This article examines Lingnan Tiandi (LNTD), a renowned urban renewal project in the city center of Foshan in southern China, as a case study to demonstrate discursive practices and their power of spatial production, thereby enhancing our understanding of urban redevelopment in Chinese cities. Drawing insights from Foucault’s discourse/power perspective of interpretation, this study examines how the discourse system is constructed by actors related to the project, and how power is produced through discursive practices such as representation, dissemination, replacement, and superposition to shape the urban heterotopia during the gentrification process. The planning discourse of state authorities and the developer, through the accumulation, folding, clipping, and abolishment of time, jointly defines the attributes and redevelopment mode of the public space in LNTD, completing the anamorphosis of the city center and producing a space existing in reality but is inverted in order. By actively and positively responding to the discursive practices of state authorities and the developer in a consumerism-oriented manner, the discourse of consumers generates a representation system moving toward the planning discourse. As a set of relations, the discourses of multiple actors are ubiquitous and interwoven in urban renewal projects. They jointly produce the urban heterotopia through the interpretation of meaning and the spatiotemporal splicing of a hybrid cityscape. Unlike previous studies that focused on supply or demand-side mechanisms, we contend that the spatial production power of discourse is a critical socialized force driving the ongoing gentrification in many Chinese cities.
AbbasA. (1997). Hong Kong: Culture and the politics of disappearance. University of Minnesota Press.
2.
AbbasA. (2003). Building Hong Kong: From migrancy to disappearance. In CairnsS. (Ed.), Drifting: Architecture and migrancy (pp. 129–141). Wiley.
3.
AminA.ThriftN. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the urban. Wiley.
4.
AtkinsonR. (1999). Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 36(1), 59–72.
5.
BeswickK.ParmarM.SilE. (2015). Towards a spatial practice of the postcolonial city: Introducing the cultural producer. Interventions, 17(6), 789–801.
6.
CartierC. (2017). Contextual urban theory and the “appeal” of gentrification: Lost in transposition?International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(3), 466–477.
7.
Chancheng District Government. (2007). Detailed conservative plan for the historical and cultural neighbourhood of ZDL Foshan.
8.
ChenZ. (2011). The history and culture of Foshan town. F.T.F.Z.M. Committee.
9.
CilliersJ. (2014). Power, space, and knowledge: Theological-aesthetical perspectives on Michel Foucault’s contribution to post-colonial theory. Scriptura, 112(0), 1.
10.
DavidsonM. (2007). Gentrification as global habitat: A process of class formation or corporate creation?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(4), 490–506.
11.
FederE. K. (2011). Power/Knowledge. In TaylorD. (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Key concept (pp. 55–68). Acumen.
12.
Foshan Municipal Government. (2013). Master plan of Foshan (2012-2020).
13.
FoucaultM. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
14.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (GordonC. Trans.). Harvester.
15.
FoucaultM. (1986). Of other spaces (Miskowiec J. Trans.). Diacritics, 16(1), 22–27.
16.
FoucaultM. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume I: An introduction (HurleyR. Trans.). Vintage.
17.
GrbinM. (2015). Foucault and space. Socioloski Pregled, 49(3), 305–312.
18.
HaghighiF. (2020). Heterotopic sites of knowledge production: Notes on an architectural analysis of lecture halls. Cultural Dynamics, 32(4), 307–327.
19.
HallC. M. (1997). Geography, marketing and the selling of places. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 6(3–4), 61–84.
20.
HamnettC. (1991). The blind men and the elephant: The explanation of gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16(2), 173.
21.
HarveyD. (1978). The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1–4), 101–131.
22.
HatzG. (2018). Foucault’s concept of Heterotopia as an Èpistemé for reading the post-modern city: The Viennese example. Current Urban Studies, 6(04), 455–482.
23.
HeS.WuF. (2005). Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: A case study of Xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1), 1–23.
24.
HuangL. (2007). Wok ear house: Only two left. Yangcheng Evening News on 21 September 2007.
25.
JacksonA. Y. (2013). Spaces of power/knowledge: A Foucauldian methodology for qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(10), 839–847.
26.
JenkinsO. (2003). Photography and travel brochures: The circle of representation. Tourism Geographies, 5(3), 305–328.
27.
KozinetsR. V.SherryJ. F.Jr.StormD.DuhachekA.NuttavuthisitK.DeBerry-SpenceB. (2004). Ludic agency and retail spectacle. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 658–672.
