1 Introduction
1.1 The context of global urban development transformation
Cities around the world are undergoing a deep structural shift. According to World Bank data, cities host over 75% of global economic activities and contribute more than 80% of global gross domestic product (GDP), so the ability to manage this transition well has become a vital matter for global sustainability [
1]. As reported in the United Nations
World Urbanization Prospects 2025, urbanization rates in developed economies have generally exceeded 80%; cities are home to 45% of the global population of 8.2 billion, more than double the share in 1950, and by 2050 nearly 68% [
2] of the global population is expected to reside in urban areas [
3]. However, extensive outward urban expansion is unsustainable due to constraints of land availability and ecological carrying capacity. As a result, the focus of urban development is shifting toward the holistic renaissance of existing urban spaces. Through gradual retrofitting and fine-grained revitalization, efforts are concentrated on functional replacement and adaptive reuse of old industrial zones, declining neighborhoods, and historic districts, while balancing spatial quality improvement, industrial upgrading, and cultural heritage preservation, thereby steering cities toward quality-driven development.
Meanwhile, as the global climate crisis worsens, ecological constraints are becoming increasingly stringent. According to UN-Habitat data, cities consume 78% of the world’s energy and account for more than 60% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, low-carbon transition and resilience-building have become necessary for urban development. In parallel, as social governance evolves, many cities face varying degrees of spatial segregation and wealth disparity. Unequal access to public services and other social equity issues are becoming more prominent, making spatial justice, inclusiveness and sharing the core principles of urban governance.
The new wave of technological revolution, led by artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and the Internet of Things (IoT), is profoundly reshaping high-quality urban development—impacting its drivers of growth, spatial logic, governance systems, and labor market structure. In terms of growth drivers, cities are moving toward high-end, smart, and green industrial structures, driven by data and technology. The digital economy and smart industries are becoming new engines of growth. Spatially, smart infrastructure, digital twin cities, and low-carbon technologies are breaking down physical boundaries, redefining the jobs-housing relationship, transport systems, and public service distribution, making urban functions more integrated and intensive. On the governance front, technology is shifting governance from experience-based and broad-brush approaches to intelligent, precision models, while raising higher demands for data security, privacy protection, and platform regulation. In terms of employment, the labor market is seeing fewer low-end jobs in traditional manufacturing and services, and more technical and innovation-driven roles.
Driven by a confluence of factors (e.g., the changing patterns of urban spatial development, ecological and social governance considerations, and rapid advances in new technologies), the core logic, governance pathways and value orientation of urban development are undergoing a fundamental transformation. This shift is characterized by a move from a sole focus on physical spatial redevelopment towards a holistic renaissance integrating economic, social, ecological, cultural and technological dimensions, and from a narrow focus on growth efficiency towards people-centered, inclusive and sustainable development that gives due weight to social equity. This can help propel urban governance into a new phase marked by higher quality and greater resilience.
1.2 Practical imperatives for localized implementation in China
As global cities undergo a transformation focused on high-quality redevelopment of built-up urban areas, pursuing green and inclusive growth, and advancing a holistic renaissance, China’s urbanization process has also entered its middle and late stages. The gradual promotion of localized implementation of urban renewal and urban renaissance is not only an inevitable choice for aligning with global trends in urban governance, but also, more importantly, a practical necessity that responds to China’s national conditions, addresses the pain points of urban development, and achieves high-quality development.
In terms of urbanization stages, China’s urbanization rate (measured by permanent population living in cities) reached 67.89% by the end of 2025. This means 950 million Chinese live in cities. According to the 2020 survey and census data from the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, there were approximately 220,000 urban old residential communities built before 2000 nationwide, affecting nearly 39 million households [
5]. From 2019 to the end of 2024, a total of nearly 280,000 old communities had been renovated, benefiting 48 million households and over 120 million residents. A total of 360,000 km of aging pipelines were upgraded, and 3.87 million parking spaces were added [
6]. Nevertheless, many underperforming industrial zones, old neighborhoods, and underutilized spaces still await revitalization. This calls for a localized urban renaissance to address the challenge of high-quality redevelopment of built-up urban areas.
In terms of social welfare, about 32% of urban households in China live in old residential buildings built before 2000 [
7]. Many of these communities lack adequate facilities, have aging infrastructure, and offer a poor quality of life. Meanwhile, problems such as spatial divides and unequal access to public services have become increasingly evident. Data show that the number of people aged 60 and above has exceeded 300 million, and those in flexible employment have surpassed 200 million (as of 2025) [
8]. This fact calls for urgent attention to their housing rights and service needs. Therefore, urban renaissance must put people-centered principles into practice by expanding inclusive services, improving the habitability of living environments, and fostering community building.
From the perspective of ecological sustainability, according to the
2024 Research Report on Carbon Emissions in China’s Urban and Rural Construction Sector (2024 Edition), in 2022, energy consumption from building construction and the construction industry accounted for 44.8% of the country’s total energy use, while carbon emissions from the same sources reached 5.13 Gt CO
2, representing 48.3% of national energy-related carbon emissions [
9]. This places significant pressure on cities to reduce their emissions. At the same time, insufficient green space in built-up urban areas and frequent waterlogging remain common challenges. More than 30% of cities nationwide still fail to meet the standards for sponge city construction. Urban renaissance must therefore be closely aligned with the goals of carbon peak and carbon neutrality, promoting green and low-carbon retrofitting, ecological restoration and resilience building, in response to requirements on global climate governance and domestic ecological protection.
Moreover, China’s urban development levels vary greatly. Seven megacities (with a permanent urban population of 10 million or more) and 15 super-large cities (with a permanent urban population of between 5 million and 10 million) together account for 22% of the country’s urban permanent population and 35% of its GDP (2024) [
10]. In contrast, small and medium-sized cities (2554 in total), along with 120 old industrial cities and 69 resource-depleted cities, are generally struggling with industrial decline, population loss, and spatial decay. Given this fact, urban renaissance must be adapted to local conditions and pursued through differentiated approaches that match the specific conditions of each city. The ultimate goal is to achieve a localized transformation from physical renovation to comprehensive renaissance, and from efficiency-first to inclusive development.
