4.2 Article

From verifiable authenticity to verisimilar interventions: Xintiandi, Fuxing SOHO, and the alternatives to built heritage conservation in Shanghai

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages 1055-1072

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2018.1557235

Keywords

Heritage authenticity; built heritage conservation; urban redevelopment; urban conservation; historic re-creation; abstract inheritance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The introduction of contemporary architecture into historic urban environments creates an open heritage discussion that includes the underlying relationship between development and conservation. This discussion requires theoretical clarification, as heritage conservation is frequently mistaken for other architectural design approaches that, even though they may operate within the historic environment as their primary source, do not comply with the complex definition of heritage authenticity used today. This article aimed to contribute to this debate, offering a characterization of such architectural design strategies operating through principles of verisimilitude that target authentication for tourists and the creative classes in a global city like Shanghai. Comparative studies of Xintiandi (Ben Woods, 2001) and Fuxing SOHO (Von Gerkan, Marg und Partner, 2015) provided an insight into the concepts of historic re-creation and abstract inheritance, currently used as ways of interpreting the historic residential typology of the Shanghai lilong according to the economic and political aims of the entrepreneurial model of governance. This allowed a critical evaluation of the growing attention paid to heritage in Shanghai in the last 25 years, and whether the substitution of the principle of authenticity for authentication has solved the contradictions between urban conservation and development in contemporary China.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available