The Journal of Architecture

ISSN: 1360-2365 (Print) 1466-4410 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

Implications of Chinese architectural education in

contemporary Chinese architecture

Li Xiaodong

To cite this article: Li Xiaodong (2003) Implications of Chinese architectural education

in contemporary Chinese architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 8:3, 303-320, DOI:
10.1080/1360236032000134817

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360236032000134817

Published online: 08 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 304

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjar20
 303

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003

Implications of Chinese
architectural education in
contemporary Chinese architecture

Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua Department of Architecture, National University of

Singapore

Architectural education in China has a very short history compared with western countries.
Architecture in Chinese history was never regarded as a discipline that required formal
education, and this, combined with an extremely turbulent political and economic environ-
ment for the last half century, has led to the modernisation process of Chinese architecture
experiencing a very unusual and twisted development. This paper deals with this particular
condition in the hope of shedding some light on the discussion of contemporary Chinese
architecture.

The formative years of the importance of such practical courses began

Architecture in China was never regarded histori- only at the end of the ‘Foreign Matters Movement’
cally as a discipline that required formal education. [

]3 in the late Qing Dynasty, when a
Like most other crafts, the art of building was
generally imparted by masters down the genera-
tions. It was not until the Qing Dynasty, when
officials – Yangfang [
 ] – were appointed to
specialise in the construction of palaces, that
building craft was institutionalised. 1 Yet, behind
China’s closed door, there was hardly a need for the
formalisation of architectural education, since the
overall building forms and techniques in China had
basically remained intact and would probably have
continued so if it had not been for the close
encounter with foreign cultures. The decline of
feudalism and development of industrial modernity
inevitably forced China to rethink its educational
structure and its viability in the newly reformed
economy. In both the Curriculum of the Imperial
College [  ] in 1902 and its revision [  ] by the Japanese-trained Zhang Yingxu
   ]2 in the following year, structural
engineering as well as an architectural course were
newly introduced with a clear lineage from the
Japanese educational system. In fact, the realisation
© 2003 The Journal of Architecture
handful of Chinese students had gone to study
overseas,4 mostly in England, Germany, Japan and
the United States.5
Architectural education in China was developed
upon the return of these overseas scholars. Japan
was generally preferred in the early years due to the
historical similarity within an imperial structure of a
modernisation process, appropriate modification of
western ideologies for its own cultural continuity,
nationalistic over individualistic values as well as
cultural and geographical affinities.6 It is indeed
evident that the Japanese system was transplanted
during the early formation of architectural
education in China. The earliest architectural course
was initiated in 1910 at Nonggongshang-bu
Advanced-level Vocational Institute [ 
[    ],7 whose course was unfortunately
aborted a few months later before it even took
shape. Therefore by general recognition,8 formal
architectural education in China originated from
1360–2365 DOI: 10.1080/1360236032000134817
 304
Implications of Chinese architectural
education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua
the Department of Architecture in Suzhou
Polytechnic [  ! ] which was
established in 1923, headed by Liu Shiying, Liu
Dunzhen and their peers who had returned from
their training, also in Japan.9
By having the objective of ‘inculcating a full
understanding of the building industry in order to
handle all stages in a project from design to actual
construction’,10 architectural training at this period
was certainly more engineering-based than artistic-
oriented. It was apparently in line with the teach-
ings of the more practical Tokyo Polytechnic where
these pioneers were trained, although the general
architectural education received in Japan at the time
was based upon ‘universal European historicism and
eclecticism’.11 Moreover, being more pragmatic, the
three-year curriculum was definitely more relevant
to the early construction industry in China, as
‘Chinese architects were hired mostly for site super-
vision in order to mediate between Western archi-
tects and local contractors’.12 It was no wonder that
lessons on perspective and presentation drawing
were never implemented; on the other hand, struc-
tures and materials were dealt with in great detail,
in addition to two foreign languages which were
deemed compulsory for every student. 13 As
students were heavily loaded with courses while the
teachers juggled between practice and academy,14
it was difficult for the department to establish a
formalised educational system, and almost impos-
sible to do so during its short existence of only four
years, before it was taken over by the No. 4 National
Zhongshan University [ "#$%&'( ] in the
capital city, Nanjing, in 1927. This university was
later renamed National Central University ["#&)
( ] in 1928 as a showcase representing the
interest of the national government.15
Being one of the most progressive universities at
the time, the National Southeastern University [ "
#*+(] was the force behind major integration
which involved eight other higher-learning institu-
tions including Suzhou Polytechnic, as suggested by
the then educational leader Cai Yuanpei [ ,-. ].16
The earliest Faculty of Architecture as part of a
university’s educational offering was then founded.
Led by Liu Futai [ /01 ] from Oregon State Univer-
sity in the United States, the teaching staff
comprised graduates from different educational
backgrounds including the original Liu Dunzhen. 17
Yet changes in the curriculum took place gradually:
the technology-based system of Suzhou Polytechnic
was basically continued while more design-related
modules were added; a more balanced curriculum
eventually resulted, which even became the main
reference for the National Standard Curriculum [ 2
"34!56 ]18 formulated in 1938–39. As more
Chinese architects graduated from the US, the
tendency towards American Beaux-Arts methods of
training was inevitable, in which the emphasis on
design, presentation, fine arts and history was very
much strengthened.19
In fact, many Chinese students were sent to the
US in the early twentieth century as part of the
reparation for the Boxer Rebellion, such that the
majority of Chinese architects practising in China
during the 1920s and 1930s were American
trained. Graduates from the University of Pennsyl-
vania were especially eminent, including Lu
Shusheng [789 ] and Tan Yuan [:; ] who joined
the National Central University and ‘played key roles

