City Master Planning Academic Committee of Urban Planning Society of China Issues Initiative to Reform City Master Planning
In June 2015, the City Master Planning Academic Committee of Urban Planning Society of China issued an Initiative to Speed up the Reform and Innovation of City Master Planning. The Initiative points out that China has entered the middle and later stage of rapid urbanization. Different from the urbanization in previous years, now the urbanization is characterized by: medium-speed instead of the former rapid development; connotative development mode instead of the former extensive expansion; diverse and featured development engines instead of industrialization. Just as “it is unnecessary to copy previous approaches if new methods could resolve problems,” city master planning should also advance with the times to promote reform and innovation, so as to make it become an important means to protect and control spatial resources, a public policy to protect public interest and public security, a platform to coordinate space utilization, a legal blueprint to guide urban construction in accordance with the spirit of the “rule of law” and “streamlining administration and delegating powers to the lower levels.” The Initiative puts forward that the reform and innovation of city master planning should “establish an idea, clarify three relationships, and strengthen four focal points”: planning idea transforming from the “object-oriented” to “people-oriented”; in terms of planning content, the government’s role should transform from “doing everything” to “control + supply” considering its relationship with the market; in terms of planning approval, the vertical relationship of governments at all levels should transform from “unclear division of labor” to “clearly defined rights and responsibilities”; in terms of planning coordination, the lateral relationships among different departments should transform from “separate management” to “following one blueprint”; the planning system reform should focus on “rigid contents transfer” while avoiding “disjunction of different levels”; the planning technology reform should focus on “highlighting local characteristics and traditional culture”; the planning outcome reform should focus on “public policy” instead of “technical document”; the planning implementation reform should be focused on planning implementation and supervision according to the law.