Machine for
Living, preferring something more organic, life- and people-centered, and
embedded in local tradition—modernism with a heart, one might say. Most
Western techno-cities incorporated vernacular elements in their architectural
planning. Thus, European and American new towns made symbolic bows to
local heritage—identified in Table 1 as “techno-nostalgia”—by including, for
instance, domestic housing that echoed native German, or Italian, or New
England or Southern US domestic styles (Kargon and Molella, 2008). Based on
current evidence, however, the plans for Caofeidian Eco-City do not show any
particular concern for incorporating indigenous Chinese building traditions, not
to mention those of Hebei Province. If Caofeidian Eco-City is to be utopia, it is
utopia in the original sense of the word—“no place,” or no particular Chinese
place, in any event. The implications of such an approach have already alarmed
Chinese officials at the highest levels. According to the State of China’s Cities
2010/11 report:
Although globalization and modernization has [sic] brought the opportu-
nity of urban development, it has devastated the urban culture in China.
Traditional Chinese culture and local culture have disappeared fast. A
group of cities and neighborhoods with historic and cultural heritage
have been ruthlessly demolished . . . There is full of [sic] mechanical
and grotesque architectural work. (Wang, 2010: 80)
The advertising campaign for Caofeidian Eco-City also highlights urban green-
ery and the natural comforts of the Garden City concept, with its greenbelts,
parks, and other green buffer zones characteristic of new towns in the West.
 132 Journal of Urban Technology

Its information brochure describes it as follows (Administrative Committee of

Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: 14):
Looking at the blue water, greensward, blue sky,
Listening the frog croaking, insect crying, birds twittering,
Breathing freely in the sun, having a good time with family. . .
The perfect combination of human ecology, environmental ecology
And industrial ecology,
Greenbelt, park, lake, island tessellate to each other,
The wisdom dances with future.
As noted, however, delivering on this promise will be problematic, to say the least,
given the planned relocation of the big chemical and iron and steel works to the
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

industrial zone adjoining the eco-city proper.

The mantras of “people first” and “harmony” are staples of the sales-pitch for
the future Chinese eco-city. They also speak to one of the core values of the eco-city
movement from its inception: the ideal of community. In this respect, China’s eco-
city promotional exhibits pay particular homage to the bonds of family, a value
deeply rooted in Chinese culture. In one of Sweco’s displays, for example, a photo-
graph pictures a mother with her two children enjoying a family picnic outing in a
town park. There is one peculiar feature, however: the family appears to be of
Swedish, or Western European origin, not Chinese—reinforcing the odd
message conveyed by the town’s imported architectural designs. Community
“harmony” and oneness with nature are similarly publicized, again resonating
with ancient Chinese tradition. But, it is critical to note that in recent years
“harmony” has also become a catchword of the Chinese leadership, especially
President Hu Jintao, who staked his urban policy on the eco-city. While at one
level, the term refers to urban and social reforms directed toward sustainability
and overcoming injustice and social inequality; at another, it serves the interests
of maintaining social and political order. At its extreme, the slogan has been
used to justify suppression of dissent and control of information (Fan, 2006;
Zhong, 2006). In any case, “harmonious society” depends on innovative urban
technologies. Advanced design and engineering are seen as the keys to creating
a “people-oriented” city that puts “humans first.” In contrast to the existing
Chinese metropolis, Caofeidian Eco-City will boast “halcyon traffic, cycling
sports, traditional neighborhood urban design, zero pollution, public transport”
(Administrative Committee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City,
2009: 19).
But can community really be engineered? “A city is less an engineered space
than a social construct. It is built by people for people to live in and interact with
each other in,” opines urban and architectural critic Adrian Hornsby (2010). After
noting problems associated with artificially creating a community from scratch,
Hornsby reports on a “Caofeidian Genetic City Project,” part of the Netherland’s
contribution to the exhibitions at World Expo 10 (Hornsby, 2010). The basic idea of
the project, a simulated exercise conducted by two teams of Dutch and Chinese
architectural firms, was to frame an organic, evolutionary alternative to the
current all-upfront engineered approach to the planning and building of Caofei-
dian Eco-City as well as other Chinese eco-cities. The “excessively-engineered,”
static approach, Hornsby writes, locks the city into a plan that decades later
will likely no longer serve the needs of its users. If prevented from adapting to
changing needs and circumstances, the new green cities will be obsolete the day
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 133
they open. In contrast, the Genetic City Project’s evolutionary model, inspired by
findings of the Human Genome Project about the flexibility and adaptability of
genes, was explicitly designed to respond to users’ needs over time and to
allow “the city to grow in directions counter to those proposed by the planners”
(Hornsby, 2010). It should be noted, however, that the exercise, involving what
was called a “relay” technique, where each planning team was asked to build
on the master plan of the previous team, was still an engineered top-down
approach, rather than one reflecting the input of the residents. While little more
than a hypothetical utopian strategy at this juncture, the report of the joint
Dutch-Chinese group involved in the Caofeidian Genetic City Project does at
least point to the growing concern about the “human- and community-friendli-
ness” of the new eco-city.
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