in teaching architectural design’;20 as well as Yang
Tingbao [ <=> ] and Tong Jun [ ? ] who were
already the country’s top architects at the time, and
therefore, warmly welcomed and well-respected by
students.21 In all, it presented an unprecedentedly
widespread acceptance of the Ecole des Beaux Arts
ethos in local architectural education and practice,
reaching its peak in the 1930s.
Such smooth application of the originally Parisian
Beaux-Arts doctrine via the American-trained
Chinese architects was perhaps not without its
reasons, amongst which cultural affinities between
the two traditions were indeed evident, as argued
by Xing Ruan, including ‘the process of cultivation
in production and appreciating a craft, axial plan-
ning, and a natural collaboration between archi-
tects and builders’.22 In addition, Paul Philippe Cret,
who taught in the University of Pennsylvania and
was the teacher of many pioneer Chinese archi-
tects, initiated the revision of the traditional Beaux-
Arts approach such that the flexibility offered by his
ideology of ‘complete liberalism’ greatly encour-
aged its ‘syntax to be contextualised by its adapted
localities’.23 Chinese students immediately saw the
light in the spirit of reviving a much older tradition
of a few thousand years, by applying this general
framework and replacing western neoclassicism
with a Chinese style; ‘Chineseness’ in modern
building could be reflected through adopted orna-
mentation, which was well received both by
designers and public in the newly reformed country
in search of its own identity.
Unsurprisingly, the same Beaux-Arts atelier
system was adopted in the second architectural
school, which was started at the National North-
305
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003
eastern University [ "#*@( ] in Shenyang in
1928, founded by Liang Sicheng [ ABC ] and Lin
Huiyin [ DEF ],24 both of whom graduated from
the University of Pennsylvania. With more design
courses than technical ones, emphasis was placed
on the aesthetic of building and cultivation of
classical appreciation.25 It was forced to close down
in 1931 due to the threat of war from Japan.
Nevertheless, Liang’s passion for architecture
carried him into deeper research on the heritage of
traditional Chinese architecture. Through volumi-
nous analysis, not only did he redefine the frame-
work for Chinese architecture in the twentieth
century in a ‘global geographical context’, 26 his
ideology for architectural education was also very
much enriched. In 1946, he founded the Depart-
ment of Architecture in Tsinghua University [ GH(
IJ ]. Later, he was invited to the US as
consultant to the design of the United Nations
Headquarters, where he worked with various
modernist masters such as Le Corbusier and Oscar
Niemeyer. On the whole, as his experience and
exposure had prepared him to take on a more
holistic view of architecture as well as architectural
education, he began to propose the adoption of
‘physical environment’ in place of the narrow defi-
nition of architecture as merely building, where
humanity, technology and arts were to be well inte-
grated in order to create a physical environment
suitable for human living and working, physically
and psychologically. Such thinking was reflected in
the Draft Plan for the Curriculum of the Department
of Architecture, Tsinghua University [ GH(
KIJLMNOPQ ],27 in which social
science was significantly highlighted, along with an
 306
Implications of Chinese architectural
education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua
emphasis on history and artisanal training as a
conscious effort to continue the Beaux-Arts tradi-
tion. Interestingly, Bauhaus-inspired graphic
training was also brought in by Liang who, however,
seemed only appreciative of its rationality and
graphic presentation qualities but never its ideology
or aesthetics.28
Being a revolutionary educational system and one
of the influences upon the modern movement, the
Bauhaus approach was only formally introduced to
China in 1942 when the Department of Architec-
ture was set up in St. Joseph University by Huang
Zuoshen [ RS ], who was first trained at the AA
School of Architecture, and later completely won
over to modern architecture under the influence of
Walter Gropius in Harvard University. Architectural
education was already predominantly Beaux Arts-
oriented by the time Huang came back to China
after giving up several possible posts in the US, and
it was not easy to popularise modernist ideology,
especially its industrialised aesthetic devoid of any
symbolic ornamentation, against the institutional-
ised eclecticism in a country ever fond of national-
istic expression, despite his passionate belief that
this was the future and the direction in which China
should be heading. Nevertheless, the course offered
by the more structured and universal Americanised
Bauhaus system, including formal training with
model making, emphasis on integration of building
construction and the relationship between forms
and materials, not only differed from the orthodox
educational system but also exposed and excited
the students to a multitude of viewpoints previously
unavailable.29 Such enthusiasm for realigning archi-
tectural education and positive attitudes towards its
application in a socialist market, provided a founda-
tion for modernity in China, whether or not it was
realised in the end, even when it was later adopted
by Tongji University [ TU( ] in 1952.30
From Japanese technocratic realism to the Beaux
Arts’ almost romantic eclecticism, and finally to the
Bauhaus’ modernist idealism, various models of
architectural education had been imported to China
in the first half of the twentieth century before the
People’s Republic of China was formed. Such direct
transplantation of foreign doctrines into the local
educational system, although not without struggle
and a certain degree of alteration, was seemingly
straightforward. Of course, it was mainly due to the
relative state of vacuum in general in education for
practical disciplines, as well as the popular belief in
‘Chinese learning as the fundamental structure,
Western learning for practical use’ [ &VW , X
VY ] since it surfaced during the Self-
Strengthening Movement. 31 Moreover, the contin-
uous political unrest throughout the period – from
The May the Fourth Movement to the Japanese
invasion to the later civil war – as well as the
systemic weakness of the Nanjing Government
were also accountable for such ease of transfer,
allowing the academy to be relatively independent
due to the absence of a unified and codified educa-
tional approach. Nonetheless, these imported and
‘contextualised’ systems had initiated various
experiments in local architectural training and
provided a foundation upon which later develop-
ments, whether autonomous or politically imposed,
are still based.

