Introduction
“What on earth is a Central Business District?” I can still clearly remember my confusion when, a long time ago, I was initiated into the basics of urban theory during an Introduction to Social Geography. My point of reference was Amsterdam, a Dutch city that doesn't really have a “business district,” let alone at its center, where historic canals circle the most expensive residential real estate. It was an early reminder that cities can be radically different, and that the concepts through which we describe and understand them might not be universally applicable. Of course, since the early 2000s this has become something of a commonplace. On the back of a general critique of Western thought by postcolonial scholars, it is now well recognized that the inspiration for urban theory has mainly come from European and American cities, and that this translates into biases that at best prompt wrong interpretations, and at worst help reproduce existing forms of domination (for example, Robinson, 2006; McFarlane, 2011; Roy and Ong, 2011; Peck, 2015). As globalization has incited dramatic urban development beyond the traditional economic core of the “former West,” researchers are encouraged to draw cities around the world into wider theoretical conversations, thus helping to produce “new geographies of theory” (Roy, 2009; Robinson, 2016).
The relevance of these observations for urban China cannot be overstated. It is well documented how global economic restructuring coincided with a “great urban transformation” (Hsing, 2010) by which Chinese cities have grown dramatically while their internal structure radically changed (Douglass et al., 2012. for example). In response, an often Western-trained group of mainly Chinese scholars has produced an impressive urban China literature. But while this literature borrows many concepts from the Western urban studies literature, comparisons with cities elsewhere are short-circuited with the argument that Chinese cities are unique. The limited contribution to “trans-China” conversations is mirrored in an underrepresentation of urban China scholars in the comparative urbanism discussion.
Against this background, this chapter strives to reach two related aims. First, it seeks to reflect on the relevance of Western urban theory for China. Taking inspiration from modes of theorizing that focus on the localization of global developments in specific cities, it questions the strong tendency toward universalism in urban theory; perhaps we should complement urban theory that is “true” everywhere with approaches that seek to describe and explain differences.