Conclusions
Considering its key features and underlying conceptual dimensions, Caofeidian,
as an eco-city model, is crucially defined by a particular kind of technological
urbanism. This is strikingly apparent from the specific “green” technological fea-
tures within the confines of the eco-city itself—from elaborate underground waste
collection systems, to expansive renewable energy technologies. Underlying this,
there appears to be a particular conceptualization (with reference to circular eco-
system models used in ecological sciences) of the city as a scientifically deter-
mined, measurable, and controllable urban technological system.
At the same time, Caofeidian Eco-City is defined as a form of urban technol-
ogy through its wider relationship with the surrounding area, as part of which it is
being developed. Significantly, this relationship is not just a spatial, but as much a
functional and technological one: it is built to accommodate the expected influx of
over one million people arising from the massive industrial development of the
region, which is based on heavy industries and related technologies, including
coal, oil and steel, and international shipping.
But beyond the practical, and perhaps more tellingly, urban technology and
techno-science also perform on a second, ideological plane, which is itself bifur-
cated. The concept of Caofeidian as an “urban technological system” that operates
with machine-like precision in order to achieve the “mastery of nature” rings of
pure technocracy. On the other hand, the call for an ecological paradigm, the
rhetoric of “harmonious” urban environments, the reverence for Nature, with a
capital “N,” resonate with an organic, evolutionary ideal. The two approaches,
the technocratic/mechanical and the organic, are not necessarily incompatible,
but they have clearly generated tensions at several levels. These are only too
clear to see: the dissonance between the eco-city’s low-carbon and minimal-
waste design focus and the carbon-intensive heavy industries of the surrounding
area could hardly be more stark. Similarly striking is the contrast between talk
about creating a harmonious, people-oriented place, and the essentially abstract,
reductive international design language largely devoid of any culture-specific,
local narratives. What is more, almost completely absent in the plans, design
models, and eco-city indicator framework is any notion of a central place and
active role of people—citizens, residents, commuters, visitors—either now
during the planning and development process or later upon completion of the
city. All of this, despite the insistent references to harmony and human-centered
 134 Journal of Urban Technology

principles. Perhaps this should not come as too much of a surprise, given the
underlying urban technological system approach.
Of course, such tensions are not new. They also characterize the evolution of
the eco-city’s twentieth-century progenitor, the techno-city, in which historical
actors struggled to reconcile new forms of energy, production, communication,
and transportation with traditional socio-cultural norms. They are in fact the
essential tensions of Modernity, historically contested territory where innovation
and tradition often came into conflict. Caofeidian Eco-City is very much defined as
an international eco-city and a beacon of Modernity, one of whose main purposes
is to pull China into the twenty-first century as a—THE—leading international
player. With this comes an architectural and urban design style that is decidedly
modernistic and futuristic, resembling a generic Western blend of modern and
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