Political fever
It is difficult to understand fully the architectural
educational system between the birth of the
People’s Republic of China (1949) and the Cultural
Revolution (1965–1976) without referring to its
political background, and any generalisation would
thus be deemed dangerously ignorant of legislative
fluctuation and social variation during the period.
Indeed, governmental inclination due to politics or
the economy played a significant role in shaping
architecture, yet there are traces of overall
phenomena in the developments that had a lasting
307
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003
period, not forgetting the great appeal of the
Russian ideology of ‘socialist as content, regionalist
as principle’35 to the Chinese government. Politi-
cally, it enhanced China’s determination in defying
imperialism and capitalism; socially, its similarity to
the former retrospective approach in architecture
had all the more encouraged adherence to nation-
alistic expression, reintroduced in the early years of
establishing cultural identity, even to the extent of
ubiquitous application of the ‘big-roof’ style across
the country.
In 1954, the initiation of the Anti-Waste
effect on the later, more contemporary scene,
] as an awareness of extrav-
which emerge as a result of analysing the stages of
relationships between politics, architecture and its
education.
While economic recovery was the immediate task
of the newly formed Communist government in the
early days of national development, policy on higher
education in China was aimed at ‘beginning with
maintaining the present system’ while still ‘deter-
mined to realise gradual reformation’.32 Without
much interference, this approach actually facilitated
the reception of the previous structure rather
smoothly. However, major reformation began in
1952 when large-scale re-adjustment and restruc-
turing for most universities and colleges were
carried out according to the Russian educational
model, in order to reinforce specialisation in tech-
nical training,33 which in the end led to the ‘regu-
larising of teaching plans, materials, and textbooks,
so that training programmes in all specialties were
prescribed from the centre’.34 It was the first nation-
wide standardisation ever rigorously implemented,
a result of mainly political inclinations during the
Campaign [ Z[\
agant construction costs had resulted in the ‘big-
roof’ controversy and finally in appreciation of its
fallaciousness, following abandonment of the
linked policy in Russia. Neo-classical stylistic
enhancement was regarded as a conservationist
and destructive framework for the country’s develop-
ment or even as a capitalist inclination towards a
purely formalistic preference. It was during this time
that the principle of ‘appropriately functional,
economical, and aesthetically pleasing whenever
possible’ [ ]Y , ^U , _`abcdefgh ] was
first established and was then conveniently referred
to in the subsequent thirty years or so, 36 but which,
nevertheless, trapped architecture in a new state
of confusion amidst inapplicable ‘capitalist’
modernism and newly overthrown conservative
classicism. Extreme thriftiness later also resulted in
a poor quality of work and habitable condition, or
sometimes even larger wastage when products of
higher quality were marginalised under the political
criterion of being ‘economical’.37 In the end, build-
ings were seldom appropriate, nor were they very
 308

Implications of Chinese architectural

education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua

economical, and thus the possibility of being
aesthetically pleasing was indeed very slim. Such
ideology was also reflected in students’ designs
during the period. From the socialist-oriented
design topic selected, to its meticulous technical
consideration in design execution, the product was
generally stripped bare of any aesthetic packaging
–without ornamentation. Chinese architectural
students were apparently unaccustomed to seem-
ingly ‘untreated’ design, yet the results were also far
from equivalent to the idea of modernist simplicity
(figs.1 and 2).
The Great Leap Forward [ (ij ]38 in 1958 was in
no way any solution to such confusion as the ‘Ten
Great Buildings’ [ k( ] of that period were
themselves what was once considered to be extrav-
agant, despite the technical success of their short
design and construction period of only one year.39
Technological advance alongside anti-wastage and
anti-conservationism had accelerated city develop-
ment and revitalised academic discussion, which
then called for an educational revolution in order to
reattach education with industry, what was then
considered ‘reality’, while not forgetting politics.
Such great mobilisation of labour and resources was
in fact non-scientific and unrealistic itself as hundreds
of universities and colleges that were opened during
the three years were eventually closed down,40 while
rampant construction in the end resulted in deeper
economic depression from 1961 onwards.

Figure 1. Luo Zhengqi

[ lmn ], Graduation
Design – Faculty of
Building, Tsinghua
University, 1955,
perspective.
 309

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003

Figure 2. Luo Zhengqi

[ lmn ], Graduation
Design – Faculty of
Building, Tsinghua
University, 1955,
building construction
analysis.

It was, however, the realisation and the readjust-
ment that occurred during the period of poverty
that stabilised the haphazard academic and indus-
trial situation for a moment. Educational require-
ments and various curricula were reformulated
together with Higher Institution Regulations [  appropriate (Fig. 3).42 However, it was not long
okb ] passed by the Ministry of Education, 41
providing a more reasonable basis for subsequent
development and thus facilitating the learning
process. It was, at least, a precious moment of
peace. Students’ works were generally of a higher
standard, continuing the graphic tradition and
reconciling various ‘styles’ for different purposes;
while in practice, the neo-vernacular approach as a
continuation of the national heritage was interest-
ingly experimented with in the city outskirts,
reflecting an apolitical stance yet in a way politically
before politics resurfaced again as a commanding
dictator when the curtain was raised on the Cultural
Revolution, which mercilessly disrupted both the
schools and industry in the next ten years.
Such variation in educational policies might be
erratic but the underlying principle was certainly
 310

