[go: up one dir, main page]
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring the Soil Copper of Urban Land with Visible and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy: Comparing Spectral, Compositional, and Spatial Similarities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/land13081280
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

‘Sharing’ as a Critical Framework for Waterfront Heritage Regeneration: A Case Study of Suzhou Creek, Shanghai

by
Yichen Zhu
1,2 and
Zhenyu Li
1,*
1
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Urban Renewal and Spatial Optimization Technology, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(8), 1280; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081280
Submission received: 25 June 2024 / Revised: 28 July 2024 / Accepted: 10 August 2024 / Published: 13 August 2024
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Planning area of the One River One Creek Masterplan of Shanghai 2035. Source: edited by the authors based on the Shanghai 2035 plan.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Images of Suzhou Creek in the past and now. Source: the left image, representing Suzhou Creek in the 1940s, was taken from Pengpai News, while the image on the right was taken by the authors in 2023.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Field study area and locations of industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The 65 industrial heritage sites of this case study. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The urban morphology and architectural typology analysis of the WIH buildings along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>The accessibility of the 65 industrial heritage sites of this case study. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>‘Sharing’ framework for WIH revitalization. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Node–path–area spatial relationships of WIH sites along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>The Star Model for WIH shareability evaluation. Source: Authors.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Application of the ‘sharing’ module in design and planning management. Source: Authors.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study was to analyze ‘sharing’ as an operational framework for waterfront industrial heritage revitalization in the context of sustainable urban regeneration. This research study was conducted to better understand the public accessibility of heritage preservation projects in a densely populated waterfront urban area and to determine to what extent heritage could be made available to the general public. We examined the development of industrial heritage along Suzhou Creek, Shanghai, and its process of regeneration. The focus area covered a waterway stretch of 19.2 km and an adjacent land area of 11.7 km2 managed as a single planning entity on both sides of the creek. We analyzed the present preservation practices and discovered a growing desire to increase the historical buildings’ visibility in the context of urban regeneration. We argue that ‘sharing’ can serve as a pivotal framework for sustainable waterfront regeneration, as its implementation can (1) increase the public value of waterfront heritage and (2) incorporate comprehensive objectives, design strategies, evaluation methods, and public participation into the space revitalization process.

1. Introduction

Industrial heritage sites, including buildings, docks, and neglected infrastructures, such as railroads and open spaces, can be adapted to serve new functions, meeting the emerging needs of residents and users. With its unique cultural characteristic and spatial features, industrial heritage has attracted the interest of architects and policymakers [1,2,3,4]. The local policy framework for industrial heritage conservation in China is based on a more inclusive process of urban development and planning practice than the normative heritage discourses, and in Shanghai specifically, industrial heritage has become an integral part of urban regeneration [5]. Industrial heritage conservation is now increasingly becoming an opportunity to manage the urban landscape instead of aiming at architectural preservation. Much of the existing research on industrial heritage rarely goes beyond the arts-led gentrification model [6]. Recently, scholars have started to explore the catalytic effect of renovated industrial heritage projects on sustainable urban regeneration through an urban design perspective [3,7]. However, assessing the integration of industrial heritage conservation with urban regeneration remains challenging, particularly in the context of China.
China is actively engaged in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [8], where a key driver is to strive for a more sustainable urbanization process. This approach provides valuable insights not only for China but also for the global community. Committed to a new type of people-centered urbanization, as stated in China’s 14th Five-Year Plan1 and 2023 Progress Report for the 2030 Agenda2, China has continuously optimized the urban environment and strengthened cultural heritage protection.
Shanghai, in particular, serves as an inspiring model for urban innovation, offering new ideas and practices for city leaders worldwide [9]. Many initiatives that begin in Shanghai are subsequently implemented across China. Now, Shanghai’s experimental regeneration interventions in former port-related industrial waterfronts are widely recognized as being at the forefront of quality- and people-oriented redevelopment [10], having captured the interest of city leaders, urban planners, architects, and landscape architects.
With urban construction land nearing the limit, Shanghai is improving the level of intensive utilization of land conservation [11]. Shanghai 2035 aims ‘to improve the vitality and quality of the city of the repurposing and utilization of the stock land to meet the future space needs’. The One River One Creek Masterplan, whose aim is to develop a continuous corridor of public open space for both the Huangpu River and Suzhou Creek [12], is a pilot project with a target to improve the overall quality and attractiveness of urban life [9]. At the same time, the industrial heritage of Shanghai is clustered along these two waterfront banks [5]. The T-shaped skeleton formed by the Huangpu River and Suzhou Creek industrial heritage belt constitutes a typical feature of the urban spatial structure of Shanghai (Figure 1), where issues of industrial conservation and waterfront regeneration coexist.
We present a case study on Suzhou Creek, Shanghai, the birthplace of the industrial heritage conservation movement in China, with several pioneer projects, such as M50 Creative Park and the Art Warehouses in South Suzhou Creek Road renovated by Taiwanese architect Teng Kun-Yen [3,13]. The manufacturing sector along Suzhou Creek has experienced a rapid decline since the 1990s. Then, the area was subjected to a significant water-cleaning project and intense real estate development. After nearly 20 years of regeneration, the waterway is now clean and ready to reclaim its role as one of the city’s main attractions.
In this study, we adopted a sustainable perspective to examine the integration of waterfront regeneration and industrial heritage conservation at a local level with an empirical approach. The core questions addressed included the extent to which heritage sites could be made accessible to the general public. More specifically, how architectural design strategies could increase the public accessibility of the area considered by integrating heritage preservation with waterfront redevelopment. By advocating for a sharing-based framework, in this study, we established sustainable solutions for waterfront regeneration, emphasizing the integration of heritage preservation with contemporary development needs.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Urban Regeneration of Waterfront Industrial Heritage

Waterfront industrial heritage (WIH)3, occupying prime urban waterfront areas, plays a crucial role, as global cities increasingly repurpose these sites from industrial to public spaces, highlighting urban achievements [14,15,16,17]. There is extensive research focusing on the macro-level impact of urban policies on the transformation of industrial waterfronts [14,16,17,18,19,20], as well as micro-level studies on specific WIH regeneration projects [15,21]. However, the degree to which the regeneration of WIH successfully balances heritage conservation and urban development, ensuring broad public access and benefits, especially within the Chinese context, remains insufficiently explored.
The spatial attributes of WIH extend beyond the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings and shape the urban landscape, particularly providing publicly accessible spaces. Shaw noted that the four waves of urban industrial waterfront regeneration since the 1960s have not only optimized the use of urban space resources but have also emphasized the creation of high-quality urban areas that support daily public gatherings and cultural activities [18]. From the perspective of urban regeneration, successful waterfront regeneration positively affects the daily lives of citizens, bridging physical and psychological barriers to ensure public accessibility. It also increases connections between the urban hinterland and the waterfront, thereby giving new life to these areas [16,17]. Consequently, promoting publicly accessible, vibrant spaces within WIH is crucial to augmenting its public value and ensuring a dynamic urban core.

