都市理论和中国的城市化
Urban Theory and Urbanization in China
曼纽尔·卡斯特 著 许玫 译
作者：曼纽尔·卡斯特，美国加州大学伯克利分校城市规划系名誉退休教授
译者：许玫，《国外城市规划》编辑部
这期《国外城市规划》的文集中收录的文章，展现了我对于都市理论探索的一个总体面貌，时间跨越了30年，从1972年首次发表的法语版《城市问题》到1996至2004年间关于流动空间和地方空间的理论著作。很显然，它们并不是一成不变的，理论在数十年间发生了变化。实际上，在早期理论中的一些基本要素与后期概念的发展是相互抵触的。或许这正是它应该呈现的样子，因为从根本上来说我是一名研究者，而不是哲学家，对我来说，理论的建构是用来理解、修正社会和空间过程的工具。在研究实践中，我对这些概念去伪存精，并发展了一些新的概念和新的理论解释来说明我所观察到的现象。因此，读者可以把我较早的理论阐述视作理论发展史的一个部分，但不要把它作为研究工具。尤其是源于“结构主义的马克思主义”（Structucturalist Marxism）的一些概念，对理解当前的城市化极不相干。现今更关注的概念是流动空间、地方空间以及城市和区域的全球性网络。
我对城市规划和都市社会运动的分析继续有效，这将在下文中论述。
但是，如果说我的著作中有一个主题没有改变的话，那是因为在我的世界范围的研究中已经证明：政治、权力、房地产利益、社区动员和社会冲突是理解城市化动力的关键要素。城市化是人口和活动在人类聚居地上的集中，特点是规模大、密度高、功能多样。城市化不是来自于经济增长的自然过程。可能经济发展了，城市化程度却很低，甚至出现“逆城市化”（城市人口的百分比下降）的现象，1960年代和1970年代初中国的经验正好说明了这一点。城市化依赖的是发展模式，也就是实现社会利益的一种功能，而社会利益在政府和经济活动家的决策过程中占据主导地位。因此，为了理解城市化，我们需要了解任何特定社会中的社会动力和权力关系。技术本身能够产生差异很大的空间形态和过程，这取决于为了什么目的和如何使用技术。例如，很多未来学家（科学知识很少的伪专家）预测说，随着电子信息和信息技术的降临，人们和工作单位的联系将越来越依赖电子通信和因特网，不再需要面对面的接触。因此，空间集中的需求将下降，活动和居住将分散到乡村地区，城市化将放慢脚步甚至倒退。然而实际发生的情况正好相反。在通讯技术革命的中期，我们见证了人类历史上最大的城市化浪潮。1970年，地球上的城市化仅为37%，现在达到了50%，预计2025年和2050年将分别超过60%和75%。南美城市化水平已经达到了80%，发达国家基本都在相似的水平上，原因是人们趋向于有工作和机遇的地方。在全球知识经济的浪潮中，工作机会集中在财富、权力、知识和信息集中的地方，也就是最大的都市地区。电子通信和计算机控制的交通系统使世界范围的大都市之间联系起来，增加了它们的战略重要性。在我们生存的地球上，空间体系是由连接世界和每个国家主要城市的知识、技术、财富和权力的全球网络组成的。由于掌握着财富和权力，这些大都市地区（metropolitan areas）能够提供最好的职位和最佳的教育机构、最好的医院以及顶级的文化设施。因此，对于那些为了自己和自己的孩子寻求提升机会的人来说，最好的选择是迁入大都市区，不管他们在融入都市世界的过程中会遭遇到什么样的困难和代价。人口和活动在大都市区的集中导致了随着居住、工作场所和服务设施的分散，在大都市区周围出现了大规模的土地扩张，形成了巨大的大都市区（metropolitan regions）。因而，集中和分散的现象同时发生在一些区域内。乡村越来越依赖于大都市区的推动力，农村人口也大幅度减少。
这种大都市化（metropolitanization）的空间过程很大程度上取决于政府和包括房地产利益在内的有权势的商业企业的政治决策。这种空间形式对于企业的功能需求来说是便利的，它使进入到全球网络成为可能，它能保证更好的生活质量，对于政治精英来说它也意味着更易于控制人口。此外，大批迁居城市的人口以及都市空间的转化为房地产公司提供了绝好的机会。土地开发和房地产成为许多国家重要的经济部门。例如，过去10年里美国三分之一的经济发展是与土地开发的投资和消费以及相关服务相关的。实际上，全世界的大都市商业联合体都比高科技企业更具有支配地位。
这就是为什么代表着人们利益和关注社会健康发展的城市规划如此重要。不过我们首先应该理解的是引导和形成城市化过程的一些因素。
中国社会生活的每个向度都在经历着很大的转化。整个世界都在关注中国，夹杂着羡慕、困惑和畏惧的复杂情绪。
中国城市的快速增长以及巨大的大都市区的发展似乎是无法止步的。中国的经济奇迹建立在巨型大都市化（mega-metropolitanization）的基础上。