Implications of Chinese architectural

education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua

Figure 3. Guangdong
Architecture Institution
and Hunan Architecture
Institution, Shaoshan
Mao Zedong Memorial
[ p'qr*Tstu
v ], 1964, elevation
and section.

consistent: according to Marxism which was the
sole leading philosophy of the communist govern-
ment during that period, education, as a product of
social consciousness and materialistic living condi-
tion which were largely dependent upon social and
economic standards, was inseparable from the
political and economical systems, having a strong
character of class; political and economical orders
thus determined the objectives, systems and
contents of education, which was only to serve the
proletarian.43 The battle between the classes
became the reason, excuse and main accusation in
every shift of focus whether in politics, the
economy, academic matters or industry, that not
only disregarded the original intention, completely
discredited any accomplishment and thus deceler-
ated progressiveness, but also in the end politicised
and polarised any idealised system to such extremes
that cyclical failures were inevitable and one was
forced to negotiate in between them.

Negotiating the extremes
Under the forces of politics, the pendulum swings
of architectural ideologies from 1949 onwards were
apparent. From the Russian social-historicist
approach to one of functionalism due to the anti-
wastage policy, followed by nationalist expression
during the Great Leap Forward, yet with the
emphasis on technology, and later to neo-vernacu-
larism and ‘pseudo-modernism’ as a result of ‘acci-
dental reductivism’, changes came so fast and so
often with each political and economic experiment
that architectural thinking was seen either as
perpetually catching up or as in a grey area unless
it was put into the frontline as a revolutionary show-
case, such as with the ‘Ten Great Buildings’.
Although architecture and its training during this
period were generally thought to be a continuation
of a strong artisanal foundation coupled with real-
istic and practical applications appropriate to the
current economy and technology,44 several threads
of thought that formed a clear lineage could still be
identified, presenting a coexisting duality of trends
within which architectural ideology swayed back
and forth. Socialism, on the one hand, had
prompted the development of regionalism, nation-
alism, even historicism and later neo-vernacularism
by following its publicly oriented humanist
concern,45 thus formulating a symbolic aesthetic
based on cultural obsession; yet on the other hand
it also encouraged simplicity and functionalism even
to the extent of ‘minimalism’ in terms of construc-
tion, as an extension from a socialist practical
approach towards the provision of public welfare as
well as a reaction to technological standards and
the economic situation, despite its similarity to the
311
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003
objectionable capitalist modernism. Architecture
was indeed caught in a paradox. Reconditioning of
thoughts, in various ways and directions, was there-
fore necessary in a period that required constant re-
adaptation of previous systems.
As mentioned earlier, Yang Tingbao, a graduate
of the University of Pennsylvania and a follower of
the Beaux-Arts tradition, was a leading figure in the
Chinese architectural scene both in practice and
academically. In his twenty-one years of work at
Kwan, Chu and Yang from 1927 to 1948 as well as
in the rest of his life teaching in various universities
from 1940, Yang had displayed great passion and
diligence in education and in producing no less than
a hundred buildings.46 His built works especially
presented a range of styles such that the flexibility
that he freely exercised, perhaps an extension of
traditional eclecticism to its extreme, clearly illus-
trated the irony and contradictions of the period.
One could easily identify his Chinese Neo-classical
approach in Guo-Min-Dang’s Historical Record
Museum ["wxxyyz{|v] (Fig. 4) following
the trend of developing ‘established culture’47 in
the1930s while interestingly, at the same time, his
Nanjing Central Hospital [ +}&)~K ] (Fig. 5)
exhibited a reductive version of Western configura-
tion. It could of course be argued that this resulted
from the different requirements and functions, yet
it was undeniable that they established valuable
personal precedents for plurality of expression to be
adopted, without depreciating the power of
proportion and details.
Such a play of pluralism was even more evident
in the Dahua Cinema [ (H(K ] (figs. 6 and 7)
in Nanjing, completed in 1935, in which the exterior
 312

Implications of Chinese architectural

education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua

Figure 4. Yang
Tingbao, Guo-
Min-Dang’s Historical
Record Museum,
Nanjing, 1936.

Figure 5. Yang
Tingbao, Nanjing
Central Hospital,
Nanjing, 1933.

Figures 6 and 7. Yang

Tingbao, the Dahua
Cinema, Nanjing, 1935,
exterior and interior.

displayed a clean Art Deco style while the interior
was heavily dressed with Chinese ornamentation.
However, the more it was utilised, the less signifi-
cant style had actually become. In fact, Yang himself
was more interested in the meaning of ‘architec-
tural axis’ that he theorised both as a concept and
a method that carried through his projects in both
a mental and an anthropomorphic way.48 The
meaning of styles had already become detached
from the actual content and was only to be associ-
ated symbolically with the social and political
context, by which such coating was easily substitut-
able, as long as there was a demand. Although the
synthesis of west and east as such was ideologically
unfavoured, it obviously offered a convenient
method and, to some extent, liberation in adapting
to various circumstances.
It was therefore not surprising when Yang’s Peace
Hotel [€‚v] (Fig. 8) was built in 1953 in Beijing,
despite the fact that the bare modernist façade was
definitely electrifying in an era when the ‘big roof’
style was in vogue. Amidst criticisms, it was actually
praised by the then Premier Zhou Enlai for its
efficient construction process and modest budget,49