1.3 Urban renaissance as a core issue in driving high-quality urban transformation
The theory of urban renaissance in China was first introduced in 2002. It represented an accurate prediction of the inevitable trends in urban development at the time and remains highly consistent with the core priorities of urban development today and in the future, thus demonstrating notable theoretical foresight and practical relevance. Urban renaissance serves as an effective approach to revitalizing underutilized urban spaces. It integrates and renovates urban districts and industrial areas with inefficient land use, unlocks the potential of built-up areas, optimizes urban functional layouts and industrial structures, and improves social structures. In doing so, it ultimately delivers high-quality, connotative urban development. To this end, a long-term perspective should be taken to create an urban-rural development model that combines urban renaissance, characterized by the renovation of built-up areas and structural adjustments in new growth areas, with rural revitalization. Moreover, urban renaissance strategies should focus on spatial upgrading, cultural guidance, economic transformation, social integration and innovation-driven development. By pooling social efforts, such strategies can advance the sustainable development of new urbanization in a scientific manner.
2 Theoretical Basis of Urban Renaissance: Tracing the Intellectual Origins within the Lineage of Classical Planning Theory
The evolution of classical urban planning theories in the East and West has been a process of continuous critique, reflection, and integration—shifting from “shaping form” to “a people-centered approach”, from “grand narratives” to “micro-processes”, and from “technical rationality” to “social values”. Urban planning theory is a vast and ever-evolving system that has had a profound impact on urban forms and development worldwide.
The
Athens Charter, a landmark modernist planning document issued in 1933 by the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM), called for a strict division of cities into four functional zones: living, working, recreation, and transportation. It aimed to solve the problems of industrial cities through technical and rational means, promoting high-rise buildings and motor vehicle transport [
11]. In practice, however, this rigid approach to zoning often undermined urban vitality and fragmented social structures.
In contrast, the earlier Theory of Organic Decentralization, put forward by Saarinen in 1918, saw the city as a living organism. It called for the organized dispersal of overcrowded functions from the city center to semi-independent satellite towns on the periphery, while preserving organic connections between them. The aim was to ease pressure on the city center while maintaining regional integrity. This theory laid the groundwork for the later emergence of polycentric urban regions [
12].
The Charter of Machu Picchu, adopted in 1977, represents a deep rethinking and critique of the Athens Charter. It rejected rigid functional zoning, stressed the need to address people’s holistic needs and social relationships in urban planning, and called for the creation of integrated, multifunctional environments. It also emphasized respect for cultural heritage and local context, and encouraged public participation. In doing so, it helped steer planning away from a narrow focus on physical form toward humanism and social values. This shift was part of a broader postmodern movement in planning theory and had been reshaping the planning field since the 1970s. The core values of this movement—people, society, and culture—have since laid the people-centred foundation for urban renaissance.
Postmodernism rejected the sweeping, top-down blueprints of modernism. Instead, it embraced pluralism, diversity, and local character, valued historical symbols and meaning, and saw planning as a social process where different interest groups come together and negotiate to reach consensus. At its heart were inclusion and dialogue [
13]. This helped pave the way for the urban renaissance to shift from a government-led model to one of multi-stakeholder governance.
New Urbanism emerged in the late 1980s as a design movement that put these humanist and postmodern ideas into practice. It aimed to fix the problems left by modernist planning by returning to traditional neighborhood patterns. Its key principles include transit-oriented development (TOD), small blocks, mixed uses, and walkability—all meant to rebuild a sense of community [
14] through more people-friendly physical spaces. Today, New Urbanism remains one of the most influential approaches in contemporary urban design and renewal. It shows how theory can be turned into practice in urban renaissance, helping to close the gap between the two.
Meanwhile, UN-Habitat’s Habitat I conference in Vancouver (1976) first elevated human settlement issues to the international political agenda [
15]; Habitat Ⅱ in Istanbul (1996) formally established the nexus between housing rights and sustainable development goals [
16]; and Habitat Ⅲ in Quito (2016) further evolved into an inclusive urban development paradigm, emphasizing sustainable urbanization, resilient cities, and multi-stakeholder collaborative governance [
17], thereby providing a global policy coordinate for the advancement of indigenous theories.
The 1987 report
Our Common Future formally introduced the concept of sustainable development [
18], followed by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, and the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which further embedded the three pillars of economy, society, and environment into the core framework of urban development [
19]. Since 2002, successive sessions of the World Urban Forum have collectively driven the evolution of urban development thinking—from a narrow focus on physical spatial renewal toward a holistic renaissance that integrates economic, social, cultural, ecological, and governance dimensions. This process has provided crucial intellectual foundations and policy references for the formation and localized development of Urban Renaissance Theory in China. At the turn of the 21st century, the “urban-rural integration” theory, centered on dismantling the urban-rural dual structure and advocating two-way factor flows and balanced development, offered a localized and innovative direction for China’s urban renaissance, distinguishing it from the Western “gentrification” pathway.
Beginning in the 1980s, indigenous theories represented by “human settlements science” (HSS) emerged, grounded in a holistic understanding of human settlement environments and emphasizing the co-evolution of natural, social, and human systems. This approach compensated for the limitations of Western theories that overemphasized physical spatial transformation. In 1999, the Beijing Charter propelled a paradigm shift in Chinese planning thought—from individual buildings and physical spatial construction toward holistic governance of the human living environment, advocating an integrative view of human settlements and interdisciplinary convergence. Since then, human settlements science has progressively developed into a transdisciplinary knowledge system that bridges architecture, urban and rural planning, geography, ecology, environmental science, data science, artificial intelligence, social sciences, and art and design. In the new era, addressing complex real-world challenges such as territorial spatial planning, urban lifeline systems, rural revitalization, green and low-carbon development, population health, and cultural heritage conservation, human settlements science has increasingly facilitated the integration of natural sciences, engineering and technology, humanities and social sciences, and design arts within spatial systems. This has formed an exceptionally broad and cross-cutting disciplinary perspective. As a vital component of the human settlements’ science theoretical framework, Urban Renaissance Theory further focuses on compound challenges in the contemporary context—including industrial decline, physical obsolescence, cultural discontinuity, waning social vitality, ecological pressures, and technological disruptions. It serves as a key theoretical and practical vehicle through which the disciplinary system moves from comprehensive theory to urban complexity scenarios, and from interdisciplinary integration to practical implementation.
