AC5007 - Batch 8 - ZHANG CHUFENG

Retaining Community Identity in Industrial Heritage Redevelopment: A Case Study of Beijing Shougang Park

Zhang Chufeng A0297345R

Master of Arts in Architectural Conservation, NUS

Supervisor: Dr. Chen Yu April 2025

Abstract With the rapid development of cities and the economy, industrial heritage — as a vital carrier of urban memory—has been widely incorporated into the urban space reuse system. However, within the broader context of urban renewal and industrial heritage redevelopment, the cultural identity and collective memory of former affiliated communities are increasingly under threat. This study takes Beijing’s Shougang Park as its research focus, examining the shifts in community

identity and the emergence of emotional disconnection experienced by the original industrial community during the transformation process, with particular attention

to the emotional experiences and expressions of former workers. Through in-depth interviews with former Shougang employees from diverse backgrounds,

supported by survey data and comparative case analysis, the study reveals that although Shougang Park has achieved significant success in terms of spatial revitalization and physical reuse, it has only partially managed to preserve the

social memory, emotional attachment, and sense of spatial belonging of its original

community. Many former workers described the space as “familiar yet unfamiliar,” expressing a strong sense of emotional alienation and cultural exclusion. This

paper seeks to offer potential policy recommendations or solutions, while also presenting and reflecting on individual experiences and emotional narratives. It

calls for greater attention to be paid to the cultural identity and social memory of original communities during industrial heritage redevelopment, so that such

heritage can truly become a public space that embodies both historical continuity and social integration.

KEY WORDS: Industrial Heritage, Community Identity, Cultural Memory, Community Heritage, Public Space

Acknowledgement Completing this thesis marks the end of an unforgettable journey as part of the

MAArC programme at the National University of Singapore. Returning to academia after years in professional practice has profoundly reshaped my understanding of

architecture, shifting my perspective from technical and structural concerns toward deeper reflections on culture and memory.

I am especially grateful to Professor Chen Yu, whose thoughtful guidance and

unwavering support have helped me rediscover academic thinking. I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the faculty members whose generous teaching has enriched my perspectives immensely.

To my classmates, thank you for the companionship, support, and countless memorable moments we have shared. Although this year has flown by quickly, our friendships have become truly invaluable.

I wish each and every one of you the brightest future ahead.

Singapore, April 22, 2025 Zhang Chufeng

Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................................I Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................................................II Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................... III List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................................IV List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ IV Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Aims of dissertation ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Limitation of the study .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Literature review .....................................................................................................................................................................5 Chapter 2: Methodology ......................................................................................................................................13 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Case study selection ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................21 2.3.1 Overview of Research Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.3.2 Core Research Method- Semi-structured In-depth Interviews ..................................................................22 2.3.3 Supplementary Research Method- Questionnaire Survey ...........................................................................23 2.2.4 Supplementary Research Method- Case Study and Comparative Analysis ......................................... 24 Chapter 3: Key Findings and Analysis ........................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Interview findings Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................25 3.1.1 Basic Information and Background of Interviewees .....................................................................................25 3.1.2 Core Interview Questions and Selected Full Interview Records ............................................................... 26 3.1.3 Summary of Core Records and Similar Questions .......................................................................................... 28 3.2 Questionnaire Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................32 3.3 Case Comparative Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 4: Discussion and Recommendations ...........................................................................................43 4.1 Rethinking Industrial Heritage and Community Memory ...................................................................................43 4.1.1 The Disconnect Between Tangible Preservation and Intangible Emotional Continuity ............... 43 4.1.2 Causal Analysis and Mechanism Reflection ...................................................................................................... 45 4.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................................52 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................73

Word Count: 9,670

List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Beijing Shougang Park and Surrounding Residential Areas 2002 Version ................. 16 Figure 2. Beijing Shougang’s Industrial Production Area, 1973 .......................................................................... 18 Figure 3. Diagram of the Development Trajectory of Beijing Shougang .......................................................... 20

Figure 4. Framework of Research Methods ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 5. Historical Photograph of Tianjin No. 3 Cotton Textile Factory .........................................................37 Figure 6. Present-Day View of the Mian3 Creative District .................................................................................... 37

List of Tables Table 1. Interviewee Information Table .......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 2.Table of Questionnaire Results ............................................................................................................................33