2.2. Urban Space Publicness Assessment Models Based on Geometric Visualization

In the recent literature, we identified seven geometric models to evaluate the publicness of urban spaces: (1) the Secured/Themed Space Model [22], (2) the Spaceshaper Model [23], (3) the Tri-Axial Model [24], (4) the Star Model [25], (5) the OMAI Model [26], (6) the PSI [27], and (7) the Six-Axial Model [28]. Despite their varied approaches, none of these models directly address the public accessibility assessment needs of WIH (Table 1). Specifically, these models fail to account for the dimensions of heritage or historical spaces. Most focus on evaluating outdoor open spaces, whereas this study encompasses both waterfront open spaces and waterfront industrial heritage buildings.
Although the Six-Axial Model is applicable to all gathering spaces (indoor or outdoor), it excludes spatial design factors, which is one of the key research objectives of this study—exploring the impact of architectural design on shareability. Both the PSI and the Star Model, with their detailed scoring rules and balanced dimension selection criteria, are considered comprehensive and objective methods for evaluating urban space quality. Due to the need for additional justification in converting dimension weights within the PSI, in this study, we referred to the technical framework of the Star Model to assess the shareability of waterfront industrial heritage. This approach ensured a robust and holistic evaluation, incorporating key aspects of heritage conservation and public space utilization.
Furthermore, while numerous studies have explored the vitality of waterfront public areas [29,30,31], it is important to differentiate between ‘vitality’ and ‘publicness’. Public spaces created through waterfront redevelopment, including waterfront open spaces, museums, galleries, and exhibition centers, although publicly owned, often present challenges regarding their accessibility and ease of public use.

2.3. ‘Sharing’ and ‘Sharing City’

Rather than delineating individual ownership, the concept of ‘sharing’ frames resources as collectively ours [32]. This aligns with the growing recognition that ‘heritage is a public value’ [33], suggesting that both tangible and intangible cultural resources should benefit the broader community. The emerging sharing economy introduces innovative strategies to balance economic growth and environmental sustainability, leveraging the social capabilities of information technology. ‘Sharing City’ extends this notion by merging profit-driven elements of the sharing economy with the altruistic sharing society through organic integration and mutual reinforcement. Research into urban space sharing, including the co-utilization of public and private spaces, such as co-working spaces, hacker spaces, co-labs, and co-housing, demonstrates this trend [34,35,36,37]. Comparative studies highlight the ‘Sharing City’ as a modern urban development model, distinct from ‘smart cities’, particularly regarding sustainability [38,39,40,41].
Researchers have recognized that the public nature of urban space is not merely a binary attribute of public versus private, but a complex intermix of both domains [24,28]. With the increasing involvement of the private sector in the funding of urban spaces, nuanced distributions of interests and power have emerged in the planning, design, and management of these areas [42]. Lynch’s pioneering ideas from the 1960s about separating ownership from usufruct in public space management suggest that privately owned spaces can be transformed for public use through strategic design and management [43]. ‘Sharing’ facilitates the orderly utilization of space by separating usufruct from ownership, thereby ensuring that spaces are used more equitably and efficiently, particularly in urban heritage conservation efforts.
In terms of urban space provision, ‘sharing’ occurs in two primary forms: (1) collective sharing driven by centralized authority, typically involving government-provided public spaces accessible without charge, and (2) the publicization of private spaces, which fosters interactive sharing through decentralized supply. However, the sharing rights for public spaces are not entirely autonomous. David Harvey highlighted that the public’s role transcends mere access to public spaces, encompassing the creation of new spaces for social and political engagement [44]. The evolution of information technology supports this dynamic, enabling various sharing models: the traditional ‘sharing for all’, the ‘sharing by transfer’, and the modern ‘sharing in group’, which is facilitated by the widespread use of personal mobile devices [45,46].
‘Sharing’ and ‘Sharing City’ provide insights into urban heritage conservation. The emerging ‘people-centered’ conservation philosophy and the idea of ‘evolving heritage values over time’ align with the principles of ‘sharing’ [47,48]. Urban heritage conservation is no longer confined to the physical and objective importance of heritage objects (as conservation professionals traditionally emphasize concepts such as integrity, authenticity, and historical value). Instead, the diverse cultural and social significance of heritage sites and their connection to the needs and values of community residents have become increasingly important [49,50]. The ultimate reason we engage in urban heritage conservation is to create a better sense of place and achieve greater public benefit [33,51,52].
The essence of ‘sharing’ as ‘collectively ours’ facilitates the integration of the demands of different stakeholders, including heritage community residents, street-level actors, and broader urban interests, during the conservation and repurposing processes. ‘Sharing’ encourages collaboration among different groups and disciplines in assessing contemporary social, cultural, and experiential values associated with built heritage, adapting to consistently dynamic shifts. This ultimately leads to the refinement and an increase in the public value of heritage sites.

3. Challenges and Trends: Suzhou Creek Industrial Heritage Regeneration

Shanghai is the first city in China to survey and preserve its industrial heritage [53]. Suzhou Creek4 was historically one of Shanghai’s most vital water routes, with rich cultural characteristics and waterfront landscape (Figure 2). Compared with the Huangpu River, which presents shipyards, port machinery plants, power stations, or large military factories gathered along its banks, Suzhou Creek is characterized by a high concentration of national industries. As Shanghai’s urban development has shifted from urban expansion to a model of urban densification and regeneration [9], waterfront transformation along Suzhou Creek is one of the most challenging projects in the city. According to the Shanghai 2035 plan, regeneration along Huangpu River should be ‘striving for a World-class Waterfront Area as a Global Template’, and Suzhou Creek should be ‘a typical demonstration area for livable life in megacities’. The plan includes the creation of a continuous open public space, the repurposing of industrial heritage, and the creation of new ecological connections in the daily lives of citizens.