postmodern style, with little regard for time-honored construction practices and
deeply-rooted building traditions, Feng Shui, for example. As noted, some high
Chinese officials have expressed grave concern with this ostensible trade-off of
Eastern for Western practices and cultural values. Modernity, it seems, comes at
a price.
Thus, another way of seeing the central tensions at work in Caofeidian Eco-
City is to consider them in terms of the relationship between past, present, and
future. The city looks to the past by partly defining itself as a follower of the
Garden City, a late nineteenth—early twentieth-century rural town concept that
would seem consonant with traditional Chinese values. At the same time, Caofei-
dian is equally defined by the heavy industries and associated technologies sur-
rounding it: as such, it much resembles twentieth century techno-city forms. It
looks to the present, representing the practical manifestation of China’s rapid
rise to major international economic and political power. And it looks to a
future defined and imagined as a low-carbon, environmentally sustainable, and
harmonious urban society, with China playing a leading international role in its
promotion. Whether this future based on innovative technologies overwhelms
or harmonizes with indigenous traditions remains to be seen.
As such, Caofeidian Eco-City is perhaps representative of the new breed of
eco-cities built from scratch in China, but quite unlike many other contemporary
eco-city initiatives elsewhere, especially ones envisaged and planned on a smaller
scale within existing cities and with focus on community-based social and techno-
logical innovations.
“Caofeidian is a golden land,” President Hu asserts (Administrative Commit-
tee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009: 10). In the same spirit,
descriptions of the city by its developers are nothing if not lofty: it is a city built
of “wisdom” that will “increase your spiritual wealth” (ibid). It is a place of
harmony and peace. In a final soaring rhetorical flourish, Caofeidian Eco-City’s
promoters call it the “City of the future, City of Information, City of Ecology,
City of Happiness” (ibid: 30). But, is it, or will it ever be, a “real,” functioning
city, fulfilling the basic goals set forth by China’s modern urban planners? Or
will its promise always lie well out of reach in some indeterminate future?

Acknowledgments
We are indebted to the Chinese Society for Urban Studies and Dr Li Yu (Cardiff
University) for facilitating our visits to Caofeidian Eco-City. We wish to thank
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 135
all staff there for the opportunity to visit the site and for discussing our questions.
We are grateful to Paul Kendall (University of Westminster) for the translation of
Chinese texts, and to Joyce Bedi (Smithsonian Institution) for her critical com-
ments on the draft version of this article.

Notes on Contributors
Simon Joss is a professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations,
University of Westminster, London.

Arthur P. Molella is director of the Lemelson Center, Smithsonian Institution,

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

Washington, DC.
 136 Journal of Urban Technology

Bibliography
Administrative Committee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, City Of The Future 2009.
Guide to Investment of Caofeidian International Eco-City (Caofeidian, Tangshan: Administrative Com-
mittee of Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-City, 2009).
China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum Journal (Tianjin, 28 September 2010).
CSUS (Chinese Society for Urban Studies), Development Report on China’s Low-Carbon Eco-Cities 2010
(Beijing: Architecture and Building Press, 2010).
CSUS, “The Policy Framework and Administrative System of Low-Carbon Eco-Cities,” Development
Report on China’s Low-Carbon Eco-Cities 2011 (Beijing: Architecture and Building Press, 2011a).
CSUS, Eco-City Assessment and Best Practice. Annual Achievements 2010–11 (Beijing: Chinese Society for
Urban Studies, 2011b).
H. Chung and S-H. Zhou, “Planning for Plural Groups? Villages-in-the-City Redevelopment in
Guangzhou City, China,” International Planning Studies 16:4 (2011) 333–353.
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