and it even became the precedent for the sub-
sequent policy emphasis on function and economy.
While consciously proportioned and axially
balanced, the Peace Hotel’s minimalist approach
and asymmetrical layout had once again proven
Yang’s flexibility in adapting to physical context and
the economic situation. Its prediction of a political
tendency was a little accidental as it displayed yet
further evidence of the ‘in-between’ nature of
architecture, which was then used by politicians in
revising ideologies.
While style was Yang’s tool to exercise political
adaptability as long as its content and proportion
were appropriate, the detachment of style from
content was actually a major issue when eclectic
neo-classicism was examined critically. Also the
Beaux-Arts trained Liang Sicheng was condemned
for leading such a classical revival without con-
sidering the current condition of the country and its
people,50 and was thus partly blamed for economic
recession. Ornamented form was seen as accessory
to building and was seen as being inefficient as its
313
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003
detachment from function worsened, when such Figure 8. Yang
form was pushed to extremes and applied widely Tingbao, Peace Hotel,
Beijing, 1951–53,
across the nation. However, it must be noted that
perspective.
the reapplication of Chinese classical style to new
buildings began from a socialist content which
Liang had reformulated after his visit to Moscow in
1953, to the effect that it was seen as a socialist
point of view, to cater for the demand of the
general public, that the people’s culture was re-
examined, which led to a regionalist style, and thus
a classical revival.51
From a number of papers and speeches
produced by Liang during that period, it is obvious
that he had never given up reconditioning his
aesthetic ideology even after he was identified as
the main culprit of the tolerant in design. While
recognising the failure of eclecticism and its attach-
ment to capitalism, Liang immediately embraced
the trio of function, economy and aesthetic to
reaffirm his faith in socialism.52 He agreed on the
prerequisite of appropriate function which should
come before economy, while both formed the
socialist content of a building, upon which the
stylistic aesthetic could only then be based and
from which it should never be separated. Yet his
aesthetic belief remained emphasised, for he
warned of the danger of functionalism and tech-
nology if there was no conscious effort given to
the appearance of the building. On the other
hand, Liang also rejected the re-creation of ancient
architecture and pointed out that the study of
history should not be confined to physical forms
and details, but should encompass spatial arrange-
ment based on living culture, the aesthetic
ordering and the spirit created, which seemed
 314
Implications of Chinese architectural
education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua
especially applicable to projects with a neo-vernac-
ular approach in order to revitalise a regionalism
that he appreciated.53
It was apparent that both Yang and Liang recon-
ditioned their ideologies with clear political intona-
tion, although in different ways: Yang sought to
remain neutral, balanced and flexible between
extremisms, whilst Liang constantly readapted
himself to new environments from a previous
extreme. Being the spiritual leaders of architectural
education which was then predominantly Beaux-
Arts in origin, Yang’s and Liang’s ideological trans-
formations were certainly influential both in the
academy and in practice.
In fact, the constant re-emphasis on the relation-
ship between styles and contents, in order to fit in
between the extremes, had idealised political and
economic attachment to architecture such that it
became just a tool to realise socialism. Architecture
was thus very much simplified only to serve a social
function and to satisfy an aesthetic need, so that
engagement in creativity and progressiveness was
indeed very modest, even in the academically more
progressive period of the early 1960s. This was
reflected in the Curriculum Record of Tsinghua
University in 195954, in which the focus was upon
practicality – all design topics must be both realistic
in a socialist market and conclusive as a result of
past experience in the actual building industry.
Rigorous artisanal training had thus continued to
serve as the basic foundation in the architectural
course, as design values were still limited to layout
planning, elevation treatment and presentation, as
reflected in the First-Year Curriculum of 1959.55
Such a system was adopted continuously for the
subsequent years until the Cultural Revolution, as
apparent from the Curriculum Record of 1964,56 in
which design topics consisted only of the most
common building typologies in order to prepare
students for the industry.
To illustrate, student projects for a library (Fig. 9)
and a restaurant (Fig. 10) were exercises conducted
to familiarise them with people-oriented building
types; while emphasis was also given to industrial
ones, such as a factory for optical instruments in this
case (Fig. 11). As the content of each design was
very directly due to preconceived socialist demand,
contextual and any other social issues were virtually
non-existent. Appraisals that were chiefly based on
physical functions left students relatively at ease
with aesthetic treatment, where the re-adoption of
language similar to that of modernism was surpris-
ingly popular. Such a ‘pseudo-modernist’ approach
as a product of the ‘functional, economical,
aesthetic’ trio that developed from constant re-
adaptation to political conditions was ironically
accepted as the norm; or perhaps it was actually
logical as the very sources of modernism such as the
Bauhaus in fact originated from socialist dogma on
industrialised mass production. Nevertheless, the
nature of the present style was definitely not equiv-
alent to that of thirty years before, as it also clearly
inherited a lineage from the Beaux-Arts’ aesthetic,
although in a much simplified manner, as well as
from regional adaptation and transformation over
the years.
Reduced to superficiality57
Without context and localised social ingredients,
architectural design as such became no more than a
315

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003

Figure 9. Huang
Jizhong [Rƒ„], studio
project –library design,
Tsinghua University,
1964, perspective.

Figure 10. Studio

project – restaurant
design, Tsinghua
University, 1964,
perspective.

Figure 11. Zheng

Guoxing [ …"† ],
studio project – design
for optical instruments
factory, Tianjin
University, 1963,
perspective.
 316

Implications of Chinese architectural

education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua

Figure 12. Beijing

Institute of
Architectural Design
and Research,
International Exhibition
Centre ["‡ˆ‰&Š],
Beijing, 1985, Ministry
of Construction Award
1986 – first prize.

Figure 13. Tsinghua

University, Department
of Architecture, Cloudy
Valley Hotel,
Huangshan, 1984–86,
National Design Award
1988.

Figure 14. Zuo Xiaoxi,

Taishan Garden Hotel,
1980.