最近我在中国参加了几次会议，从政府官员那里听到关于加强10个大都市区（metropolitan regions）的计划，每一个都市区域的人口都在5000万左右。如果这个消息是真的，那么对于技术、社会、经济和环境的挑战将是惊人的。如果这种加速的城市增长过程仅仅被房地产利益所左右，我担心社会紧张局面会难以控制而出现严重的不安定，最终使中国的发展停顿下来。城市规划师和设计师在调解各种利益冲突方面可以发挥基础性的作用，包括居民的利益、社区的利益、环境保护的利益、企业公司的利益、大学和医院的利益以及开发商和房地产公司的利益，这种调解如果包含在一个更广泛的开发计划中将是很有益的。城市规划不仅是理性基础上的技术行为，也是城市中不同社会和经济行动者之间谈判的过程，它要找到技术上可行的妥协点，将城市的利益置于任何特殊利益之上。但是城市规划不能由城市规划师来决定，它最终是一种政治行为。因此，城市规划师作为专家和职业谈判者要有效发挥作用，就必须得到政府尤其是地方政府的支持。另一方面，如果政府要想避免一系列的城市危机和具有破坏性的城市冲突，也需要城市规划的参与，因为这些危机和冲突将会把他们对于中国未来的美好憧憬变为充斥着社会争斗的梦魇。中国仍需要时间来引导大规模的城市化过程朝向动态和平衡的方向发展。出于这个目的，都市理论，包括我的一部分理论，只有当它们的概念适用于我们每天生活的现实时，才将发挥作用。
写于美国加利福尼亚州，洛杉矶，2006年9月
Urban Theory and Urbanization in China
Manuel Castells
Professor Emeritus of City Planning, University of California, Berkeley
The collection of texts assembled in this issue provides an overview of the urban theory I developed in a span of 30 years, between the publication of “The Urban Question”, originally in French in 1972, until the various versions of the theory of space of flows and space of places that I elaborated between 1996 and 2004. Naturally, this is not a unified theory. It transformed itself over the decades. Indeed, some elements of the early theory are contradicted by the later conceptual developments. This is as it should be, because I am fundamentally a researcher, not a philosopher, and therefore for me theoretical constructions are working tools to be used and modified in understanding social and spatial processes. In the practice of research I keep those concepts that prove useful, I discard those that do not seem relevant, and I keep inventing new concepts, and new theoretical interpretations to explain what I observe. So, the readers should take the older formulations of my theory as part of intellectual history rather than as useful tools for research. Particularly irrelevant for understanding current urbanization are the concepts derived from structucturalist Marxism. More to the point of attention nowadays are the concepts of space of flows, space of places, and global networking of cities and regions.
The analyses of urban planning and urban social movements continue to be operational, as I will argue below.