3.1. Field Study Area

The field scope of the study included 19.2 km of the creek, from the intersection with the Huangpu River in the east to the Central Overpass in the west, with a one-block range on both sides of the bank5. In this study, we focused on industrial heritage built in 1840–1990s. A total of 65 heritage buildings were identified as field survey objects (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The selection criteria were based on the 84 industrial heritage sites listed in Gu’s master’s thesis about industrial heritage along Suzhou Creek in 2003 [54], combined with the five batches of Shanghai Heritage Architecture6, two batches of the Chinese Industrial Heritage List by the Urban Planning Society of China, latest National Industrial Heritage Lists by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China, and nearly 30 scan surveys along the river with multiple specific sites visits from 2017 to 2023.

3.2. WIH Regeneration Characteristics of Suzhou Creek

3.2.1. Urban Morphology and Architectural Typology Dictate Waterfront Space Scarcity

Suzhou Creek, averaging a width of 40–60 m, is considerably narrower than the Huangpu River’s 400 m. This narrower span fosters interactions between the two riverbanks but also creates constrained spaces between the river and riverside buildings. Its spatial features are characterized by a narrow river channel, confined bays, densely packed buildings, and closely set roads, highlighting the spatial constraints in the central urban areas of the megacity.
From the morphology and typology study, the industrial heritage buildings along Suzhou Creek were categorized into four types based on their architectural form, orientation in relation to the river, and surrounding urban streets:
  • Buildings with long facades parallel to the waterfront, exemplified by Sihang Warehouse, Bridge 8 Art Space, and Fuxin Flour No. 1 Factory.
  • Structures with gables perpendicular to the waterfront, such as the former Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, former Bank of China Warehouses, and South Suzhou Creek Industry Park.
  • Clustered campus-style layout, represented by M50 Creative Industry Park and China 1912 Creative Industry Park.
  • Scattered individual buildings typically preserved during factory demolitions, such as the old site of Shanghai Brewery and Fufeng Machinery Flour Factory (Figure 5).
Most of these industrial heritage sites are situated close to the river’s edge, constrained by roads and flood embankments. Although these sites occupy prime waterfront locations, the associated public spaces are notably limited.

3.2.2. Revitalization Shifts from Creative Parks to Commercial Complexes Increased the Quantity of Public Spaces

The industrial heritage sites on both banks of the creek, based on their original use, fall into six types: warehouse buildings, factory buildings, office buildings, residential buildings, municipal buildings, and commercial shop warehouses. Warehouses and factory buildings dominate, underscoring Suzhou Creek’s historical role in the development of modern industry. Since the 1990s, these sites have been repurposed into offices, creative industry parks, exhibition spaces, and commercial venues, with creative industry parks being particularly prominent (Table 2 and Table 3). More recently, the focus has shifted toward developing urban complexes that integrate industrial heritage regeneration.
The transformation of industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek into publicly accessible spaces illustrates a significant trend toward increasing public access. Initially spurred by architects, artists, and enterprises, including UNESCO-awarded No. 1305 South Suzhou Road Warehouse7, the expansion of accessible areas is still limited. In contrast, the adoption of urban complex models has effectively increased the quantity of public spaces. This approach, supported by significant financial investment in restoration, has led to a notable increase in accessible waterfront areas. For instance, the redevelopment of Suhe Bay Block 41, formerly Yihe Packaging Factory, into a multi-functional building has markedly increased the public space area, serving as a venue for exhibitions, work, and leisure activities, notably during the 2015 Shanghai Urban Space Art Season. This strategy has positioned waterfront industrial heritage as a key component of mixed-use districts, quantitatively increasing public space along Suzhou Creek.

3.2.3. Questionable Publicness of Regenerated Public Space

The public accessibility of industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek is significantly limited, which brings into question the efficacy of urban regeneration initiatives aimed at promoting public access. This concern highlights a broader tension in urban development strategies, where the preservation and repurposing of heritage sites often prioritize projecting a specific image over increasing public access. Of the 65 surveyed heritage sites, 30 are completely inaccessible to the public (with 9 sites under construction potentially offering access in the future), a total of 12 provide extensive access (8:00–22:00), such as Bridge 8 Art Space (formerly China Commercial Bank Warehouse), and the remaining 23 offer limited access, either by invitation or during restricted hours (9:00–17:30; Figure 6).
Two scenarios exemplify the restricted public accessibility of these spaces. First, venues such as the Suzhou Creek Exhibition Center (formerly Shanghai Brewery, built in 1937) and the Shanghai Mint Museum (formerly Central Mint Factory, built in 1930), although historical, have limited visiting hours, which restricts public engagement despite their public-oriented purposes. Both require advance group reservations with an introduction letter or other valid documentation, significantly limiting access for ordinary visitors.
Several factors contribute to these restrictions. As both venues offer free admission and lack ticket sales, their operation and management costs are high. Their locations within office complexes, such as the Mint Museum within the Shanghai Mint’s operational area, necessitate stringent security measures. Additionally, the managing entities—Shanghai Municipal Investment (Group) and the Shanghai Mint—are not specialized museum institutions and consider occasional public display sufficient. Thus, these sites, preserved and repurposed to showcase Suzhou Creek’s heritage, ironically restrict community interaction. Despite their potential as public resources, operational and logistical constraints significantly hinder their accessibility, undermining their public value.
Second, creative office parks and upscale urban mixed-use developments create additional barriers to accessibility. While these spaces are physically accessible, they are designed or managed in ways that implicitly prioritize high-spending individuals or specific professional groups. For example, Suhe Bay, despite its open-block design intended to foster public interaction, features areas where access is conditional or restricted, mainly catering to affluent or specialized demographics.
These scenarios illustrate that despite efforts to preserve and repurpose industrial heritage, operational and design choices can significantly restrict public access and engagement, ultimately limiting the public value of such spaces.