28.
LarsenJ. (2006). Picturing Bornholm: Producing and consuming a tourist place through picturing practices. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(2), 75–94.
29.
LeesL. (1994). Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the positions of economics or culture. Progress in Human Geography, 18(2), 137–150.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space (Translated by Nicholson-SmithD.). Basil-Blackwell.
32.
LefebvreH. (2003). The urban revolution, from the original French publication, La Révolution urbaine (BononnoR. Trans.) (1970 ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
33.
LidchiH. (1997). The poetics and the politics of exhibiting other cultures. In HallS. (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (p. 185). Sage.
34.
LinW. (1995). Foshan historical data (Fourteen Series). Foshan Cultural Educational Gymnastic and Health Committee & Foshan Local Chronicals Compilation Committee Office.
35.
LouJ. (2007). Revitalizing Chinatown into a Heterotopia: A geosemiotic analysis of shop signs in Washington, D.C.’s Chinatown. Space and Culture, 10(2), 170–194.
36.
LynchR. (2010). Foucault’s theory of power. In TaylorD. (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Key concepts (pp. 13–26). Acumen Publishing.
37.
MarinelliM. (2009). Making concessions in Tianjin: Heterotopia and Italian colonialism in mainland China. Urban History, 36(3), 399–425.
38.
MarquardtN.FullerH. (2012). Spillover of the private city: BIDs as a pivot of social control in downtown Los Angeles. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2), 153–166.
39.
MasonC. W. (2015). The Banff Indian days tourism festivals. Annals of Tourism Research, 53, 77–95.
40.
MowforthM.MuntI. (1998). Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the third world. Routledge.
41.
PapenU. (2012). Commercial discourses, gentrification and citizens’ protest: The linguistic landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin1: Linguistic landscape of Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(1), 56–80.
42.
PinneyC. (2004). “Photos of the gods”: The printed image and political struggle in India. Oxford University Press.
43.
PløgerJ. (2008). Foucault’s dispositif and the city. Planning Theory, 7(1), 51–70.
44.
RoseG. (2011). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. Sage.
45.
SaarinenE. (1943). The city: Its growth, its decay, its future. Reinhold Publishing Corporation.
46.
SaccoP. L.GhirardiS.TartariM.TrimarchiM. (2019). Two versions of heterotopia: The role of art practices in participative urban renewal processes. Cities, 89, 199–208.
47.
Shui On Land. (2008). Conceptual plan of the transformation of the ZDL district.
48.
Shui On Land. (2012). Leaflets of “the legendary” and “the regency” in LNTD.
49.
SmithN. (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planners Association, 45(4), 538–548.
50.
SmithN. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.
51.
TillK. E. (2003). Construction sites and showcases: Mapping “The New Berlin” through tourism practices. In HannaS. P.Del CasinoV. J. (Eds.), Mapping tourism (pp. 51–78). University of Minnesota Press.
52.
TombaL. (2017). Gentrifying China’s urbanization? Why culture and capital aren’t enough. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(3), 508–517.
53.
TunbridgeJ.AshworthG. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
54.
WaittG.HeadL. (2002). Postcards and frontier mythologies: Sustaining views of the Kimberley as timeless. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(3), 319–344.
55.
WangJ. (2009). “Art in capital”: Shaping distinctiveness in a culture-led urban regeneration project in Red Town, Shanghai. Cities, 26(6), 318–330.
56.
WuF. (2016). State dominance in urban redevelopment: Beyond gentrification in urban China. Urban Affairs Review, 52(5), 631–658.
57.
YuG. (2018). Tourism space production of urban water night cruise: Based on the night cruise of pearl river in Guangzhou Guangzhou [PhD Dissertation]. South China University of Technology.
58.
ZawawiZ.CorijnE.Van HeurB. (2013). Public spaces in the occupied Palestinian territories. GeoJournal, 78(4), 743–758.
59.
ZhuH.QianJ.GaoY. (2011). Globalization and the production of city image in Guangzhou’s metro station advertisements. Cities, 28(3), 221–229.
60.
ZukinS. (1990). Socio-spatial prototypes of a new organization of consumption: The role of real cultural capital. Sociology, 24(1), 37–56.
61.
ZukinS. (2009). Changing landscapes of power: Opulence and the urge for authenticity. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(2), 543–553.