Table 3. Survey Analysis Chart............................................................................................................................................. 35

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction Industrial heritage is not only an important carrier of urban development

history but also embodies the deep emotions and historical memories of local

communities. However, with the advancement of urban renewal and industrial

heritage redevelopment, an increasing number of industrial heritage sites are

facing the problem of disconnection from the memories and spiritual attachment

of surrounding communities. Although heritage protection has achieved certain

results at the physical level, it often neglects the genuine needs of original community residents in terms of emotions and memories, leading to what is

known as the phenomenon of “spatial enclaves.” In this context, heritage spaces

may be physically preserved and repurposed, but they remain spiritually and emotionally distant from local communities, turning into “visible yet inaccessible”

historical monuments for the residents.

This study takes Beijing Shougang Park as a specific case to analyze the

disconnection between space and memory in the process of industrial heritage redevelopment, focusing on the dimensions of community identity and cultural

memory. Beijing Shougang Park was chosen for this study due to its unique

historical background and symbolic status: as one of China’s most significant steel production bases, the century-long development of Beijing Shougang Park has 1

encapsulated the industrial progress of Beijing and even the entire country, carrying the rich cultural life and emotional connections of its workers and surrounding communities. Moreover, the scale and representativeness of Beijing

Shougang Park ’ s redevelopment practice make it a typical case of industrial heritage protection in China, especially in balancing multiple goals such as urban

renewal, industrial transformation, and heritage preservation. This process highlights the tension between memory preservation and community identity.

In addition, this research is also driven by a strong personal emotional

dimension. As a child of former Shougang workers, I grew up in the Shougang

residential community and witnessed the complex emotional changes experienced by residents during the industrial heritage transformation. Therefore, this study

not only aims to explore industrial heritage protection from a theoretical

perspective but also seeks to reflect the real perceptions and emotional experiences of community residents toward heritage redevelopment through

interviews and field research, offering insights from the perspective of a firsthand observer.

Specifically, this study takes Beijing Beijing Shougang Park as a case study to

analyze the often-overlooked issues of intangible cultural memory and community

identity in the current process of industrial heritage redevelopment, and to propose potentially effective recommendations for improvement. By reflecting on industrial heritage conservation from the perspective of the community, the 2

research aims to offer a new approach that emphasizes the human and mnemonic dimensions of heritage. It is hoped that this perspective can serve as a valuable reference for future industrial heritage transformation projects.

1.2 Aims of dissertation

Current research and practice in the field of industrial heritage conservation

often emphasize the repair and adaptive reuse of physical space, while largely

neglecting the community memory and emotional values embedded in these sites.

This oversight has, to some extent, weakened the sense of community identity among surrounding residents and former workers, thereby hindering the transmission of the intangible cultural heritage associated with industrial sites.

As a large-scale industrial heritage redevelopment project of international

significance, Beijing Shougang Park has achieved notable success in the material transformation of the site and offers broad reference value. However, behind this

physical achievement lies a clear neglect of efforts to sustain community identity—

an omission that could increasingly affect the spiritual culture and intangible heritage associated with the park, ultimately threatening the authenticity of heritage preservation efforts.

This paper adopts the first-person perspectives of local communities and

former employees through interviews and analysis, taking memory and community identity as the core research focus. It seeks to offer a new perspective 3

for the conservation practice of Beijing Shougang Park, one that places greater emphasis on the dimension of lived memory.

1.3 Limitation of the study

In terms of case study limitations, while issues such as the loss of intangible

cultural memory and the crisis of community identity are common across many industrial heritage redevelopment projects both in China and abroad, this paper focuses solely on the example of Beijing Shougang Park. As such, it does not fully

capture the complexity and diversity of industrial heritage sites across different regions.

Regarding data limitations, this study is based on a small sample size,

primarily involving interviews and questionnaires with former employees of

Beijing Shougang. As a result, the findings may not comprehensively reflect the views of the wider community or the general public. Additionally, all data and responses are grounded in the current time frame, without the benefit of long-term tracking or longitudinal observation of community dynamics.

Lastly, this paper focuses primarily on cultural memory and community

identity, and offers only limited analysis of broader structural dimensions such as urban planning policies or economic mechanisms. This may result in certain analytical biases or incomplete interpretations.