From the functional zoning dominated by technical rationality in the Athens Charter, to the emphasis on cultural heritage and public participation under the human-centered shift of the Charter of Machu Picchu, and on to the practical implementation of New Urbanism spurred by postmodernist ideas of pluralistic co-governance—while Western theories emphasize “humanism” and “community building”, China’s indigenous theories place greater emphasis on value orientations such as integrated urban-rural development, ecological civilization, and common prosperity, reflecting distinct characteristics of localized innovation. Each iteration of classical planning theory represents a response to the challenges of urban development. The concepts and practices of urban renaissance have gradually taken shape and evolved through the critique, reflection, and integration of these classical theories.
3 Conceptual Evolution of Urban Renaissance: Iteration and Distinction in an International Context
The term “Renaissance” originally refers to the cultural movement that swept across Italy between the 14th and 16th centuries. The word is composed of the prefix “re-” (again) and “naissance” (birth), derived from the Latin “nasci” (to be born). Urban renaissance theory borrows this evocative term to emphasize the revival and flourishing of cities through cultural, social, and economic efforts. Now that more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, the importance of urban renaissance has come to be seen as on a par with that of the original Renaissance. Thus, urban renaissance has been articulated through a variety of concepts in different historical periods, each with its own emphasis and application context (Table 1).
The concept of “Urban reconstruction” dates from the post-war period (1945–1960s). It involved rebuilding housing and infrastructure damaged by the war, with large-scale efforts seen in cities like London and Berlin.
The idea of “Urban Renewal” was most common between the 1950s and the 1970s. The term was officially used in the U.S. Housing Act of 1949 and often regarded as the starting point of urban renewal policy. In August 1958, the first research conference on urban renewal was held in The Hague, the Netherlands. To address the hollowing out of cities caused by suburbanization, many countries focused on reviving inner cities through redevelopment of old districts, building infrastructure, and restoring housing, as typified by the large-scale slum clearance movements in Europe and the United States.
The term “Urban Redevelopment” was used widely in the 1980s in response to the growing need for land reuse, giving rise to market-driven, property-led urban renaissance strategies. This approach involves building commercial, residential, or mixed-use projects on land that has already been developed, so as to meet new social and economic needs. Such projects are typically carried out in partnership between the government and private developers. A notable example is Canary Wharf in London.
The idea of “Urban Revitalization” primarily emerged in the 1980s and 1990s in response to urban decline, aging spaces, and social inequality. It champions community participation and social equity, with a focus on restoring, improving and revitalizing the economic vitality and social functions of urban areas. The concept embodies urban diversity and inclusiveness, encouraging residents to take an active role in repairing local social structures. By leveraging social participation, cultural creativity and urban tourism, it seeks to stimulate local economic recovery, lure back residents and businesses, and boost regional development. A prime example is the SoHo district in New York City.
The theory of Organic Renewal, pioneered by Academician Wu Liangyong in 1984, represents a significant theoretical contribution by Chinese scholars to the global knowledge system of urban regeneration. Breaking through the Western dichotomous thinking that pits “conservation” against “development”, this theory proceeds from the intrinsic order of the urban organism, advocating that city construction should conform to urban texture, adopt appropriate scale and reasonable dimension, and achieve gradual evolution through the proper handling of present-future relationships. This “Chinese model of renewal” integrates the traditional architectural wisdom of “harmony between humanity and nature” with modern planning science, offering global urban renewal theory a third way distinct from both Clearance and Rebuild and Gentrification.
The term “Urban Regeneration” was widely used in the 1990s. During the post-industrial and globalization process, traditional industrial cities faced industrial hollowing out, vacant spaces, and social decline. Taking a people-centered approach, urban regeneration emphasizes comprehensive, diverse, and sustainable development. It not only rebuilds physical spaces but also promotes economic recovery, social integration, cultural renewal, and ecological restoration, so as to form a multi-stakeholder governance model involving government, private capital, community organizations, and non-profits. The goal is to restore the functionality and appeal of urban areas. A typical example is the High Line in New York City.
The term “Urban Renaissance” first appeared in the 1990s and early 2000s. It emphasizes reshaping urban appeal and identity through culture, design, aesthetics, and a high quality of life. In 1998, Richard Rogers was invited by the British government to chair the Urban Task Force (UTF), with the mission of translating sustainable urban development principles into strategic recommendations. In 1999, the UTF completed its research report titled “Towards an Urban Renaissance” [
20]. The theory of urban renaissance was thus positioned as a design-led, sustainability-oriented framework for urban renewal, integrating social, cultural, environmental, and economic systems.
The theory of Urban Renaissance in China was first proposed by Wu Chen in 2002, strategically anticipating the new situation and requirements facing China’s urbanization as its economy transitioned from a phase of high-speed growth to a period of stable development. It adopts a closed-loop model of “theory + practice” to pioneer a path serving the high-quality development of Chinese cities [
21]. The theory addresses key problems in China’s urbanization, such as unbalanced urban structures, aging infrastructure, and urban diseases. It follows the principles of systematic approach, integrity, coordination, timeliness, scientific soundness, and operational feasibility. In doing so, it has formed an innovative model that can be replicated and scaled up. The theory has guided the development of important nodes in Beijing, including the old city and the New Shougang Area. After extensive testing in practice, it has been incorporated into the
Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016–2035) and the
Detailed Control Plan for the Core Functional Area of the Capital (Block Level) (2018–2035).
In the Chinese context, urban renewal and urban renaissance are interconnected, yet they differ in terms of theoretical positioning and practical implications. Urban renewal primarily refers to the process of renovating, repairing, repurposing, and, where necessary, reconstructing the existing built environment, with a focus on addressing issues such as aging buildings, inadequate facilities, inefficient use of space, and declining environmental quality. Urban renaissance uses urban renewal as a key tool to provide a comprehensive response to the city’s economic, cultural, social, and spatial development. It emphasizes the systematic synergy among industrial economy, cultural heritage, physical space, social vitality, and technological innovation, and achieves long-term development goals through top-level design, planning and design, financial support, and sustainable operation. Therefore, urban renewal is a vital practical pathway to achieving urban renaissance, while urban renaissance serves as the overarching strategic goal and value orientation guiding urban renewal. The former focuses on “how to renew,” while the latter further addresses “why to renew, what to revitalize, and what state of urban development will emerge after renewal”, reflecting a shift in urban development from the simple improvement of physical spaces to the comprehensive reshaping of functions and the enhancement of long-term vitality (Fig. 1).