Figure 15. Beijing

Institute of
Architectural Design &
Research, Xike Train
Station [ X‹Œ ],
Beijing, 1985–1996.
formal exercise based on the understanding of func-
tional inputs. Although stylistic application was
appropriately associated with practicality, the lack of
progressiveness and comparison with the rest of the
world led to a dangerous insularity which eventually
indicated a superficial comprehension of architec-
tural styles and meanings. This was especially
evident when an influx of western theories flooded
China’s newly opened door immediately after the
Cultural Revolution; all new-found images and tech-
niques were literally consumed without first
digesting modernism, let alone post-modernism.
From symbolism and semiotics, to neo-
vernacularism, humanism, old-town revitalisation,
conservation and adaptive reuse, such direct inter-
pretation and immediate implementation resulted in
ubiquitous stylistic formalism across the nation.
Overwhelming acceptance of post-modernism that
echoed the previous retrospective approach while
learning from Russia (interestingly both aimed to
overthrow modernism) was thus palpable, for its
emphasis on styles, traditions and history were all
too familiar to, and most welcomed by, Chinese who
for long had wished to reinvest in their established
culture and who were all the more eager to match
local architectural standards to the international.58

However, the over-stated stylistic concern
conveniently neglected a theoretical backdrop and
social responsibilities, while highly acclaimed tradi-
tion was usually addressed in great detail but only
in a formalistic manner,59 encompassing neither
complexity nor contradiction that were truly the
nature of post-modernism. Architectural design was
even more simplified to ‘multiplication of plan,
section and elevation with addition of traditional
styles such as big roofs, ma-tou walls, domes,
arches, classical columns either on roof, gable end
or at entrance, etc.’60 Indifferent, as many designers
might be, they were, however, extremely market-
able. In fact, the meaning of design had evolved
from the early 1980s cosmetic layout to a marketing
tool for compulsory packaging in the late 1980s,
applicable to any products.61
The replacement of political influence with
economic forces had further detached form from
substance, such that an aesthetic superficiality, as
developed in the academy before the Cultural
Revolution, was even more apparent towards the
end of the century. Such a reduction in the level of
engagement, whether in politics, society, context or
the spatial and spiritual meanings of architecture, to
purely physical and formalistic appreciation and
direct relationship with the economy, was therefore
evidently more than a current socialist market
phenomenon, but owed its precedents to previous
Chinese architectural systems as well as to political
indulgence.
Notes and references
1. Pan Guxi and Shang Yong ŽX ,  , ‘Guanyu
Suzhou Gongzhuan yu Zhongyang Daxue jianzhu ke’
317
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003
(On the architectural courses of the National Suzhou
Polytechnic and the Central University) [ ‘’
“&)( ! ] Jianzhushi (The Architect) [  ”
], vol. 90 (Oct 1999).
2. They were the first two official curricula for practical
courses as part of higher learning in China; see Lai Delin
•–— , ‘Guanyu Zhongguo jindai jianzhu jiaoyushi de
ruogan shiliao’ (Historical notes on modern architec-
tural education in China) [ ‘’&"˜™ š›yœ
žyz ] Jianzhushi (The Architect) [  ” ], vol. 55
(Dec 1993).
3. A movement within the idea of self-strengthening,
whereby applications from a wide range of Western
technology and industry were copied; see Peter G.
Rowe, Seng Kuan, Architectural Encounters with
Essence and Form in Modern China (Cambridge, Mass.,
MIT Press, 2002), p.5.
4. In 1905, led by Xu Shi’er and Xu Hongyu ( Ÿ ¡ , ¢£
¤ ), who studied building in Japan and engineering in
England respectively; see Pan Guxi ŽX , ed.,
Zhongguo jianzhushi (Chinese architectural history) [ &
"  y ] (Beijing, Zhongguo jianzhu gongye
chubanshe, 2001) [ @} : &" ¥¦§ , 2001]
p. 361.
5. Pan and Shang, ‘Guanyu Suzhou Gongzhuan yu
Zhongyang Daxue jianzhu ke’, Jianzhushi, vol. 90.
6. Zhou Guping ¨Ž , Jindai xifang jiaoyu lilun zai
Zhongguo de chuanbo (Influence of modern western
educational theory in China) [ ˜™X©š›ª«_&"
œ¬­ ] (Guangzhou, Guangdong jiaoyu chubanshe,
1996) [ ® : ®*š›¥¦§ , 1996] p. 13.
7. Lai, ‘Guanyu Zhongguo jindai jianzhu jiaoyushi de
ruogan shiliao’, Jianzhushi, vol. 55.
8. According to Tong Jun and Lai Delin, based on its
system, establishment and continuity [ &"¯°œ±J
3²±³´²µ¶·¸¹º»œ J ]; see Tong
Jun, ‘Zhongguo jianzhu jiaoyu’ (Chinese Architectural
Education) [ &" š› ] Tong Jun wenji (2) (Beijing,
 318

Implications of Chinese architectural

education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua

Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001) [@} : & jiaoyu de xianxingzhe’ Jianzhu lishi yu lilun (5), p. 73:
" ¥¦§ , 2001] p. 405; see also Lai Delin [
¨ , 