4

The high coupling of natural, cultural and policy factors, along with the

overlapping risks in this region, makes it an ideal case study for this research.

1.4 Literature review

With the continued advancement of global industrialization, industrial

heritage — as a distinctive form of cultural heritage — has garnered widespread

international attention. Originating from the concept of “industrial archaeology ” in late 19th-century Britain, the theoretical foundation for industrial heritage

conservation gradually began to take shape and entered a phase of practical exploration by the 1950s.1 Meanwhile, several developed countries around the

world gradually began initiating efforts to preserve industrial districts. For example, the SOHO revitalization project launched in New York City in 1973 is

widely regarded as the first practical case of industrial heritage conservation. To

this day, it continues to successfully integrate artistic, commercial, and other functions, and has become a prominent mixed-use urban district in New York.2 In 1978, the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage

(TICCIH) was officially established. It later developed key conservation principles

such as The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage,3 and has since played a critical role in shifting the focus of industrial heritage from purely technological remnants to broader concerns of social history and cultural value. This shift

1 Zhang, Jingcheng, Liu Liyong, and Liu Guangyu. Protection and Utilization of Industrial Heritage: A Perspective of the Creative Economy Era. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2013.

2 Chen, Chang, Chen Hong, and Li Sidong. Challenges and Countermeasures in the Protection of Industrial Heritage in Shanghai. Scientific Development 4 (2018): 97–107.

3 TICCIH (The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage), The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (Moscow: TICCIH, 2003).

5

emphasized the importance of preserving workers ’

memories, community

identity, and the integrity of industrial landscapes, marking a new phase in the global discourse on industrial heritage conservation. Over the past few decades,

sustained efforts by governments and international organizations have elevated industrial heritage to a significant position within contemporary cultural and memory discourse. While disused factories, depleted mines, and abandoned

railways have ceased to serve their original productive functions, they remain meaningful as historical records of industrial civilization and are often endowed

with unique cultural value.4 In this context, a number of landmark industrial heritage redevelopment projects have emerged globally. Germany ’s Ruhr region,

once a core hub of coal and steel production, has undergone a transformation into an urban agglomeration that integrates ecological renewal and cultural vitality. In

the United Kingdom, Tate Modern — converted from the former Bankside Power

Station and opened to the public in 2000 — has exerted a far-reaching influence

across London. The project revitalized the disused riverside industrial site and established a new cultural landmark along the Thames, contributing to the regeneration of the surrounding district.5

As industrial heritage conservation continues to evolve, it has progressed

from an initial phase of recognition to a more refined and diversified stage of 4 Xing, Huaibin, Ran Hongyan, and Zhang Dejun. Preliminary Study on the Value and Protection of Industrial Heritage. Journal of Northeastern University (Social Science Edition) 1 (2007).

5 ArchDaily, “Tate Modern’s Switch House / Herzog & de Meuron,” ArchDaily, August 1, 2016, https://www.archdaily.com/790195/tate-moderns-switch-house-herzog-and-de-meuron.

6

development. However, this advancement has also brought with it new challenges

and critical reflections. From a theoretical perspective, while existing research has

largely focused on the preservation and adaptive reuse of industrial heritage itself, it often overlooks the lived realities of the surrounding heritage communities and their residents, who are intimately connected to these sites.6 In their field study of the Tianjin Mian San (Cotton No. 3) industrial heritage community, scholars Sun

Shuting, Xu Subin, and others identified a growing sense of emotional and psychological disconnection between the original heritage community and the

newly established creative industry park that replaced it. This separation reflects a violation of the principle of integrity that underpins industrial heritage

conservation.6 The case illustrates how redevelopment processes often fail to

adequately acknowledge and preserve the historical relationships between industrial sites and their surrounding communities.

On the other hand, capital-driven redevelopment models tend to prioritize

commercial demands and long-term profitability, often at the expense of the

original community’s role in the process of industrial heritage transformation. In

her study on urban regeneration in Leeds, UK, Jasna Cizler observes that many

redevelopment projects are shaped by market-oriented logic, emphasizing economic returns while overlooking the deep historical ties between industrial heritage and local communities. This imbalance often leads to the commodification 6 Sun, Shuting, Xu Subin, and Nobuo Aoki. Study on Community Identity of Heritage in the Transformation of Industrial Land. China Cultural Heritage 109, no. 3 (2022): 41–48.