4 Constructing a Theoretical Framework for Urban Renaissance: the “5-4-4-5” Closed Loop
Urban renaissance calls for a comprehensive and systematic view of urban issues, with long-term strategic solutions. Horizontally, it covers five systems: industrial economy, cultural heritage, physical space, social vitality, and technological innovation. This gives rise to four principles for old cities (active protection, holistic creation, organic renewal, comprehensive renaissance) and four for new cities (compact development, flexible governance, smart ecology, smart growth). Vertically, it involves five dimensions: top-level design, urban-rural planning, architectural design, funding model, and sustainable operation. Together, they form the “5-4-4-5” framework (Fig. 2), which acts as the key structural support for urban renaissance [
22].
Among these, the five major systems constitute the content and driving layers of urban renaissance; they define the primary targets that require adjustment and restructuring, and address the questions of “what to revitalize” and “how to achieve renaissance”. The four guiding principles for old and new urban areas form the contextual strategy layer; they address the primary contradictions faced by different types of urban spaces and answer the question of “under what spatial contexts and according to what principles renaissance should be advanced”. The five dimensions constitute the implementation and safeguards layer, translating the concepts of urban renaissance into institutional frameworks, planning, design, funding, and operational actions, thereby addressing the questions of “how to implement renaissance and ensure its long-term effectiveness”. These three elements are not separate components but form a progressive relationship that moves from identifying content, through strategic transformation, to implementation and execution.
4.1 Five systems of urban renaissance
Industrial economy, cultural heritage, physical space, social vitality, and technological innovation together constitute the content system of urban renaissance. Among these, the industrial economy provides the driving force for development through industrial introduction and job creation; physical space supports urban functions; cultural heritage shapes distinctive values; social vitality embodies public values; and technological innovation plays a comprehensive enabling role. These five systems are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, forming an intrinsic mechanism for coordinated development through employment absorption, spatial optimization, cultural revitalization, social participation, and technological support.
4.1.1 Industrial and economic system
Urban renaissance attends to both the improvement of the physical environment and the introduction of quality resources in industry, education, and healthcare, strengthening core functions and service capacity while enhancing urban competitiveness and fiscal conditions through employment growth. Development must align with the city’s positioning, propel economic growth, and facilitate industrial transformation to improve output, efficiency, and innovation capacity, thereby augmenting the competitiveness of the division of labor system and investment attractiveness. Simultaneously, it fosters new growth poles by clustering high-value modern services and high-tech industries, relocating low-value-added manufacturing, and optimizing the spatial layout of industry.
4.1.2 Cultural heritage system
Culture-led development is central to urban renaissance. Urban culture represents the synthesis of civic values and humanistic atmosphere, serving as a foundational pillar for sustainable development. It demands a broad vision to integrate heritage, cultural industries, and associated resources, deploying cultural assets strategically to enhance urban vitality and quality of life. Concurrently, strict adherence to higher-level planning, optimization of land use, resource conservation, and the restoration of urban prosperity remain imperative.
4.1.3 Physical space system
This system aims to enhance spatial quality and improve the living environment. China’s rapid urbanization has led to problems such as uneven distribution of facilities, inadequate ecological and functional systems, outdated infrastructure in old residential communities, declining urban landscapes, and reduced carrying capacity. Among these, the renovation of old residential communities is particularly critical. Across the country, a large number of such communities require better public services, commercial facilities, and community governance to restore living experience and economic vitality. A good example is the renovation project of four Hutong (lanes) of Nanluogu Lane in Beijing’s old urban area. The city’s bungalow areas have been actively renovated by removing illegal structures, restoring courtyards, upgrading living facilities, and rehabilitating the urban landscape.
4.1.4 Social vitality system
Urban renaissance aims to stimulate social vitality and promote innovative governance. It also entails social and humanistic dimensions, with due regard for community interests and human care to avoid disrupting the social fabric. The aim is not simply physical improvement, but also enhancing urban character, revitalizing underutilized spaces, and energizing neighborhoods. Concurrently, infrastructure should be improved, tourism products broadened, and the city transformed into an international destination and consumption hub. A functionally diverse urban environment can address multiple needs, draw diverse groups, stimulate a wide array of activities, and foster lively and dynamic spaces.
4.1.5 Scientific and technological innovation system
Scientific and technological innovation drives urban renewal and renaissance. To this end, new-generation information technologies such as big data, cloud computing, the Internet of Things, digital twins and AI should be leveraged to develop smart applications and establish a new, sustainable urban development model. Smart management should be implemented throughout the entire urban process, with the concept of smart cities integrated into planning, construction, management and operation. Innovative applications of technologies such as digital twins and AI are promoted across multiple scenarios to support sustainable urban renaissance.
4.2 Four principles for renaissance old urban areas
The call for holistic protection and renaissance of old urban areas raises a critical question: how can we pursue development while preserving heritage, and how to balance the two? This calls for high-level strategic thinking and top-level design at the citywide scale. In 2007, Mr. Wu Liangyong, in his essay “Reflections on Beijing’s Planning and Construction Strategy in a New Context”, introduced the primary principles [
23] of “active protection” and “holistic creation” for Beijing’s old urban areas. The ideas have had a lasting academic and social impact. Building on this framework, we have developed a full set of four guiding concepts for historic city renaissance.
The renaissance of the old city is guided by the fundamental principles of “active protection, holistic creation, organic renewal, and comprehensive renaissance”, which form a progressive relationship ranging from value premises and overall coordination to implementation methods and comprehensive goals. Among these, active protection defines the minimum standards for protecting historical and cultural heritage, traditional urban structures, and residents’ livelihoods; holistic creation emphasizes the coordinated planning of spatial patterns, cultural resources, and modern functions from the perspective of the city as a whole; organic renewal promotes the harmony between protection and development through incremental, small-scale, and appropriate renovations; and comprehensive renaissance is ultimately guided by the holistic enhancement of industrial, cultural, spatial, and social vitality. Together, these four principles translate the renaissance requirements of the five major systems into spatial strategies that align with the characteristics of the historic city.
4.2.1 Active conservation
Active protection means putting preservation first while rationally adjusting the functions of old urban areas. Rather than a narrow focus on economic targets, the emphasis should be on reinforcing cultural functions, growing cultural and cultural-tourism industries, boosting vitality, and fostering cultural renaissance to support sustainable development of old urban areas. A people-centered, active protection approach should guide all efforts. Under government leadership, a careful balance is needed between upgrading residents' living conditions and safeguarding the historic character of the ancient capital.
