上海为何总在全球宜居城市排行榜的中游 Shanghai: Exotic, Modern, Dynamic — But Never ‘Livable’?
;l)
毋庸置疑，上海是全球最为标新立异的城市之一，在不断自我更新的同时，也在快速向外扩展。上海每年吸引数十万的外来移民，大部分是出于经济原因而来，其中包括相当多的外国人。自2010年以来，“创意阶层”在上海安家落户，数量呈稳定增长之势。
尽管拥有众多优势，上海却鲜于达到世界宜居城市列表的靠前之位。在2017年美世全球宜居城市调查中，上海位列全球宜居城市第102位，而经济学人智库则把上海列为140个宜居城市列表中的第81位。
诸多权威网站按照舒适、经济活力、生活成本、经济指标以及文化娱乐对宜居性进行定义。然而，所使用的这些标准问题重重，特别值得商榷的是，评价时把宜居性的高低与富裕的全球精英生活方式对应起来。除此之外，评级普遍都向当代西方生活方式倾斜，忽视了城市中本地人的传统居住方式。
当我们考虑如何对不同城市区域进行比较时，又有一个新的问题出现。Airshare网站在对城市宜居性评判时，格外重视空气质量，在150个宜居城市排名中，上海位列第73。排名第一的是瑞士苏黎世。然而，苏黎世人口为40万，与上海所拥有的人口数量相比，仅仅算是一个小镇。这种情况下，如何对不同城市应对的千差万别的城市发展问题之能力进行评价呢？
在过去二十年里，上海经历了前所未有的经济增长与城市发展。这是需要付出代价的。和很多城市一样，上海同样面临着因建筑遗产损毁、房屋空置以及空气污染所带来的新挑战。与此同时，上海也在砥砺前行，提升城市形象，改善市民生活品质。
2009年，中国国务院批准了上海在2020年成为全球领先的金融和航运中心的规划。另外，在过去的20年里，上海经济飞速发展，追赶上了同级别大都市纽约和伦敦，这主要是因为（伦敦和纽约）受到国际金融危机的影响，而（上海）实施有针对性的地方政策则扩大了中产阶层的比例，并引入了大量多国投资。
上海为期25年的最新规划之中，这个大都市致力于成为“全球城市”，努力打造成对创意阶层具有吸引力的城市，因为这一阶层，既是投资者，又是实业家。自2010年上海世博会举办之后，上海在新增文化基础设施上投资甚巨，诸如上海双年展以及上海西岸的多个崭新的博物馆。
上海着眼于向外界展示其如何塑造城市的未来。中国其他城市乐于追随甚至照搬上海的多项城市发展趋势，比如，在地铁站的公共交通为导向的开发项目，以及K11和环球港等大型购物中心的概念。同时还有看上去古旧其实却是新建的新天地，这一概念至少被数十个中国其他城市照搬。上海的急剧变化，正在对全球开展的城市研究与城市发展的讨论产生强大影响。
在巨大的人口、经济和生态环境重压之下，上海的功能运转却极佳。尽管污染和交通拥堵是历史问题，然而凭借发达的公共交通系统，加之以单车共享甚至电动汽车共享措施，上海成为了可持续发展的榜样。
上海的“混搭”激动人心：东西方建筑风格交融；穷人和富人共生于此；既有混乱，又有秩序；既有城市，又有乡村；既有高楼，又有矮屋；有新，有旧；美与丑并存。这些强烈反差并非经过规划形成。它们的出现，是由不同背景的数以万计的外来移民所产生的多种影响导致。正是多种多样的影响、表达和情感，让上海这一独特的城市具有了特征与灵魂。然而不幸的是，当前这种独特性正受到威胁。非正式空间日渐稀缺，一个典型的表现就是传统街道生活的消弭。
根据联合国人居署的观点，采用更为独立和科学的方式，通过多项指标对城市的繁荣进行定义：生产力、基础设施、生活品质、公平与社会包容、环境可持续性以及城市治理与法规。而更为重要的是，应把所有居民的生活标准更为公平地纳入到结果之中，而非仅仅考虑城市中居住的外籍人士和其他精英阶层的西方生活方式。
为何不用这些指标来影响我们对于城市宜居性的理解呢？即便存在种种问题，上海肯定也能够在上述任何一项指标上取得更好的评分。上海可能无法对全球最宜居的若干城市带来挑战，但它也绝对不会在宜居城市排行榜的中游徘徊不前。
Shanghai: Exotic, Modern, Dynamic — But Never ‘Livable’?
Western-centric metrics focusing on the lifestyles of a wealthy global elite ignore the real reasons why people love living in cities like Shanghai.