3.2.4. Urban Connectivity and Community Sharing Define New Directions in Industrial Heritage Revitalization

Recent revitalization efforts along Suzhou Creek reflect a significant shift toward integrating creative parks with community-sharing initiatives. This transformation, informed by an interview with the head of the Red Cube Group—one of the pioneers of Shanghai’s industrial heritage revitalization—is evident in the spatial reconfiguration of the internal building layout and the creation of open courtyards that seamlessly integrate with the urban fabric. Functionally, these spaces have evolved from purely cultural and creative hubs to embrace diverse community-engaging formats, marking a transition from isolated, enclosed campuses to vibrant areas designed for community interaction.
The Red Cube Group’s initiative, particularly at Red Cube 166—formerly Shanghai Experimental Instrumentation Factory, built in 1985—illustrates this change vividly. Significant structural alterations, such as the removal of the original factory gates and the demolition of adjacent building grounds, have allowed a series of open courtyards to be built. These new spaces are designed to increase everyday communication and host community events, effectively blending small-scale venues into the broader urban landscape.

4. Discussion

4.1. Why Is a Sharing-Based Approach Necessary for Heritage Conservation in the Waterfront Regeneration Process?

Heritage holds the potential to transform urban spaces into hubs for building collective lives, echoing Lefebvre’s idea of ‘the right to the city’ [55,56]. Shanghai’s waterfront, with its significant inventory of open spaces, is prized for its sensory and physical qualities, serving as a vital community gathering spot. Traditional conservation methods that treat architectural groups and historical areas as separate entities fail to protect the city’s overarching characteristics and do not address urban fragmentation or the decline in traditional communities. Therefore, increasing the public value of heritage is a critical focus in modern heritage conservation efforts [57,58].
While ‘public’ and ‘sharing’ are not synonymous, ‘sharing’ entails the extensive use of public resources, where the value lies in their utility for public use. Urban waterfronts, as limited and valuable public assets, embody not only the industrial past but also a significant portion of prime waterfront properties in the city. Maximizing the public value of waterfront heritage aligns with the collective goals of urban development and heritage conservation, especially as the notion of conservation becomes more widely endorsed.
As a strategy and a mindset, ‘sharing’ plays a crucial role in envisioning urban landscapes. Although the banks of Suzhou Creek have become more accessible, determining how to effectively share these spaces remains a pertinent issue. To foster widespread public interest in waterfront spaces, ‘sharing’ should be adopted as both a strategic goal and a practical approach in the regeneration of these heritage sites.

4.2. What Are the Possible Key Factors in Employing a Sharing-Based Approach to Increasing the Public Accessibility of Waterfront Regeneration Projects?

The concept of ‘sharing’ suggests that the regeneration of WIH involves more than just the restoration of individual buildings: it encompasses a broader scope of urban regeneration, with the government, market forces, and the public as active participants and practitioners [59]. Several factors contribute to this approach:
  • Diachrony. Heritage is dynamic and continually evolving. Understanding the temporal and scalar dimensions of heritage is crucial to involving a large group of locals and residents in the conservation process.
  • Permeability. This involves the appeal of spatial qualities, such as compact scales, pedestrian-friendly environments, and vibrant street life, coupled with the social right to access spaces. In the context of waterfront heritage, permeability includes adapting the urban form of waterfronts and the interface between buildings and urban spaces.
  • Time sharing. A long-standing strategy in urban regeneration, particularly in dense urban areas, time sharing increases site use flexibility, allowing for adaptations to seasonal and daily changes.
  • Diversity. Addressing diversity means considering the variety of space uses and the perceptions and behaviors of users, promoting environments that support both intended and spontaneous activities.
  • Everyday activities. Integrating everyday life into the heritage landscape bridges the gap between authorized heritage discourses and daily heritage practices [60], transforming waterfront areas into spaces for living, not just visiting.