4.2.2 Holistic creation
Holistic thinking underpins the conservation of historic cities. Protecting old urban areas requires both active preservation and holistic creation. This involves preserving the city’s overall layout while applying tiered controls, balancing key-area protection with general preservation, and linking traditional character conservation with cultural heritage transmission. Efforts should be made to improve the citywide and old-city systems for protecting historical and cultural resources as well as natural landscapes.
4.2.3 Organic renewal
Organic renewal requires that any new construction within a protected area follow a new order of construction. That is, in terms of volume, height, and form, new buildings must respect the context of the historic environment in which the heritage is situated, and also respect the condition of the cultural heritage itself. The goal is to highlight the cultural heritage and reinforce the distinctive features of the existing cultural environment.
4.2.4 Comprehensive renaissance
Comprehensive urban renaissance requires pooling expert resources and building a collaborative platform that brings together government, project implementers, market players, and various social stakeholders. This will strengthen the scientific soundness, strategic guidance, and feasibility of planning and design. Efforts should also be made to integrate subsystems such as architecture, transportation, and landscape, forming systematic design strategies and models. In doing so, high-quality urban design can serve as a key strategy to revitalize the city and stimulate its economy—enhancing the old city’s physical form and environmental quality, and ultimately delivering commercial and cultural prosperity.
4.3 Four principles for renaissance emerging urban areas
The renaissance of the New City District is guided by the core principles of “compact development, flexible governance, smart ecology, and smart growth”, collectively advancing the coordinated objectives of the five major systems. To address issues such as the district’s insufficient capacity for scenario-based operations, lack of significant industrial agglomeration effects, and difficulties in coordinating with the Old City, its development should shift from being driven by land and population to being driven by industrial functions, quality and appeal, and people-centered services, thereby setting new requirements for urban space, functions, governance, and smart city initiatives.
4.3.1 Compact development
Compact urban development pursues efficient land use, low carbon emissions, and high-density, mixed-use growth. This calls for systematic innovation in planning, land, construction, and property rights to achieve efficient concentration of resources and people, along with sustainable high-quality development.
4.3.2 Resilient governance
Resilient governance responds to development uncertainties by modernizing governance, balancing rigidity with flexibility, and making planning and decision-making more adaptable and risk-resilient. It ensures continued effective operation in complex scenarios and remains fully effective even under conditions such as resource shortages, time pressure, or extremely high risks.
4.3.3 Smart ecology
Smart ecology requires innovation in planning and design methods. To achieve this, mathematical models, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies are leveraged to provide scientific support for planning decisions, project evaluation, and policy implementation in emerging urban areas, thereby enabling precise decision-making and dynamic optimization.
4.3.4 Smart growth
Smart growth addresses needs for mixed land use, walkable communities, and integrated construction and management. In the development phase, focusing on utilizing existing resources, proper handling of the functional, spatial, and ownership relationships between development and place-based operations is essential for achieving intensive and efficient growth.
4.4 Five dimensions of urban renaissance
The five major systems define the key elements of urban renaissance; the concepts of “old city” and “new city” provide differentiated approaches and strategies; and the five dimensions translate system objectives and spatial strategies into concrete actions, driving continuous optimization through operational feedback. Top-level design, urban and rural planning, architectural design, funding model, and sustainable operation constitute the implementation framework of the five dimensions of urban renaissance, serving the functions of strategic coordination, spatial implementation, project development, financial support, and long-term operations, respectively.
4.4.1 Top-level design
Top-level design covers national strategies and plans, institutional and policy systems, and a range of major guidelines and principles, which collectively form the overarching requirements and guidelines for urbanization. In 2018, in response to the strategic goal set by the Beijing Municipal Committee and Government to create a “new landmark of urban renaissance”, a “fourfold renaissance”—cultural, industrial, ecological, and vitality renaissance—was introduced, along with planning and implementation measures. Based on research outcomes, the Action Plan for the New Landmark of Capital Urban Renaissance in the New Era was drafted, issued under the names of the Municipal Party Committee General Office and the Municipal Government General Office, and subsequently incorporated in the government work report.
4.4.2 Urban and rural planning
In urban and rural planning, effective multi-level coordination shall be ensured across macro-level regional strategies, comprehensive urban master plans, block-level renovation and improvement, guidelines design and control, and plot-level renewal implementation, thereby forming a seamless closed loop of work. Throughout this full cycle, urban renewal is about projects and processes; urban renaissance is the blueprint, the ideal, and the vision.
4.4.3 Funding model
Urban renaissance projects must take into account the needs of all stakeholders and balance their interests to achieve dynamic financial equilibrium throughout the project lifecycle and ensure the sustainable development of urban public finances. Revitalizing existing assets is a key approach to mitigating government debt risks; through industrialized operations, these projects can enhance the high-quality development of the real economy and promote a virtuous cycle in the local economy. Given the dual nature of urban renaissance projects—which combine public welfare and commercial operations—a diversified investment and financing mechanism should be established that features government guidance, market participation, and collaboration among residents and property owners. This mechanism should comprehensively utilize government investment, urban renewal funds, REITs, resident-raised funds, and housing cooperatives to broaden the sources of project funding. At the same time, through coordinated planning at the district level, commercially viable projects—such as retail, office, and industrial developments—should be integrated with public-interest projects—including infrastructure, public spaces, historical and cultural preservation, and improvements to people’s livelihoods—so that revenue from commercial operations can be reinvested to support public-interest initiatives.
4.4.4 Sustainable operation
Sustainable operations refer to an approach that comprehensively considers social, economic, environmental, and governance factors through scientific planning and design, the balancing of diverse interests, innovation-driven development, and long-term management. At the same time, urban renaissance emphasizes a forward-looking operational philosophy by involving operational entities as early as the planning and design stages. This ensures the coordinated planning of industrial sectors, spatial use, revenue streams, management mechanisms, and maintenance costs, thereby aligning construction plans with subsequent operational needs and preventing a disconnect between planning/construction and actual operations. Throughout this process, the rights and responsibilities of the government, the market, and the community must be clearly defined: the government is responsible for establishing institutional frameworks, providing public services, and ensuring basic safeguards; market entities undertake professional operations, industry development, and value realization; and community residents participate by voicing their needs, engaging in consultation and oversight, and contributing to co-creation and shared benefits. Different types of projects should adopt differentiated operational approaches. Through operational monitoring and dynamic feedback, planning, construction, and management methods should be adjusted in a timely manner, enabling urban renaissance projects to achieve sustainable development over the long term and create lasting value for residents and society.