But if there is one theme that has not changed in my work, because it has been verified in my research throughout the world is the fact that politics, power, real estate interests, community mobilization, and social conflicts are central to understanding the dynamics of urbanization. Urbanization, that is the concentration of population and activities in human settlements characterized by large size, high density, and multifunctionality, is not a natural process derived from economic growth. There can be economic growth with low level urbanization, and even with deurbanization (declining percentage of urban population) as it was shown precisely by the experience of China in the 1960s and early 1970s. It all depends on the model of development, that is a function of the social interests that prevail in the decision making process by government and economic actors. Therefore, to understand urbanization, we need to understand the social dynamics and the power relationships in any given society. Technology itself can lead to very different spatial forms and processes, depending on how it is used and for what. For instance, many futurologists (pseudo-experts with little scientific knowledge) were predicting that with the advent of electronic information and information technologies, people and working units would increasingly communicate by telecommunications and Internet, and would not need as much the face to face contact. Therefore, it was supposed that the needs for spatial concentration would decline, activities and residences would be scattered in the rural areas and urbanization would slow down or even reverse. In fact, what has happened is exactly the contrary. In the middle of the communication technology revolution we are witnessing the largest wave of urbanization in human history. The planet that was 37% urban in 1970 is now 50% urban, and the projections are for the population to be over 60% urban in 2025 and over 75% in 2050. South America, for instance, is already 80% urban, and similar rates of urbanization characterize the developed world. The reason is that people go where jobs and opportunities are. In a global knowledge economy jobs are in the places where wealth, power, knowledge and information are concentrated, this is in the largest metropolitan areas. Telecommunications and computerized transportation systems allow for the connection between these large metropolitan areas worldwide, increasing their strategic importance. The spatial architecture of our planet is made of global networks of knowledge, technology, wealth and power that connect the main cities of the world and of each country. Because of their control of wealth and power, these metropolitan areas provide the best jobs, and also the best educational institutions, the best hospitals, and the best cultural facilities. Therefore, for people who seek advancement for themselves and their children the best option is to migrate into the metropolitan areas, albeit at the cost of suffering in the process of integration in the metropolitan world. The concentration of population and activity in metropolitan areas leads to the dispersal of residences, work places, and services in a large territorial expanse around the metropolitan area, forming vast metropolitan regions. So, there is at the same time a process of concentration in a few areas, and decentralization within these areas. The countryside becomes dependent on the dynamism of metropolitan areas and the rural population decreases substantially.
This spatial process of metropolitanization is largely determined by the political decision by governments and powerful business firms, including real estate interests. This spatial form is convenient for the functional needs of the corporation, it makes possible to access global networks, and it ensures better quality of life, as well as easier control of the population, for the political elites. Besides, the massive migration to cities, and the transformation of urban space creates extraordinary opportunities for real estate business companies. Land development and real estate become the most important economic sectors in many countries. For instance, in the United States in the last decade about one third of economic growth was linked to investment and consumption in land development, real estate, and related services. Indeed, the metropolitan business complex is more dominant than the high technology industries throughout the world.
This is why urban planning on behalf of people’s interests, and for the well being of society, is so important. But it starts with an understanding of the factors that induce and shape the process of urbanization.
China is undergoing an extraordinary transformation in every dimension of life. The whole world is looking at China, with a mixture of admiration, bewilderment, and fear.
The rapid growth of Chinese cities, and the development of gigantic metropolitan regions seems unstoppable. The Chinese economic miracle is based on mega-metropolitanization.
In some of my recent meetings in China, I heard from government officials that the projection is to consolidate about 10 metropolitan regions, each one of them with a population of around 50 million people. If this is true, the technical, social, economic, and environmental challenges will be staggering. If this process of accelerated urban growth is exclusively dominated by real estate interests, I fear the social tensions will be unsurmountable, and could lead to serious unrest, ultimately derailing Chinese development. Urban planners and designers may play a fundamental role in mediating the various interests that have to be reconciled: the interests of the residents, the interests of communities, the interests of environmental conservations, the interests of industrial companies, the interests of universities and hospitals, and also the interests of developers and real estate business firms, that could be useful if included in a broader developmental scheme. Urban planning is not only a technical activity based on rationality. It is also a process of negociation between the different social and economic actors in the city, to find a point of compromise that is technically feasible, placing the good of the city above any particular interest. But urban planning cannot be decided by urban planners. It is a political act in the last resort. Thus, for urban planners to be effective in their role as professional experts and professional negociators, they need the support of government, and particularly of local governments. Governments, on the other hand, need urban planners if they want to avoid a series of urban crises and devastating urban conflicts that would transform their dreams for the future of China into the nightmares of social strifes. There is still time to guide the process of large scale urbanization in China towards a dynamic and balanced metropolitan growth. And for this purpose, urban theory, including some of mine, could be useful, on the condition of adapting the concepts to the reality where we live every day.
Los Angeles, California, September 2006
《国际城市规划》2006年第5期