4.3. How Can ‘Sharing’ as a Critical Framework Be Effectively Implemented in WIH Revitalization?

The effective implementation of the ‘sharing’ framework for revitalizing WIH includes objectives, design methods, evaluations, and stakeholder participation (Figure 7). This framework extends beyond advocating for the right to the city or spatial justice—it seeks to influence the entire process of physical space creation and transformation. By embedding these principles throughout the lifecycle of urban space development, the ‘sharing’ framework transitions from a theoretical concept to a practical mechanism for urban design and management. It establishes a robust platform for creating and managing urban spaces that reflect collective values and support communal well-being. This holistic approach underscores the importance of the ‘sharing’ framework in transforming urban space design and management practices to effectively meet the needs of all stakeholders.
Initially, ‘sharing’, as the objective of industrial heritage repurposing, includes three levels: ‘sharing for all’, ‘sharing by transfer’, and ‘sharing in group’. These three modes of ‘sharing’ reflect the application of the ‘sharing’ framework across different scales and for various groups.
Creating waterfront spaces accessible to all citizens is the overarching goal of regenerating WIH. The waterfront space along Suzhou Creek is a valuable public asset for the city and has potential as a rare public space resource within the city. ‘Sharing for all’ entails transforming the currently fragmented and limited-access waterfront into a living shoreline that is accessible for and shared by residents, communities, businesses, and the city, thus optimizing the use of existing resources. The One River One Creek plan provides substantial support for Suzhou Creek by offering a comprehensive vision for its development within the city. The regeneration of Suzhou Creek’s industrial heritage, based on the principle of ‘sharing for all’, can promote the accessibility of these heritage sites to all residents. Moreover, by encouraging innovative and localized design approaches, the unique characteristics of Suzhou Creek’s industrial sites can be explored and analyzed in depth, highlighting the past, present, and future of Suzhou Creek’s industrial civilization.
‘Sharing by transfer’ promotes the connection between the city’s hinterland and the waterfront. By dismantling large industrial buildings, eliminating park boundaries, and reconstructing idle urban spaces, the permeability between the riverside and the hinterland is strengthened. This integration allows the riverside space to become part of the urban network, creating an open and shared platform suitable for resident activities and avoiding its transformation into a one-time tourist destination. The adaptive reuse of Bridge 8 Art Space (formerly China Commercial Bank Warehouse) exemplifies this through its functionally layered layout, recessed ground floor interface, and staggered, full-time use.
‘Sharing in group’ refers to the participation of different social groups in the conservation and repurposing of industrial heritage. During the planning, design, and management phases, the spatial needs of various communities are considered. For instance, membership-based spaces for specific groups can achieve economic balance in renovation and utilization. The Fotografiska Art Center (formerly No. 2 Siahng Warehouses) is an example of this, with a bookstore open to everyone on the ground floor and photography exhibition spaces on the second and third floors requiring membership or ticket purchase for entry. This strategy extends to allocating areas for time-shared activities for various groups, thereby broadening the utility of heritage sites and supporting diverse design approaches.
Secondly, in terms of the urban design method, applying ‘sharing’ principles at the node–path–area levels profoundly impacts the revitalization of heritage space. Advances in mobile internet have greatly improved access to detailed information about heritage sites through digital platforms, reshaping our interaction with these environments. This transformation suggests two significant shifts:
(1)
Spatial integration. The boundaries between industrial sites and their urban environments are becoming increasingly blurred. This integration involves dismantling large, obstructive structures and seamlessly weaving urban life into these areas, which is crucial to repurposing industrial buildings. For waterfront projects, merging industrial heritage with both immediate surroundings and the broader cityscape is essential to increasing public utility and ensuring successful regeneration.
(2)
Narrative urban design. The influx of digital media, including images and social media updates, personalizes how we navigate urban spaces, diminishing the dependence on traditional physical landmarks. Instead, a digitally layered reality supplements physical navigation cues, heralding a new era of urban exploration.
As such, the design repurposing of waterfront industrial heritage along Suzhou Creek should prioritize strengthening the node–path–area framework (Figure 8). Nodes should serve as fundamental elements, paths should present linearly distributed nodes, and areas should connect nodes across a wide network. This approach to spatial organization fosters a cohesive network that optimizes expansive spaces for community engagement.
Thirdly, the concept of shareability serves as a framework to evaluate the public impact of WIH regeneration. Traditional methods for assessing public spaces do not seamlessly apply to WIH repurposing. However, adapting the Star Model approach [25] facilitates the development of a tailored evaluation model for shareability. This evaluation process involves several structured steps:
(1)
Define the shareability dimensions. Identify and define the key dimensions or influencing factors of shareability, such as diachronic aspects, permeability, time sharing, diversity, and everyday activities.
(2)
Establish evaluation standards. Create a comprehensive assessment system by developing sub-factors for each core dimension and applying a five-level scaling method to assess their impact.
(3)
Collect data. Systematically select WIH sites and collect relevant data to support the evaluation process.
(4)
Visualize and analyze the results. Develop a star-shaped model to visually represent the evaluation results and analyze the characteristics of each site (Figure 9).
The scope of the assessment was divided into two main categories: ongoing repurposing projects, which include buildings and spaces currently under adaptation, and sites in post-closure phases awaiting intervention. This duality allowed for a ‘post-assessment’ approach for ongoing projects to guide subsequent improvements, while providing essential insights for strategic planning in the areas of protection, design, and infrastructure for pending sites, ultimately aiming to increase the heritage value (Figure 10).
Fourthly, the ‘sharing’ framework significantly increases stakeholder engagement in the reconstruction of social spaces. The revitalization of M50 illustrates this with a dynamic coalition of artists, businesses, experts, and government entities collaborating to reshape preservation outcomes and narratives. Although initial efforts have shown promise, sustaining active engagement throughout all phases remains a challenge. While past efforts focused primarily on safeguarding physical structures, recent practices underscore the importance of integrating varied stakeholders in the repurposing process. This shift toward inclusivity is highlighted by initiatives that open heritage spaces to the community and encourage public interaction, exemplifying a move toward a more participatory urban heritage conservation model.
Public participation should provide a scientific basis for various technical steps in decision-making, incorporating a heritage management plan that is not based on ‘authorized’ access but is ‘public inclusive’ [61]. Projects such as Red Cube 166 and ‘Walking Along Suzhou Creek’8 exemplify this progressive approach. Red Cube 166′s design process included early discussions with property owners and active user engagement, transforming the site into a lively center for cultural and social activities. Similarly, ‘Walking Along Suzhou Creek’, promoted by ThePaper.cn, actively involved the public in re-envisioning urban heritage, blending online and offline interactions to re-imagine the use of urban space.
These initiatives underscore a shift toward an inclusive conservation model that prioritizes stakeholder collaboration and community involvement. This model aims not only to preserve physical structures but also to rejuvenate the social and cultural fabric of urban areas. Under the ‘sharing’ framework, at least five key stakeholders are involved in space transformation: authorities, corporations, markets, professionals, and users. Their influence and effectiveness in shaping spaces vary across different stages, from planning and design to operation and management. This approach increases the interaction between heritage conservation and contemporary urban life, ensuring that heritage spaces serve as vibrant, inclusive communities.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we explored the complex role of ‘sharing’ as a strategic framework for revitalizing waterfront industrial heritage, focusing particularly on Suzhou Creek in Shanghai. By analyzing objectives, design methods, evaluations, and stakeholder engagement, we highlighted the substantial potential and multifaceted nature of integrating industrial heritage into modern urban landscapes. This strategy increases public accessibility and urban connectivity, fostering the participation of diverse stakeholder and supporting broader sustainable urban regeneration goals.
China is demonstrating its intentions to promote the Sustainable Development Goals. The country’s strategies to create opportunities and address challenges for sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), as well as strategies of international cooperation for enhancing sustainable development capacities in developing countries (SDG 17), have significant spatial and socioeconomic impacts that extend beyond its borders, influencing regions such as the Global South. Ideally, more inclusive experiments will be performed and will transform Shanghai, the frontier city of China, into a world-leading lab for sustainable transition and innovation.
Unlike the ambitious Huangpu River project, which aims to showcase a ‘global excellent city’, the conservation and regeneration of industrial heritage along Suzhou Creek are more universal and representative. Over the past two decades, the industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek have undergone successful and unsuccessful transformations into various types of buildings, such as creative industry parks, museums, parts of urban complexes, or urban green landscapes. Under the new One River One Creek plan, Suzhou Creek’s industrial heritage is being endowed with unprecedented public value.
An increase in public value following the application of the ‘sharing’ framework is highly expected. The formulation of public value goals, strategies for urban planning and architectural repurposing, community engagement in planning and decision-making processes, and the evaluation and feedback mechanisms of ‘sharing’ all provide valuable insights for other cities in China and regions worldwide. The ‘sharing’ framework of the Suzhou Creek initiative exemplifies how integrating public value into urban heritage conservation can serve as a model for sustainable urban development.
However, our study had some limitations. The industrial heritage area along Suzhou Creek is still undergoing dynamic changes, and we were unable to engage with all the relevant stakeholders. Further, the unique socio-political and cultural context of Shanghai may not be directly applicable to other urban settings. The qualitative focus of our study also suggests the need for a more robust methodological approach that includes quantitative measures to assess the effectiveness of sharing-based strategies in terms of public accessibility and urban connectivity more definitively.
Future research should aim to create an evaluation model incorporating quantitative metrics adaptable to various urban environments. Advances in data technology could offer greater insights into the regeneration process of waterfront heritage sites, particularly how online interactions driven by mobile information technology shape the perception and use of physical spaces. This may also include generative design supported by artificial intelligence to increase public participation in space design and evaluation. Additionally, examining the role of policy and governance in promoting ‘sharing’ could offer valuable guidance to urban planners and policymakers in increasing the public value of urban heritage spaces.
Overall, this study’s findings enrich our understanding of ‘sharing’ in urban heritage regeneration and offer numerous research avenues for increasing the public accessibility and inclusivity of urban spaces. As cities evolve, balancing heritage conservation and urban development will require innovative approaches that prioritize public access, engagement, and sustainability, reflecting the core principles of the ‘sharing’ paradigm explored in our analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z. and Z.L.; formal analysis, Y.Z.; investigation, Y.Z.; resources, Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, Z.L.; supervision, Z.L.; funding acquisition, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51978468.