¿ ]
•–— , ‘Zhongguo xiandai jianzhu jiaoyu de xianx-
ingzhe’ (Initiators in modern Chinese architectural
education) [ &"¼™ š›œ½¾¿ ] Jianzhu lishi
yu lilun (5) (Architectural history and theory) [  À
y“ ª« ( $Á )] (Beijing, Zhongguo jianzhu
gongye chubanshe, 1997) [ @} : &" ¥¦
§ , 1997], p. 71.
9. Liu Shiying, Liu Dunzhen, Zhu Shigui and Huang
Zhumiao [ à , /ÄÅ , Æ Ç , RÈÉ ] estab-
lished their own practice (the first Chinese-owned) in
the same year before they initiated the architectural
course; see Zhang Yongsen Ê9 , ‘Guanyu Zhongda
jianzhuxi chuangjian de huiyi’ (Memory of the begin-
ning of the architectural course in the Central Uni-
versity) [‘’&( JËœÌÍ ] Jianzhushi [  papers on Liang Sicheng’s academic theories) [ ABC
” ], vol. 24 (Nov 1985); see also Tong, ‘Zhongguo
jianzhu jiaoyu’ Tong Jun Wenji – vol. 2, pp. 405 –407.
10. [ !œ5ÎÏ.Ð2ÑÒÓ œÔÕ , aÖ
×ØÙÚÛNÜÝœ2S ]; see Zhang,
‘Guanyu Zhongda jianzhuxi chuangjian de huiyi’
Jianzhushi, vol. 24, p. 160.
11. Xing Ruan, ‘Accidental Affinities – American Beaux-
Arts in Twentieth-century Chinese Architectural
Education and Practice’ Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians (JSAH), vol. 61:1 (Mar 2002),
p. 31.
12. Ibid., p. 31.
13. As concluded after examining 1924’s curriculum and
subsequent students’ reports; see Pan and Shang,
‘Guanyu Suzhou Gongzhuan yu Zhongyang Daxue
jianzhu ke’, Jianzhushi, vol. 90., pp. 92–93: [ Þ4Ï ’
ßàáâ ’  gã ’ äåæ¥ ; ÞçÏ ’ èéêë
ìMèíîï ’ ðV ’ èêì ’ “ ’ èíîï ’ ç 25.
æÛ ; ÞñÏòæó ’ ôzõ ’] and [ ö÷_øùú
&Ûû»üçýœ ’ çþ ’ ú ].
14. Ibid., p. 93; see also Lai, ‘Zhongguo xiandai jianzhu
15. Ibid., pp. 90–91; the University was later renamed
several times due to political reasons and was finally
named Southeastern University [ *+( ] in 1988.
16. Ibid., p. 90.
17. Zhang, ‘Guanyu Zhongda jianzhuxi chuangjian de
huiyi’, Jianzhushi, vol. 24, p. 160.
18. Liang Sicheng, Liu Futai and Guan Songsheng were
actively involved in the formulation of this standard,
which explains its Beaux-Arts nature; see Lai Delin •
–— , ‘Liang Sicheng jianzhu jiaoyu sixiang de
xingcheng ji tese’ (Formulation and characteristics of
Liang Sicheng’s theory on architectural education) [ A
BC  š› Bœ CM ] Liang Sicheng
xueshu sixiang yanjiu lunwenji 1946–1996 (Research
ãB« ] (Beijing, Zhongguo jianzhu
gongye chubanshe, 1996) [ @} : &" ¥¦
§ , 1996] p. 127: table 2.
19. Lai, ‘Zhongguo xiandai jianzhu jiaoyu de xianxingzhe’
Jianzhu lishi yu lilun (5) (Beijing, Zhongguo jianzhu
gongye chubanshe, 1997), p. 75.
20. Ruan, ‘Accidental Affinities’ JSAH, vol. 61:1, p. 31.
21. Since it was relocated back to Nanjing after the Japanese
invasion, Yang and Tong remained as the most
outstanding professors in the school until their deaths in
the 1980s; see Zhang, ‘Guanyu Zhongda jianzhuxi
chuangjian de huiyi’ Jianzhushi, vol. 24, p. 160.
22. Ruan, ‘Accidental Affinities’, op. cit., JSAH, vol. 61:1,
p. 43.
23. Ibid., p. 45.
24. Tong, ‘Zhongguo jianzhu jiaoyu’ Tong Jun wenji (2),
op. cit., p. 405.
Lai, ‘Liang Sicheng jianzhu jiaoyu sixiang de xingcheng
ji tese’ Liang Sicheng xueshu sixiang yanjiu lunwenji
1946–1996, p. 127.
26. Li Shiqiao, ‘Writing a Modern Chinese Architectural