M. Fan, “Chinese Party Leadership Declares New Priority: ‘Harmonious Society’,” Washington Post,
October 12, 2006 ,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/
AR2006101101610.html. Accessed July 24, 2012.
J. Fewsmith, “Promoting the Scientific Development Concept,” China Leadership Monitor , no. 11 (2004)
,http://www.hoover.org/publications/china-leadership-monitor/article/6226. Accessed July
24, 2012.
M. Hodson and S. Marvin, “Urbanism in the Anthropocene: Ecological Urbanism or Premium Ecologi-
cal Enclaves? City 14:3 (2010) 365–369.
A. Hornsby, “Embracing Urban Evolution,” China Dialogue , (November 10, 2010) ,http://www.
chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3929-Embracing-urban-evolution. Accessed May 20,
2011.
S. Joss, “Eco-Cities: The Mainstreaming of Urban Sustainability; Key Characteristics and Driving
Factors,” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 6:3 (2011) 268–285.
S. Joss, D. Tomozeiu, and R. Cowley, Eco-Cities: A Global Survey 2011 University of Westminster, (2011),
,http://www.westminster.ac.uk/ecocities. Accessed July 24, 2012.
R.H. Kargon A.P. Molella, Invented Edens: Techno-Cities of the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2008).
P. Lin, B. Bi, Z. Dong, and R. Zhang, “Caofeidian Eco-City Development Practice,” 2010 Development
Report on China’s Low-Carbon Eco-Cities , Chinese Society for Urban Studies (Beijing: China Architec-
ture and Building Press, 2010).
M. Qiang, “Eco-City and Eco-Planning in China: Taking an Example for Caofeidian Eco-City,” 4th Inter-
national Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (Amsterdam/Delft, November 26–28,
2009) 511– 520 ,http://www.ifou.org/conferences/2009delft/proceedings/. Accessed July 24,
2012.
B. Qiu, Vice-Minister of Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, speech delivered at the
2nd China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum (Tianjin, China, September 24, 2011). Trans-
lated transcript available (see “publications”) at ,www.westminster.ac.uk/ecocities. Accessed July
24, 2012.
Shanghai World Expo 2010. ,http://en.expo2010.cn/. Accessed May 20, 2011.
J. Shen, “Assessing Inter-City Relations between Hong Kong and Shenzhen: The Case of Airport Com-
petition or Cooperation,” Planning in Progress 73 (2010) 55–59.
Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City Administrative Committee, Navigating Eco-City: Sino-Singapore Tianjin
Eco-City Kpi Implementation Framework. Abstract (2009/10).
Sweco Group, Designing The Swedish Pavilion, World Expo 2010 Shanghai (Stockholm: Sweco, 2010),
,http://www.swecogroup.com/en/enswecose/About-Sweco/World-Expo-2010. Accessed May
20, 011.
Sweden Abroad News, “The Swedish Pavilion to be Relocated to the Chinese Eco-city Caofeidian,”
Sweden Abroad , News (November 22, 2010) ,http://www.swedenabroad.com/News____20791.
aspx?slaveid=117180. Accessed May 20, 2011.
Tangshan Bay Eco-City Management Committee, Tangshan Bay Eco-City (Caofeidian, Tangshan: Tang-
shan Bay Eco-City Management Committee, 2011).
Tianjin Eco-City Green Industry Association, 2nd China (Binhai Tianjin) International Eco-City Forum
Monographs (Tainjin: Tianjin Eco-City Green Industry Association, 2011).
R.K. Vogel, “Governing Global City Regions in China and the West,” Progress in Planning 73 (2010) 4–10.
G. Wang, ed., The State of China’s Cities 2010/2011. Better City, Better Life (Beijing: Foreign Languages
Press, 2010).
 The Eco-City as Urban Technology: Perspectives on Caofeidian International Eco-City
(China) 137
World Bank, Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City: A Case Study of an Emerging Eco-City in China. Technical
Assistance (TA) Report no 59012 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2009).
W. Zhong, “China Yearns for Hu’s ‘Harmonious Society’,” Asia Times on line, October 11, 2006 ,http://
www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ11Ad01.html. Accessed July 24, 2012.
W. Wu, “Globalising in Fragmented Space: Spatial Expansion and the Development Process in Shang-
hai,” Progress in Planning 73, (2010), 23– 28.
F. Wu and F.F. Zhang, “China’s Emerging City Region Governance: Towards a Research Framework,”
Progress in Planning 73 (2010) 60–63.
J. Xu and A.G.O. Yeh, “Planning Mega-City Regions in China: Rationales and Policies,” Progress in Plan-
ning 73 (2010) 17–22.
G. Zong, Interview, in Viewpoint Shock/Conference Monographs (Tianjin: 2nd China (Binhai Tianjin) Inter-
national Eco-City Forum and Expo, 2011) 62–67.
Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 12:23 15 February 2015

View publication stats