4.5 Validation of the “5-4-4-5” theoretical framework through typical case studies
Through more than a decade of extensive urban design practice in cities such as Beijing, Wuxi, Shenyang, and Wuhan, the “5-4-4-5” theoretical framework has been continuously tested in urban renaissance projects of various types and scales. With the accumulation of long-term practical experience throughout this development process, the framework has gradually gained widespread policy and professional recognition from local governments, further demonstrating its forward-looking nature, comprehensive explanatory power, and suitability for local contexts. This paper selects three representative case studies—the Beijing Shougang Park, Dazhalan Beijing Fang, and 21st Street in Wuhan’s Qingshan District—to analyze the specific manifestations of the “5-4-4-5” theoretical framework in different contexts and its effectiveness in urban renaissance.
4.5.1 Shougang Park
The Shougang Park is situated on both sides of the western extension of Chang’an Avenue and along the eastern bank of the Yongding River, Beijing’s mother river, covering a total area of 8.63 square kilometers. In the new century, the new Shougang Park, approximately 19 kilometers from Tiananmen, serves as a critical node connecting Beijing’s western development belt with the central urban area. As a legacy of heavy industry with a distinctive character, the park’s planning and design encompass 32 mandatory preserved industrial relics, 13 recommended preserved industrial resources, 14 significant industrial resources, and over 200 other industrial elements for adaptive reuse (Fig. 3).
The planning and design of the Shougang Park focus on the deep integration of the “industrial economic system” and the “technological innovation system”. The former replaces traditional steel manufacturing with a “1 + 3 + X” high-value-added industrial system, while the latter uses a sci-fi industry cluster, a humanoid robot data training center, and a 10-billion-level robotics fund as its technological engines; the two systems empower each other to form a virtuous cycle. Second, across five key dimensions, the park has established a full-cycle closed-loop system: “Top-level Design” sets the strategic direction with the establishment of the Beijing 2022 Olympic Organizing Committee’s headquarters; “Urban and Rural Planning” completes the functional conversion of industrial land; “Architectural Design” preserves iconic industrial structures such as blast furnaces and utility tunnels while assigning them new functions; the “Funding Model” combines government guidance with market-oriented operations; and "Sustainable Operations rely on the permanent venue of the China International Fair for Trade in Services (CIFTIS) to ensure annual visitor traffic and brand impact.
Since suspending all production and undergoing a transformation in late 2010, Shougang Park has focused on developing diverse business models centered on “Technology+”, “ Culture+”, and “Sports+”. To date, more than 1000 companies have set up operations there, with technology firms accounting for as much as 67.6% of the total [
24]. The park’s annual output value has reached 75 billion yuan, with an average annual compound growth rate exceeding 20%. In 2025, Shougang Park successfully hosted over 240 events with more than 100 participants each, including the CIFTIS, the China Science Fiction Convention, and the WTT China Smash, attracting over 14.38 million visitors throughout the year [
25]. Thomas Bach, former President of the International Olympic Committee, described “the transformation of Shougang Park as a miracle”. Guided by the planning philosophy of “minimal demolition, maximum renewal”, the park has preserved its industrial heritage by transforming former steel production facilities into multifunctional spaces for conventions, exhibitions, offices, and commerce. Transforming from an “industrial rust belt” into an “urban showcase”, it has become a “new landmark of urban renaissance” [
26], a “symbolic area of Beijing’s in-depth urban transformation”, and a “pilot zone for Beijing’s future digital space innovation”.
4.5.2 Beijing Fang in Dashilan
Beijing Fang is situated at the heart of the Dashilan Historic and Cultural Conservation Area in Xicheng District, Beijing, covering a total site area of 3.3 hectares with a gross floor area of 126,000 square meters (Fig. 4). It extends from Meishi Street on the west to Zhubaoshi Street on the east, and from Xiheyan Street on the north to Langfang Ertiao on the south. Located immediately west of the central axis beyond Zhengyang Gate, it lies merely 100 meters in straight-line distance from Tiananmen Square. As one of Beijing’s most significant historic and cultural conservation areas, its redevelopment and design process spanned over a decade.
The project embodies two core principles: “active protection” and “organic renewal”. The former is manifested through dynamic protection rather than static preservation, while the latter is reflected in incremental, node-based renovation rather than large-scale demolition and reconstruction. Across the five major systems, the “Cultural Heritage System” runs throughout the entire process—from the excavation of historical information and the restoration of the area’s character to the construction of a digital exhibition hall—ensuring that physical renewal is underpinned by cultural value. Meanwhile, the “Social Vitality System” was revitalized through public participation and the promotion of cultural industries, yielding significant social and economic benefits. Second, regarding the four guiding principles and five dimensions of the old city, “top-level design” established a working model characterized by “government leadership, expert guidance, interdepartmental collaboration, public participation, and scientific decision-making”. This established a scientific planning and management system for the historic and cultural preservation zone, ensuring that scientific decision-making remained consistent throughout the implementation cycle spanning more than a decade.
Since its opening, Beijing Fang’s hybrid commercial ecosystem—combining an “international perspective with local roots”—has attracted strong foot traffic, accounting for 30% of the total foot traffic in the Dashilan commercial district with the average transaction value per person more than ten times that of Qianmen Street. This has fundamentally transformed the public’s perception of the Dashilan area as a traditional commercial district. The “Beijing Fang” architectural complex has been hailed as the “golden calling card of Beijing’s Old City renaissance” and a “new cultural landmark of Beijing”. It was selected as “Exploring the Ancient Quarter” among Beijing’s New Sixteen Scenic Spots and has become one of the most sought-after “viral photo spots” among residents [
27]. Currently, the area is home to international fashion brands and Chinese contemporary boutique brands, bringing together core artistic resources to form a creative industry with distinctive contemporary Chinese cultural characteristics, thereby creating a neighborhood that offers a high-quality urban lifestyle experience [
28].
4.5.3 Architectural design
Architectural design is the final stage of urban and rural construction, where plans are put into practice (Fig. 5). It is not confined to individual buildings but emphasizes the integration of buildings with the city, focusing on the city, the buildings themselves, and socio-cultural issues. The goal is to align design concepts with low-carbon, sustainable, and smart urban development.