Data Availability Statement

Data are unavailable due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely acknowledge the interviewees, including the residents, planners, architects, developers, and governors, involved in the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1
The fully translated document, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan, can be accessed at: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0284_14th_Five_Year_Plan_EN.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2024).
2
The full document, China’s Progress Report on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2023), can be accessed at: http://en.cidca.gov.cn/sustainabledevelopment.html (accessed on 9 August 2024).
3
The definition of waterfront industrial heritage (WIH) in this study is based on the definition by the Nizhny Tagil Charter (The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage/July, 2003/TICCIH): ‘The remains on the waterfront areas (including related facilities, rivers, piers, bridges) of industrial culture which are of historical, technological, social, architectural or scientific value. These remains consist of buildings and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted, and used, transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to the industry such as housing, religious worship or education’.
4
Suzhou Creek, also known as Soochow Creek, Suzhou River, and Wusong River, originates from Lake Taihu and finally enters the Huangpu River to the east.
5
The farthest point from the bank is about 1450 m at the intersection of Jinshajiang Road and Daduhe Road, and the nearest point is about 40 m from the bank (No. 585, East Beijing Road).
6
Shanghai Heritage Architecture, also known as the List of Outstanding Historic Buildings of Shanghai, nominated by the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government starting from 1989.
7
No. 1305 South Suzhou Road Warehouse, renovated by architect Teng Kun-Yen as his own design studio, won the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Award for Cultural Heritage Conservation in 2004 and was the first industrial heritage conservation practice to receive an international award.
8
The project ‘Walking Along Suzhou Creek’ is part of The Paper’s ‘City Walk’ column for the year 2020. The project team, composed of writers, researchers, photographers, and recording volunteers, aimed to understand the history and current state of Suzhou Creek and its banks by walking along it.