History – Liang Sicheng and Liang Qichao’, Journal of
Architectural Education, pp. 35–45.
27. Lai, ‘Liang Sicheng jianzhu jiaoyu sixiang de xingcheng
ji tese’, Liang Sicheng xueshu sixiang yanjiu lunwenji
1946–1996, p. 128: table 3.
28. Ibid., p.130.
29. Wu Jiang and Qian Feng,  ,  , ‘Huang Zuoshen
he ta de jianzhu jiaoyu sixiang’ (Huang Zuoshen and his
theory on architectural education) The International
Symposium for Research into China’s Modern Architec-
tural Academy in the twentieth century – Proceedings [
&"˜™ ãBWJ"‡ ( « )]
(Graduate School of Architecture, Nanjing University,
June 28–30, 2002).
30. Tong, ‘Zhongguo jianzhu jiaoyu’ Tong Jun wenji (2),
op. cit., p. 407.
31. John King Fairbank and Merle Goldman, China: A New
History (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press,
1998), pp. 217–234.
32. Qu Shipei, Zhongguo Daxue jiaoyu fazhan shi (Devel-
opment of University Education in China) (Taiyuan:
Shanxi jiaoyu chubanshe, 1993), p. 643.
33. Pan, Zhongguo jianzhushi, p. 460.
34. Fairbank and Goldman, China: A New History, op. cit.,
p. 362.
35. [ § !"#$ , w%&'( ]; see Zou Denong )–
* , Zhongguo xiandai jianzhu shi (History of Chinese
modern architecture) [ &"¼™ œÀy+, ]
(Tianjin, Tianjin kexue jishu chubanshe, 2001), p. 14.
36. Ibid., p. 198.
37. Ibid., p. 207.
38. A political and social movement in 1958–1960 when
mass construction was initiated for idealistic industrial
improvement; see Fairbank and Goldman, China: A
New History, op. cit., pp. 368–382.
39. Zou, Zhongguo xiandai jianzhu shi, op. cit., p. 221.
40. Qu, Zhongguo Daxue jiaoyu fazhan shi, op. cit.,
p. 646.
319
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 8
Autumn 2003
41. Ibid., p.647.
42. Yang Yongsheng and Gu Mengchao, Chinese Archi-
tecture of the 20th Century (Tianjin, Tianjin kexue
jishu chubanshe, 1999), p. 251.
43. Zhou, Jindai xifang jiaoyu lilun zai Zhongguo de
chuanbo, op. cit., p. 271.
44. Pan, Zhongguo jianzhushi, op. cit., p. 461.
45. Liu Ting, ‘Dangdai jianzhu sichao 1949–1964’ (Con-
temporary architectural thinking) [ -™ B. ]
Jianzhushi [  ” ], vol. 35 (Aug 1989), p. 93.
46. Yang Yongsheng, Zhongguo sidai jianshushi (Four
generations of architects in China) [ &"%™ ” ]
(Beijing, Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2002)
[ @} : &" ¥¦§ , 2002], p. 28.
47. Ibid. p. 30; [30 ý™/0 ’ 1±2 ’ 34dœ56 ].
48. Ruan, ‘Accidental Affinities’, op. cit., JSAH, vol. 61:1,
p. 39.
49. Ibid., p. 42.
50. Liang admitted his ‘wrong-doing’ and apparently
reconditioned his aesthetic theories in his later articles;
see Liang Sicheng ABC , ‘Cong “Shiyong, jingji, zai
keneng tiaojianxia zhuyi meiguan” tandao chuantong
yu gexing’ (From ’appropriately functional, econom-
ical, and aesthetical pleasing whenever possible’ to
tradition and reinvention) [ Ú ’ ]Y²^U²_`ab
cdefgh ’7ܬ3“89 ] Liang Sicheng Quanji
(5) [ ABC2 – $Á: ] (Beijing, Zhongguo jianzhu
gongye chubanshe, 2001) [ @} : &" ¥¦
§ , 2001], pp. 303–312.
51. Liang Sicheng ABC , ‘Minzhu de xingshi, shehui
zhuyi de neirong’ (Regionalist in style, Socialist in
content) [w%œ&, § !"œ#$ ] Liang Sicheng
Quanji (5) [ ABC2 – $Á: ] (Beijing, Zhongguo
jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001) [ @} : &" 
¥¦§ , 2001], pp. 169–174.
52. Liang, ‘Cong “Shiyong, jingji, zai keneng tiaojianxia
zhuyi meiguan” tandao chuantong yu gexing’, op. cit.
53. Ibid.
 320
Implications of Chinese architectural
education in contemporary
Chinese architecture
Li Xiaodong, Chong Keng Hua
54. Qinghua Daxue yingjian xi jiaoxue dangan – minyong
jianzhu sheji jiaoxue dagang (1959) (Teaching record
of the Department of Architecture, Tsinghua University
– curriculum for public building design) [ GH(I
Jš;Q – wY ÛNš(< ], unpub-
lished record, courtesy of the School of Architecture,
Tsinghua University.
55. Ibid.
56. Qinghua Daxue tumu jianzhu xi jianzhuxue zuanye
jiaoxue dangan – minyong jianzhu sheji jiaoxue dagang
(1964) (Teaching record of the Department of Architec-
ture, Tsinghua University – curriculum for public
building design) [GH(IJš;Q – wY meixue (Contemporary culture and aesthetic of archi-
ÛNš(< ], unpublished record, courtesy of the
School of Architecture, Tsinghua University.
57. In this case, superficiality refers to ‘architecture of
stylistic formalism (that) was ubiquitous in the
country’; see Li Xiaodong, Dancing Dragon: Chinese
Aesthetics since 1979 (Utrecht, Drills Publishing,
2000), p. 44.
58. Zhao Guowen =" , ‘Weilai de jueze – dui jin
shinian Zhongguo jianzhu wenhua licheng de sikao’
(Choice of future – reflecting on Chinese architectural
culture in the past ten years) [ å>œ?@ – A˜ký
&" 2ÀœBB ] Dangdai jianzhu wenhua
yu meixue (Contemporary culture and aesthetic of
architecture) [ -™ 2“g ], p. 99.
59. Zou Denong )–* , ‘Zhongguo xiandai jianzhu de
lishi shiming – guanyu houxiandai zhuyi de yongjing’
(History of Chinese modern architecture – on the influ-
ence of post-modernism) [ &"¼™ œÀy+, –
‘’C¼™!"œDj ] Dangdai jianzhu wenhua yu
tecture) [ -™ 2“g ], p. 172.
60. Wang Xiaodong EF* , ‘Dangdai Zhonggup jianzhu
chuangzuo de liangji’ (Current opportunities in archi-
tectural creation in China) [ -™&" ËSœGH ]
Zhongguo jianzhu – pingjia yu zhanwang (Chinese
architecture – evaluation and expection) [ &" –
IJ“ˆK ], p. 88.
61. Li, Dancing Dragon, op. cit., p. 44.