4.5.4 Wuhan Qingshan 21st Street
Block 21 in Qingshan District, Wuhan, is Hubei Province’s first pilot project for the renovation of dilapidated housing through a “residential cooperative”, and it is a renovation project designed in accordance with the “Complete Community” and “Good Housing” standards [
29]. Three Class C dilapidated buildings housing 134 households were renovated through resident-led participation [
30], in collaboration with a development company, to achieve a “demolish and rebuild in the original location” renovation of the community. In 2023, the cooperative was registered with the civil affairs department, and by the end of 2025—171 days ahead of schedule—the new 32-story residential building with 240 units was delivered. Of these, 134 units were allocated for the resettlement of the original residents, and the complex features a 655-square-meter rooftop garden and 120 underground parking spaces [
31]. This model has been rolled out across Wuhan, with plans to renovate 750,000 square meters of unsafe housing over the next three years [
32].
The project brings funding and operations to the forefront, achieving financial self-sufficiency without relying on large-scale fiscal investment. At the same time, its “top-level design” uses policy innovation for cooperatives as the institutional foundation and ensures the vitality of governance after handover by integrating functional elements into community public spaces. Successful experiences demonstrate that unlocking social vitality requires institutional innovation in funding models as a prerequisite. Cooperatives transform residents from passive compliance to active participation, and the establishment of a foundation of trust directly reduces coordination costs; meanwhile, the market-driven feedback mechanism of the funding model relies on policy breakthroughs at the top-level design level. The two elements mutually support each other and are indispensable (Fig. 6).
5 Discussion
In 1999, the UK Urban Task Force published Towards an Urban Renaissance, while UN-Habitat proposed the New Urban Agenda and related sustainable urban frameworks. The former places a strong emphasis on policy tools and spatial interventions, while the latter primarily provides normative goals and principles for action on a global scale. In contrast, the theory of urban renaissance proposed in this paper is not an extension of existing international frameworks, but rather is grounded in the actual conditions of China’s urban development. Based on the theoretical foundation of sciences for the habitat, it interprets “renaissance” as a long-term, comprehensive vision for urban development that transcends mere physical spatial repairs. This theory not only addresses practical issues such as urban structural imbalances, functional decline, and governance risks but also embodies romantic ideals for future urban prosperity. It emphasizes the synergistic evolution of industry, culture, space, society, and technology, propelling cities from problem-based governance toward capacity-building and from phased renewal toward sustainable development. Based on this understanding, the “5-4-4-5” framework for urban renaissance integrates content, strategies, and implementation within its structural system, and connects current governance, long-term operations, and future technological transformations across temporal scales, thereby forming a comprehensive theoretical framework grounded in China’s national conditions and characterized by a future-oriented and open-evolutionary approach.
The further theoretical contribution of the “5-4-4-5” framework lies in its forward-looking and holistic approach. Rather than treating fundraising and project operations as ancillary tasks to be addressed after planning and construction are completed, this framework advocates for the coordinated consideration of funding sources, investment responsibilities, industrial formats, operating entities, residents’ rights, and long-term maintenance mechanisms as early as the top-level design and planning stages, thereby bringing investment estimates, operational planning, and risk identification forward in the project implementation process. The funding model not only addresses the source of construction funds but also requires early identification of fiscal capacity, long-term cash flow, and debt risks; sustainable operation is not merely property management after project completion, but rather, through proactive operational planning, ensures that industrial integration, spatial design, revenue models, and maintenance mechanisms are aligned during the planning phase. Consequently, urban revitalization shifts from a linear “planning–construction–post-completion operation” model to a full-process governance model encompassing “strategic coordination–planning and design–funding organization–proactive operations–construction implementation–feedback and optimization”.
From a localization perspective, this framework is not a simple transplant of the UK’s “Urban Renaissance” or international sustainable city frameworks, but rather a systematic integration of the content, spatial strategies, and implementation processes of urban renaissance based on Chinese planning concepts such as science for the habitat, organic renewal, and urban-rural integration. Its theoretical significance is primarily reflected in three aspects: First, it elevates urban renaissance from project-based practices focused primarily on spatial construction to a comprehensive development framework that integrates industry, culture, space, society, and technology; Second, by classifying old urban areas and emerging districts, it enhances the theory’s adaptability to different urban spatial contexts; third, by incorporating financial balance, sustainable operations, and risk management into the theory’s fundamental structure, it strengthens the operability of transforming urban renaissance from a strategic vision into a long-term implementation mechanism, thereby effectively mitigating risks associated with large-scale urban renewal—such as local government debt, cultural homogenization, and social exclusion.
6 Research Frontiers and Future Prospects of Urban Renaissance
6.1 Major issues in global research of common interests
Against the triple backdrop of profound adjustments in globalization, climate change, and digital transformation, urban renaissance has transcended traditional physical space renewal, entering a new phase of comprehensive development characterized by people-centered, equitable, resilient, and sustainable [
33] approaches. This has given rise to a series of common research topics that combine theoretical breakthroughs with practical guidance, such as conducting cost-benefit analysis of low-carbon retrofitting of existing buildings, studying the synergistic mechanisms between sponge city and urban regeneration, as well as evaluating resettlement models for indigenous residents and the equalization of public services within the 15-minute living circle. Multi-source data and computational methods support the fine-grained characterization, mechanism identification, scenario simulation, and governance optimization of human settlement systems. Together, these form the core framework for future global urban renaissance research, driving interdisciplinary collaboration and theoretical innovation. At the same time, research on risks such as local government debt, cultural homogenization, and social exclusion should be strengthened. The proactive advantages of the “5-4-4-5” system should be leveraged to coordinate funding sources, operating entities, residents’ rights, and long-term maintenance mechanisms as early as the project initiation and planning stages.
This is the top priority for global urban renaissance in the years ahead. As extreme weather events become more frequent, cities face multiple challenges: cutting emissions, preventing disasters, and restoring ecosystems. Research needs to align the renewal of existing urban areas with carbon neutrality. Efforts should be made to develop technologies and policies for near-zero carbon cities, and promote nature-based solutions (e.g., sponge cities and blue-green infrastructure). These actions will help build a climate-resilient urban environment [
34]. Meanwhile, it is essential to transcend the boundaries of individual cities and establish cross-regional climate governance mechanisms. Focusing on the human settlement factors that directly affect people’s quality of life, this entails investigating governance systems and policy pathways for improving environmental quality and managing risks, while emphasizing integrated systemic objectives such as human settlements, human health, spatial equity, and urban-rural resilience.