References

  1. Rowe, P.G.; Kan, H.Y. Accommodation of China’s Industrial Heritage in Urban Conservation Practices. Urban Plan. Int. 2013, 28, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zheng, J. ‘Creative Industry Clusters’ and the ‘Entrepreneurial City’ of Shanghai. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 3561–3582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Niu, S.; Lau, S.S.Y.; Shen, Z.; Lau, S.S.Y. Sustainability Issues in the Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse: Rethinking Culture-Led Urban Regeneration through Chinese Case Studies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2018, 33, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Loures, L. Post-Industrial Landscapes as Drivers for Urban Redevelopment: Public versus Expert Perspectives towards the Benefits and Barriers of the Reuse of Post-Industrial Sites in Urban Areas. Habitat. Int. 2015, 45, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lu, N.; Liu, M.; Wang, R. Reproducing the Discourse on Industrial Heritage in China: Reflections on the Evolution of Values, Policies and Practices. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2020, 26, 498–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Grodach, C.; Foster, N.; Murdoch, J. Gentrification, Displacement and the Arts: Untangling the Relationship between Arts Industries and Place Change. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 807–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sun, M.; Chen, C. Renovation of Industrial Heritage Sites and Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Post-Industrial Shanghai. J. Urban Aff. 2021, 45, 729–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 2015. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3923923?v=pdf (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  9. Den Hartog, H. Shanghai’s Regenerated Industrial Waterfronts: Urban Lab for Sustainability Transitions? Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huang, Y.; Wei, L.; Liu, G.; Cui, W.; Xie, F.; Deng, X. “Inspiring” Policy Transfer: Analysis of Urban Renewal in Four First-Tier Chinese Cities. Land 2022, 12, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shanghai Municipal People’s Government. Notice of the Municipal Government on the Issuance of Urban Renewal Implementation Measures of Shanghai Municipality. Available online: https://www.shanghai.gov.cn/nw32868/20200821/0001-32868_42750.html (accessed on 28 July 2024).
  12. Shanghai Urban Planning and Natural Resource Administration. Bureau Striving for a World-Class Waterfront Area—Shanghai Huangpu River and Suzhou River Planning. Available online: https://ghzyj.sh.gov.cn/ghjh/20200820/8068daedd94846b29e22208a131d52fc.html (accessed on 7 October 2023).
  13. UNESCO. Asia Conserved: Lessons Learned from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation (2000–2004); Engelhardt, R.A., Ed.; UNESCO Bangkok: Bangkok, Thailand, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoyle, B. Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. Geogr. Rev. 2000, 90, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Spector, J.O. From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment. Master’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Krieger, A. The Unique Characteristics of Urban Waterfront Development. In Remaking the Urban Waterfront; The Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  17. Monclús, J. Waterfronts and Riverfronts. Recovery of Urban Waterfronts. In Urban Visions; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shaw, B. History at the Water’s Edge. In Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities; Marshall, R., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2001; pp. 160–172. [Google Scholar]
  19. Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities; Marshall, R. (Ed.) Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  20. Boland, P.; Bronte, J.; Muir, J. On the Waterfront: Neoliberal Urbanism and the Politics of Public Benefit. Cities 2017, 61, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, Y.; Zhong, X. ‘For the People’ Without ‘by the People’: People and Plans in Shanghai’s Waterfront Development. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2021, 45, 835–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. van Melik, R.; van Aalst, I.; van Weesep, J. Fear and Fantasy in the Public Domain: The Development of Secured and Themed Urban Space. J. Urban Des. 2007, 12, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. CABE Spaceshaper: A User’s Guide. Available online: https://zora-cep.ch/cmsfiles/spaceshaper-a-users-guide_1.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  24. Németh, J.; Schmidt, S. The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and Measuring Publicness. Environ. Plann B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Varna, G.; Tiesdell, S. Assessing the Publicness of Public Space: The Star Model of Publicness. J. Urban Des. 2010, 15, 575–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Langstraat, F.; van Melik, R. Challenging the ‘End of Public Space’: A Comparative Analysis of Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces. J. Urban Des. 2013, 18, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mehta, V. Evaluating Public Space. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 53–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mantey, D. The ‘Publicness’ of Suburban Gathering Places: The Example of Podkowa Leśna (Warsaw Urban Region, Poland). Cities 2017, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, S.; Lai, S.-Q.; Liu, C.; Jiang, L. What Influenced the Vitality of the Waterfront Open Space? A Case Study of Huangpu River in Shanghai, China. Cities 2021, 114, 103197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Niu, Y.; Mi, X.; Wang, Z. Vitality Evaluation of the Waterfront Space in the Ancient City of Suzhou. Front. Archit. Res. 2021, 10, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Chen, T.; Xu, Q. Assessing a Riverfront Rehabilitation Project Using the Comprehensive Index of Public Accessibility. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 40, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Belk, R. Why Not Share Rather than Own? Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2007, 611, 126–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wagenaar, P.; Rodenberg, J.; Rutgers, M. The Crowding out of Social Values: On the Reasons Why Social Values so Consistently Lose out to Other Values in Heritage Management. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2023, 29, 759–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chan, J.K.H.; Zhang, Y. Sharing Space: Urban Sharing, Sharing a Living Space, and Shared Social Spaces. Space Cult. 2021, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zukin, S. Planetary Silicon Valley: Deconstructing New York’s Innovation Complex. Urban Stud. J. Ltd. 2020, 58, 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Avdikos, V.; Pettas, D. The New Topologies of Collaborative Workspace Assemblages between the Market and the Commons. Geoforum 2021, 121, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nelson, A. Shared Living on a Shared Planet; Pluto Press: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 9781786801883. [Google Scholar]
  38. Khan, S.; Zaman, A.U. Future Cities: Conceptualizing the Future Based on a Critical Examination of Existing Notions of Cities. Cities 2018, 72, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mclaren, D.; Agyeman, J. Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0262029728. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sánchez Vergara, J.I.; Papaoikonomou, E.; Ginieis, M. Exploring the Strategic Communication of the Sharing City Project through Frame Analysis: The Case of Barcelona Sharing City. Cities 2021, 110, 103082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zvolska, L.; Lehner, M.; Voytenko Palgan, Y.; Mont, O.; Plepys, A. Urban Sharing in Smart Cities: The Cases of Berlin and London. Local. Environ. 2019, 24, 628–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carmona, M. Re-Theorising Contemporary Public Space: A New Narrative and a New Normative. J. Urban Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2015, 8, 373–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lynch, K.; Banerjee, T.; Southworth, M. City Sense and City Design: Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; ISBN 9780262121439. [Google Scholar]
  44. Harvey, D. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution; Verso: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, Z.; Zhu, Y. Towards a Sharing Architecture. Archit. J. 2017, 591, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhu, Y.; Li, Z.; Song, J. Researching and Mapping on Waterfront Industrial Heritage: The Urban Morphology Study of Suzhou Creek, Shanghai. In Proceedings of the Cities as Assemblages: Proceedings of the XXVI International Seminar on Urban Form 2019, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2–6 July 2019; Geddes, I., Charalambou, N., Camiz, A., Eds.; tab edizioni: Roma, Italy, 2022; pp. 535–542. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wells, J.C. Making a Case for Historic Place Conservation Based on People’s Values. Forum J. 2015, 29, 44–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stiefel, B.L. Rethinking and Revaluating UNESCO World Heritage Sites. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 8, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wells, J.C. Valuing Historic Places: Traditional and Contemporary Approaches. In Proceedings of the Preservation and Rehabilitation of Iraqi City Centers, Baghdad, Iraq, 22–27 March 2010. [Google Scholar]
