Chinese Urbanism in Global Context PLAN A6526 Columbia University Prof. Weiping Wu Migration and Urbanization

Main topics Migration: push and pull factors China’s migration trends Migrants in cities Implications for planners How are Chinese migrants compared to others?

Migration as key driver Unprecedented magnitude >200 million – primarily from rural-urban Primarily short-distance migration 70 percent within province Coastal region as key destination Much inter-provincial migration originates from central and western regions Circular or seasonal migration Primarily aged 15-34, males outnumber females, and family migration about a third

Migration volume & directions 2005-2010 (Source: Chan 2012) 1995-2000 (Source: Fan 2005)

Background for China’s migration New developmental state Willingness to break with previous policy of strict control Demand of urban economy Low-cost rural labor Compete strongly in global economy Exclusionary practice Urban bias, through hukou system Low political place of labor

Two cities at a glance 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Beijing Migrant population (million) 0.54 1.81 2.56 3.57 7.05 Total population (million) 10.86 12.51 13.64 15.38 19.62 % migrant population 5.0 14.5 18.8 23.2 35.9 Growth rate of migrants (%) 235.2 41.4 39.5 97.5 Growth rate of total pop (%) 15.2 9.0 12.8 27.6 Shanghai 1.06 2.51 3.06 5.40 8.98 13.34 14.14 16.41 18.81 23.02 7.9 17.8 18.6 28.7 39.0 136.8 21.9 76.5 66.3 6.0 16.1 14.6 22.4

Right to the city – contrasts Institutional barriers Two kinds of citizenship – urban and rural Limited access to social housing – link between hukou and social benefits Local control on migrant permanent residency Self-help housing hardly an option – public land ownership and effective government eradication of large informal settlements

Migrant housing and settlement

Beijing Shanghai

Housing ownership & conditions Migrants (nonlocal) Locals % Ownership Per capita m2 2005 Urban hukou 51.9 25.3 75.2 25.8 [N] [14618] [55784] Rural hukou 8.7 11.5 96.6 43.7 [21407] [16212] All 26.3 17.1 80.0 29.8 1999/2000 1.9 9.5 30.6 [363] [386] 0.4 7.5 87.6 33.5 [2357] [129] 0.6 7.8 44.9 21.2

Implications for planners Migrants are Largely rural-urban Circulate and ‘temporary’ Remain tied to rural origins Subject to global economic swings What do these characteristics mean for planners?

Housing conditions Low cost and proximity to work are higher priorities than physical quality and space Housing is temporary, overcrowded, with few facilities, and with poor environmental conditions

Drifting in the city Migrants continue to be on the move in city Substantially higher mobility rates than locals Experience more residential instability Mobility rates change steadily by duration of residence – as migrants stay longer in city, their average annual mobility rates decline significantly

Drifting in the city

Getting stuck Most migrants trapped in two housing types in spite of high mobility rates Renting private housing Living in dorm or workshed. Few rural migrants make transition from renters to owners after years in city Local controls on migrant settlement Spatial mobility is confined to small geographic areas

Spatial distribution Between 2000 and 2010, many neighborhoods became dominated by migrants, especially outside central city

Transportation

Impact of global swings Source: Chan, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/video/business/100000004151360/in-china-a-reverse-migration.html

Compare to undocumented? Large gap in income, cultural values, and living standards exists between areas of origin and destination Restrictions preventing migrant permanent settlement in destinations, from labor market discrimination to hukou system Common experience of exclusion shapes their housing choices, mobility patterns, and living arrangements in similar ways

Finding a place to stay in U.S. In initial sojourning stage, search for accommodations simplified by living in housing provided by their employers Housing mainly as places to sleep and prepare for next day’s labor, with strong preferences for: Flexible rental arrangements Choosing places where transience is common and accepted behavior

Finding a place to stay in U.S. Few options suiting needs and preferences of undocumented exist in formal housing market Limited supply of housing, combined with high and rising demand, created a situation of high rents and low quality Newcomer’s rely on social capital to locate housing and tend to concentrate in certain areas and neighborhoods

Commonalities Chinese migrants share with undocumented similar set of housing needs and preferences: Low cost and proximity to work higher priorities Physical quality and space less important As is the case for undocumented: Satellite or “daughter” communities of migrants from single village develop in destination cities. Social networks that sustain migration flows also lead to spatial concentration

Commonalities Absence of formal housing market available to migrants requires: Development of an informal housing market to fill gap left by state’s lack of involvement Extensive use of social network in informal market

Exceptions One relates to legal status of children and family’s right to certain social benefits All children of undocumented are entitled to such universal resources like public elementary and secondary education Recent shift in U.S. policy towards stricter exclusionary rules aimed at immigrants; exclusion of Chinese migrants from state- sponsored housing far longer history