6.1.1 Spatial justice and inclusive renaissance
This issue responds to the challenge of social inequality in urban development. Gentrification, housing imbalances, and unequal public services can lead to social divisions. The research focuses on the 15-minute living circle and mixed-income communities to analyze how power and interests are distributed during renaissance. It also explores community co-governance and participatory planning. Drawing on multiple disciplines, it builds an inclusive assessment system to examine different models of spatial justice across cultures. The goal is to shift urban renaissance from capital-driven to people-oriented [
35], ensuring shared access to space and protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable groups.
6.1.2 Digital intelligence and modernization of governance
Taking urban-rural spaces as the primary carrier, and integrating methodological systems from big data, spatial science, computer science, and artificial intelligence, this forms a complete technical chain that spans from data acquisition and governance, through spatial computing and intelligent inference, to the implementation of digital applications. The research focuses on the deep integration of digitalization and smart cities, spatial analysis and artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and urban renaissance [
36], balancing data governance, algorithmic fairness, and privacy protection, while aiming to solve the challenge of cross-departmental and cross-regional data sharing in megacities. It also calls for establishing ethical norms and technical standards for digital governance, so as to achieve refined, scientific, and efficient urban governance.
6.1.3 Cultural heritage and vitality regeneration
This issue expands the scope of urban renaissance research by adding a cultural value dimension [
37]. At its core are two goals: preserving historical continuity and generating contemporary vitality. It focuses on how heritage conservation, local cultural activation, and new creative industries can reinforce each other. Through cultural narrative reshaping, place identity enhancement, and the introduction of distinctive businesses, it explores sustainable ways to revitalize neighborhoods, renew urban spaces, and build city brands driven by culture.
6.1.4 Coordination and adaptation of global regeneration models
Cities around the world develop unevenly. Developed and developing countries differ greatly in funding, technology, governance capacity, and practical experience for urban renaissance. This issue aims to close those gaps. It seeks to create renewal models, implementation frameworks, and evaluation systems that are both globally relevant and locally adaptable. The goal is to facilitate the exchange of experience, sharing of resources, and collaborative governance in urban renaissance worldwide, so as to build a more balanced, inclusive, and sustainable global urban development ecosystem [
38].
6.2 Localized research directions aligned with China’s new-type urbanization strategy
China’s new-type urbanization has entered a people-centered, quality-driven stage of development, which is highly consistent with the goals of urban renaissance. As China’s urbanization reaches its middle and late stages, the focus has shifted to the renewal of existing urban resources. At the same time, China faces unique local characteristics such as urban-rural dualism and regional disparities. Therefore, urban renaissance must be grounded in China’s national conditions and closely integrated with strategic initiatives such as urban-rural integration and metropolitan area development, so as to respond to the real-world context and development needs of Chinese-style urbanization.
6.2.1 Territorial spatial renaissance under the urban-rural integration framework
This issue is aligned with the urban-rural integration strategy. It aims to break down spatial barriers and remove obstacles to the flow of production factors between urban and rural areas, with a focus on the two-way allocation mechanisms of land, capital, talent, and other resources. It calls for coordinating the renewal of central urban areas, upgrading suburban areas, and revitalizing rural areas. It aims to address local challenges such as the development of urban-rural fringe zones and the redevelopment of urban villages. It promotes integrated planning of public services and infrastructure between urban and rural areas, thereby achieving a collaborative pattern of urban-rural renaissance.
6.2.2 Regional renaissance through coordinated metropolitan development
This issue focuses on the development layout of metropolitan areas and urban clusters. It centers on relieving non-core functions in central cities, transferring industries in a phased way, and helping surrounding towns to take over these functions. It also explores a renaissance model that connects spaces across regions, complements industries, and coordinates governance. The goal is to solve challenges such as the aging of central urban areas in large cities, the lack of vitality in new suburban towns, and regional development imbalances, thereby promoting integrated and differentiated renaissance within metropolitan areas.
This issue also emphasizes concentrating innovation factors, strengthening supporting systems for technological innovation, talent cultivation and attraction, and financial support, so as to activate the endogenous growth drivers of cities.
6.2.3 Innovating governance model for sustainable operation
This issue deals with practical barriers to urban renaissance—such as land property rights, distribution of benefits, funding and investment, and planning permission. It examines locally appropriate policy instruments and collaborative governance mechanisms involving multiple stakeholders. The objective is to establish a long-lasting governance framework that integrates government guidance, market operation, and community participation [
39].
6.2.4 Advancing urban renaissance systematically through flagship projects
This issue advocates creating flagship projects at the district level by selecting key areas that can best unlock regional potential. Each district should focus on one or two priority directions. This helps concentrate resources, target policies, and coordinate efforts while guiding differentiated spatial layouts, ultimately forming a three-tier flagship project system at the international, city, and local levels. The ongoing renaissance of Beijing West Railway Station and its surroundings serves as an example. The area suffers from a narrow, low-end regional function and an underutilized hub potential. Using the construction of Metro Line 11 as a leverage, the project integrates resources and improves functions to systematically improve spatial layout, industry, and ecological factors. A site-specific strategy is applied to each land parcel, with the aim of making Beijing West Railway Station a “China flagship project” that leads the world in station-city integration.
6.2.5 Urban renaissance and the sciences for human habitat
The science of human habitat starts from human needs for survival and development. It focuses on the interaction between settlement behavior and natural and built spaces. It aims to improve living standards, create livable environments, and foster sustainable coexistence between people and nature. With the establishment of the School of Sciences for Human Habitat at UCAS, the first-level discipline of “Sciences for Human Habitat” has taken initial shape. As this discipline continues to grow, the academic understanding of cities also deepens. Urban renaissance is an important and integral part of Sciences for Human Habitat. In the new era, its further development needs to use urban renaissance as a practical platform to explore new research frontiers. At the same time, local practices of urban renaissance will drive theoretical updates, methodological innovation, and disciplinary improvement in the discipline. This will keep the discipline rooted in China’s reality. The two fields complement and reinforce each other. Together, they support a people-centered new-type urbanization and high-quality development of human settlements, while strengthening the disciplinary and practical foundation for China’s modernization of urban and rural construction.
The Author(s) 2026. This article is published by Higher Education Press.
PDF
(15777KB)