Shanghai is, without a doubt, one of the world’s most avant-garde cities, filled with contrasts and extremes, continuously renewing itself and expanding rapidly. It attracts hundreds of thousands of immigrants yearly, including many foreigners, and most of them come for economic reasons. Since 2010, a steadily growing “creative class” drawn from industries like science, academia, engineering, writing, design, and architecture has made China’s biggest city its home.
Yet despite its many advantages, Shanghai rarely appears high up on lists of the world’s most livable cities. The 2017 Mercer Quality of Living Survey, undertaken by the New York-based consultancy firm, ranks Shanghai as the world’s 102nd most livable city, while the Economist Intelligence Unit — a forecasting and advisory service linked to The Economist magazine — ranked it 81st on a list of 140 cities.
Many supposedly authoritative sources define livability in terms of comfort, economic vitality, cost of living, and cultural entertainment. However, the metrics they use are open to question, not least because they associate greater livability with the lifestyles of a wealthy global elite. In addition, their rankings are commonly skewed in favor of contemporary Western lifestyles and ignore how locals have traditionally resided in their chosen cities.
A further issue arises when we consider how to compare such different urban areas. Airinc, a website that strongly considers air quality in determining a city’s livability, puts Shanghai at No. 73 out of 150 cities surveyed. In first place is Zürich, Switzerland; however, Zürich’s population of 400,000 practically makes it a small town compared to the tens of millions of people in Shanghai. How should we account for each city’s ability to deal with vastly different urban development issues?
Shanghai has experienced an unprecedented economic boom and urban growth during the last two decades. This has come at a price, as the city has faced new challenges resulting from the destruction of heritage architecture, unfinished real estate lots, and serious air and water pollution. In recent years, though, the municipal government has worked hard to improve its citizens’ quality of life.
In 2009, the State Council — China’s cabinet — approved Shanghai’s plans to become a leading global financial and shipping center by 2020. Furthermore, in the last two decades, Shanghai has economically caught up rapidly with the likes of New York and London, largely by emerging relatively unscathed from an international financial crisis and rolling out local policies that have enlarged the middle class and drawing increased multinational investment.
In Shanghai’s last two five-year plans, the municipality aimed to become a “global city” by making itself as attractive to the creative class as it is to investors and entrepreneurs. Since the Expo 2010, the city has also invested in new cultural infrastructure such as the Shanghai Biennale and new museums along the West Bund.
The city’s political leaders aim to show how the metropolises of the future should be shaped. Many urban trends in Shanghai are later followed by other Chinese cities, such as transit-oriented development projects linking pedestrianized spaces to a network of metro stations. For example, the concept behind Xintiandi, a walkable shopping and entertainment district built in the style of Shanghai’s traditional alley houses, has been emulated in several other Chinese cities.
Under enormous demographic, economic, and ecological pressure, Shanghai functions remarkably well. With its advanced public transportation system, combined with shared bikes and even shared electric cars, Shanghai is setting examples of sustainable development, despite its historic problems with pollution and congestion.
Shanghai retains its exciting mixture of Eastern and Western architectural styles, an often-overwhelming morass of rich and poor, chaos and order, urban and rural, high-rise and low-rise, old and new, beauty and ugliness. These contrasts were not planned; they emerged thanks to multiple influences from thousands of migrants with all kinds of backgrounds. This wide variety of influences, expressions, and emotions is what gives character and soul to this singular city.
Unfortunately, this uniqueness is now under threat. Like downtown New York, Paris, or Tokyo, rising real estate and rental prices are pushing locals out of the city center. Shanghai is also losing many of its traditional characteristics as public space becomes more formalized, and many small, unlawfully operated roadside businesses are shut down. Government policy now limits the number of household registrations in Shanghai, an act that constitutes a form of financial discrimination against migrant workers who contribute to the city’s vivacity. While the city is on the up, it is still far from perfect.
According to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, six indicators define a city’s prosperity: productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and governance and legislation. Compared to the rather more biased metrics mentioned above, these indicators cover a broader spectrum encompassing almost all aspects of urban life. Most importantly, the UN’s criteria consider the living standards of all residents — not only those of social elites, expatriates, and the middle class.
Why not use these metrics to shape our ideas of livability, too? Despite its issues, Shanghai certainly deserves a high score by any of the UN’s indicators. Admittedly, the city probably wouldn’t challenge the world’s front-runners, but it certainly wouldn’t languish in mid-table obscurity, either.
www.thepaper.cn (Chinese)
www.sixthtone.com (English)
Copyright: Urban Language