  50. Human-Centered Built Environment Heritage Preservation; Wells, J.C.; Stiefel, B.L. (Eds.) Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 9780429506352. [Google Scholar]
  51. Heritage Conservation and Social Engagement; Peters, R.F.; Pancaldo, S.; Johnson, J.S.; Boer, I.L.F. (Eds.) UCL Press: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 9781787359222. [Google Scholar]
  52. Clark, K. Capturing the Public Value of Heritage-Proceeding of the London Conference 25–26 January 2006; English Heritage: Swindon, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhang, S. Conservation and Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage in Shanghai. Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2007, 1, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gu, C. Conservation and Reuse of Shanghai Industrial Heritage: Suzhou Creek as Example. Unpublished Thesis, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhu, Y. Heritage, Values and Gentrification: The Redevelopment of Historic Areas in China. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2022, 28, 476–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lefebure, H.; Nicholson-Smith, D. (Translated by) The Production of Space; Basil Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; ISBN 978-0-631-18177-4. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ginzarly, M.; Houbart, C.; Teller, J. The Historic Urban Landscape Approach to Urban Management: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2019, 25, 999–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. UNESCO. The UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban. Landscape: Report. of the Second. Consultation on Its Implementation by Member States, 2019; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhu, Y. Sharing Waterfront: Suzhou Creek Industrial Heritage Narrative, 1st ed.; Tongji University Press: Shanghai, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  60. González Martínez, P. Built Heritage Conservation and Contemporary Urban Development: The Contribution of Architectural Practice to the Challenges of Modernisation. Built Herit. 2017, 1, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, J.; Pan, J.; Dou, Q.; Fu, F.; Shi, Y. Digital Footprint as a Public Participatory Tool: Identifying and Assessing Industrial Heritage Landscape through User-Generated Content on Social Media. Land 2024, 13, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 13 01280 g001
Figure 1. Planning area of the One River One Creek Masterplan of Shanghai 2035. Source: edited by the authors based on the Shanghai 2035 plan.
Figure 1. Planning area of the One River One Creek Masterplan of Shanghai 2035. Source: edited by the authors based on the Shanghai 2035 plan.
Land 13 01280 g001
Land 13 01280 g002
Figure 2. Images of Suzhou Creek in the past and now. Source: the left image, representing Suzhou Creek in the 1940s, was taken from Pengpai News, while the image on the right was taken by the authors in 2023.
Figure 2. Images of Suzhou Creek in the past and now. Source: the left image, representing Suzhou Creek in the 1940s, was taken from Pengpai News, while the image on the right was taken by the authors in 2023.
Land 13 01280 g002
Land 13 01280 g003
Figure 3. Field study area and locations of industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.
Figure 3. Field study area and locations of industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g003
Land 13 01280 g004
Figure 4. The 65 industrial heritage sites of this case study. Source: Authors.
Figure 4. The 65 industrial heritage sites of this case study. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g004
Land 13 01280 g005
Figure 5. The urban morphology and architectural typology analysis of the WIH buildings along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.
Figure 5. The urban morphology and architectural typology analysis of the WIH buildings along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g005
Land 13 01280 g006
Figure 6. The accessibility of the 65 industrial heritage sites of this case study. Source: Authors.
Figure 6. The accessibility of the 65 industrial heritage sites of this case study. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g006
Land 13 01280 g007
Figure 7. ‘Sharing’ framework for WIH revitalization. Source: Authors.
Figure 7. ‘Sharing’ framework for WIH revitalization. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g007
Land 13 01280 g008
Figure 8. Node–path–area spatial relationships of WIH sites along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.
Figure 8. Node–path–area spatial relationships of WIH sites along Suzhou Creek. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g008
Land 13 01280 g009
Figure 9. The Star Model for WIH shareability evaluation. Source: Authors.
Figure 9. The Star Model for WIH shareability evaluation. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g009
Land 13 01280 g010
Figure 10. Application of the ‘sharing’ module in design and planning management. Source: Authors.
Figure 10. Application of the ‘sharing’ module in design and planning management. Source: Authors.
Land 13 01280 g010
Table 1. Seven geometric assessment models for public spaces.
Table 1. Seven geometric assessment models for public spaces.
ModelGeometric Diagram *DimensionsDescriptionInsights/Limits
Secured/Themed Space ModelLand 13 01280 i001Secured public space:
1. Surveillance
2. Restraints on loitering
3. Regulation
Themed public space:
4. Events
5. Fun shopping
6. Pavement café		Three levels: low, medium, and high.
Six-axis cobweb diagram.		It addresses the over-monitoring and Disneyfication of urban public spaces. It does not measure public value directly, but the proposed geometric method is inspiring.
Spaceshaper ModelLand 13 01280 i0021. Access
2. Use
3. Other people
4. Maintenance
5. Environment
6. Design and appearance
7. Community
8. You		Workshop-based toolkit. “Spider” diagram to illustrate results of questionnaires during workshops.Good to manage community participation but too subjective to be used for making decisions.
Tri-Axial ModelLand 13 01280 i0031. Ownership
2. Management
3. Uses and users
Scoring rules based on five levels (−2, −1, 0, 1, and 2) with 20 sub-variables for the management sector.		Each public space has three plots, which form the space’s shape when joined.Used to assess public spaces that involve private investment. Does not take design, planning, or development processes into consideration.
Star ModelLand 13 01280 i0041. Ownership
2. Control
3. Civility
4. Animation
5. Physical configuration		The more ‘public’ the place in a particular dimension, the bigger the limb.The overall evaluation of spatial quality and the degree of bias in different vectors can be obtained relatively quickly. No weighting designs.
OMAI ModelLand 13 01280 i005Ownership
Management
Accessibility
Inclusiveness		Focus on pseudo-public space, with four dimensions in one model with four discrete scales.More focused on access and inclusion—not used for design/planning discussions.
Public Space IndexLand 13 01280 i006Five dimensions based on social ability:
1. Inclusiveness
2. Meaningful activities
3. Comfort
4. Safety
5. Pleasurability		Each dimension has 30 points but is converted into a PSI score of 100 with a weighting-optimized design.It can achieve a relatively comprehensive and objective evaluation of urban spatial quality. It is complicated to apply the weight conversion design to different situations.
Six-Axial ModelLand 13 01280 i0071. Diversity of activities
2. Diversity of users
3. Type of management
4. Freedom of access, use, and behavior
5. Financial barriers
6. Spatial barriers		Each dimension is scored on a four-level scale.It proposes the assessment of publicness of all gathering places, including indoor spaces. Not used for design/planning discussions.
* The diagrams in the table were redrawn by the authors based on [20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
Table 2. A list of the original functions of the industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek.
Table 2. A list of the original functions of the industrial heritage sites along Suzhou Creek.
Original FunctionNumber of CasesPercentage
Warehouse2436.9%
Factory1726.1%
Office913.8%
Residential building11.6%
Municipal building11.6%
Commercial shop warehouse34.6%
Composite function *1015.4%
* Some of the industrial remains presented as parks had multiple functions (factories, warehouses, offices, etc.) and are, therefore, included in the list under the column of composite functions.
Table 3. A list of the new functions of the industrial heritage sites above.
Table 3. A list of the new functions of the industrial heritage sites above.
New FunctionNumber of CasesPercentage
Exhibition812.3%
Creative industry park1827.7%
Commercial building69.2%
Office1218.5%
Multi-function *1116.9%
Other (vacant or under regeneration)1015.4%
* Office plus commercial or office plus school.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhu, Y.; Li, Z. ‘Sharing’ as a Critical Framework for Waterfront Heritage Regeneration: A Case Study of Suzhou Creek, Shanghai. Land 2024, 13, 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081280

AMA Style

Zhu Y, Li Z. ‘Sharing’ as a Critical Framework for Waterfront Heritage Regeneration: A Case Study of Suzhou Creek, Shanghai. Land. 2024; 13(8):1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Yichen, and Zhenyu Li. 2024. "‘Sharing’ as a Critical Framework for Waterfront Heritage Regeneration: A Case Study of Suzhou Creek, Shanghai" Land 13, no. 8: 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081280

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop