A photo wall at an exhibition on “people’s city” in Shanghai Photo: IC PHOTO

During a 2019 inspection tour of Shanghai, General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Xi Jinping introduced the principle that “a city should be built by the people and for the people.” Amid China’s monumental urbanization drive, one fundamental question remains: How and for whom should cities be built? The “people’s city” concept offers a compelling answer to this epochal question, while marking a fundamental departure from the traditional efficiency-driven paradigm of urban governance. Its power lies in reimagining the logic of urban spatial production by embedding the principle of people-centeredness deep within the fabric of urban development—achieving synergistic transformation in both governance philosophy and spatial organization.

Centering on people’s everyday life

The fast pace of China’s urbanization has made it difficult to avoid the commodification of space as a vehicle for capital accumulation and expansion. The introduction of the people’s city concept marks a strategic shift away from the “abstract space” model toward a “differentiated space” paradigm. In this new framework, urban space is no longer treated as a homogenous, replaceable commodity, but as an organic medium that reflects and accommodates the diverse needs and aspirations of the people. Its ultimate value lies in facilitating well-rounded human development and improved quality of life.

By emphasizing that “cities are living, organic entities,” the people’s city philosophy reasserts the social and functional value of space, aiming to dissolve the spatial alienation of urban environments and rebuild a harmonious, symbiotic relationship between people and their surroundings. The construction of the Xiong’an New Area in north China’s Hebei Province serves as concrete manifestations of this vision.

With core planning principles such as “industry-city integration” and “balance between jobs and housing,” the project seeks to avoid the pitfalls of “pendulum commuting” and “dormitory towns” characteristic of traditional industrial parks and many new towns. By scientifically organizing the density and accessibility of residential, employment, and service facilities, planners aim to shape a spatial layout where work, life, and leisure are organically intertwined. Here, space serves people’s daily lives by ensuring convenience, comfort, and dignity, ultimately becoming an enabler of holistic human development. This approach also reflects a deeper commitment to spatial justice: equitable distribution of space, universal access to spatial rights, and across-the-board improvements in the quality of urban environments.

Perhaps the most paradigmatic innovation of the people’s city philosophy lies in shifting the focus of urban governance away from grand, visible “urban spectacles” and other symbols of development—GDP growth, landmark buildings, large-scale infrastructure—toward the more subtle, granular practices of everyday life. The “15-minute living circle” model illustrates this philosophy in practice.

In pioneering cities like Beijing and Shanghai, planners have worked to ensure that key public and community services—including fresh markets, community health centers, neighborhood greenspaces, schools, and local retail—are all located within a 15-minute walk of residential areas. This improves convenience and quality of life and reduces unnecessary commuting, while restoring close emotional connections between residents and the urban environment, strengthening community identity. It also breaks away from the rigid functional zoning of earlier planning models—such as residential-only or industrial-only districts—thereby transforming urban space from a passive backdrop for performance into a dynamic stage for everyday life.

Balancing technological empowerment, people-centeredness

Amid the sweeping global tide of digital transformation, the people’s city philosophy faces a critical test: How to harness the power of technology to enhance governance while preventing “technical rationality” (instrumental logic) from overwhelming “value rationality” (people-centered principles), which could ultimately distort governance goals. The developmental trajectory of the “City Brain” project in Hangzhou, east China’s Zhejiang Province, offers valuable lessons in navigating this balance.

Initially focused on enhancing macro-level operational efficiency—such as traffic flow monitoring and signal optimization—the “City Brain” system has progressively incorporated solutions for a range of public concerns, such as helping locate missing elderly residents, optimizing the spatial distribution of educational and healthcare resources, and alleviating parking shortages in old residential areas. These enhancements reflect an increasingly thorough application of the principles of the people’s city concept.

Many researchers and practitioners agree that digital tools demonstrably improve governance precision, responsiveness, and coordination. For example, Beijing’s “Swift Response to Public Complaints” platform exemplifies how technology can enable closed-loop governance that addresses every legitimate public concern. At the same time, vigilance is warranted: Overreliance on “data-ism” or unchecked algorithmic governance risks might widen the digital divide, erode personal privacy, and diminish humanistic consideration.

To mitigate such risks, many cities have begun exploring institutional safeguards to maintain balance, such as establishing a digital inclusivity assessment mechanism that evaluates smart services’ adaptability for seniors and those with disabilities, and providing alternative solutions or assistive technologies to ensure they are not excluded from digitalized urban life.

The evolution of the people’s city concept has, in this context, produced a structured and progressive framework for managing this dialectical relationship—what is often referred to as the “new three-fold governance integration.” At its foundation is data-enabled governance, which emphasizes the use of data to improve the scientific precision and efficiency of urban management. Building on this is intelligent governance, which ensures that technological applications directly address the real needs of the people, while providing accessible platforms to facilitate public participation. Ultimately, the goal is good governance, which prioritizes fairness and inclusivity—ensuring that the benefits of urban development are broadly shared and that cities become satisfying, livable homes for all residents.

Ushering in new model of urban advancement

Against the backdrop of increasing homogenization in global urban development, the people’s city philosophy distinguishes itself through a profound commitment to preserving historical and cultural memories—a testament to its unique humanistic value. Urban historical and cultural heritage serves as a vital marker of a city’s character, quality, and identity. This signifies that the people’s city philosophy has transcended utilitarianism that regards heritage merely as tourist attractions or development opportunities. Instead, it positions these legacies as essential physical vehicles for collective memory, emotional resonance, and a sense of belonging—the very soul of a city’s distinctiveness.

Initiatives like Qingdao’s “Urban Memory Museum” exemplify this perspective. These projects use digital technology not only to preserve tangible heritage—historic buildings, old streets, and traditional urban fabrics—but also to systematically document and transmit intangible cultural assets: traditional crafts, regional operas, local dialects and sayings, festivals, and community narratives. This form of “memory preservation” constitutes a deeper practice of cultural governance. Amid rapid urban renewal, it offers residents anchors of identity and emotional bonding, easing the alienation and nostalgia triggered by drastic spatial transformations.

Ultimately, the people’s city philosophy aspires to usher in a new model of urban civilization. In projects like Beijing’s hutong renewal and Guangzhou’s integrated urban village redevelopment, the aim is not simply physical regeneration but the reweaving of social relationships. Here, residents are no longer passive subjects of governance but active participants in co-governance. The city, in turn, transforms from a sterile container into a living community.

He Yanling is a Wu Yuzhang chair professor at Renmin University of China.