7

of industrial heritage, gradually pushing localized memory out of the public narrative and triggering debates over the ownership of heritage values and the

right to interpret them. Jasna Cizler advocates for a greater emphasis on integrating local narratives into urban regeneration, arguing that such an approach

is essential for achieving a more inclusive and human-centered model of heritage renewal.7 As Jasna Cizler argues, in response to commercial demands, a large

number of highly commodified creative and industrial parks have emerged in recent years. While these developments often preserve the physical shells of

industrial heritage sites and use historical narratives as a form of branding, their interiors are frequently repurposed into cafés, upscale restaurants, and office

spaces—functions that facilitate rapid commercialization and stable rental income

under efficient operations. However, this replicable model of redevelopment tends to erode the unique historical character of each heritage site and weakens the

sense of identity that local residents once held toward these places. As Song Feng and other scholars have pointed out, heritage embodies the memories of

individuals, communities, ethnic groups, and nations, and thus involves multiple layers of identity.8 Industrial heritage, once the functional and emotional core of

surrounding communities, served as the foundation for workers' production,

recreation, and social interaction. As a distinctive form of heritage in the post-industrial era, it is essentially a productive heritage rooted in the life and

7 Cizler, Jasna. Urban Regeneration Effects on Industrial Heritage and Local Community – Case Study: Leeds, UK. Sociologija i Prostor (2012).

8 Song, Feng, and Xiong Xinkai. National Heritage, Collective Memory, and Cultural Identity. Chinese Landscape Architecture 28, no. 11 (2012): 23–26.

8

structure of industrial communities.9 However, the functions of contemporary redeveloped spaces — such as cafés, upscale restaurants, and office hubs — often

diverge significantly from the original needs and lived realities of the historical

resident communities. This functional transformation has, in turn, led to shifts and conflicts in identity. In their study on cultural memory in the Tiexi industrial

district of Shenyang, Liu Lihua and other scholars point out that current industrial

heritage redevelopment is predominantly led by governmental bodies, corporations, and expert groups—actors who control both material resources and

discursive power. As a result, the direction of heritage protection and reuse is

largely dictated from the top down. Whether in the form of culture-oriented museums

or

economy-driven

creative

industry

parks,

the

resulting

representations tend to present sanitized and selectively curated industrial

imagery, making it difficult to authentically convey the lived experiences and historical memories of the working class.9 The redevelopment of traditional

industrial heritage sites has, by now, become a well-established practice, typically

driven by either capital investment or government-led initiatives. These projects are often integrated into broader urban development agendas. However, in the process, many of the original surrounding communities — once integral to these

sites — have been marginalized or spatially separated, making it increasingly difficult to sustain a sense of community identity tied to the heritage site itself. In

their detailed study of the Tianjin Mian San industrial heritage community, Sun 9 Liu, Lihua, and He Jun. Traumatic Memory of Industrial Heritage and Its Mechanism for Shaping Community Cultural Identity: A Case Study of Tiexi, Shenyang. China Ecotourism 13, no. 2 (2023): 316–328.

9

Shuting, Xu Subin, and colleagues identified multiple signs of progressive

detachment between the redeveloped heritage site and its former residential community.6 Although the Mian San Creative Industry Park remains geographically

adjacent to the old neighborhoods, a combination of physical barriers (such as

walls), shifts in industrial function, and the targeting of different user groups has led to both physical and emotional disconnection. The original residents, primarily

aging and low-income former workers, now live in deteriorating environments that have not benefited from coordinated renewal. Following the shutdown of the

former industrial system, essential facilities such as kindergartens, schools, and clinics—once embedded within the unit-based community model—were closed. As

the factory ceased operations and governance shifted into fragmented systems of subdistrict and residents ’ committees, the community's social fabric began to

unravel. The result is a dramatic loss of place-based identity and connection, severely undermining the authenticity and integrity of the industrial heritage conservation effort.

These studies collectively confirm, to a significant extent, the potential risks

associated with weakened community identity in the current wave of industrial heritage redevelopment. On the conceptual level, extensive theoretical work has been undertaken internationally on issues related to community identity and cultural memory. The notion of identity first emerged in the 16th century within

the fields of psychology and sociology and was later defined by renowned 10

psychoanalyst Sigismund Schlomo Freud as “ a process in which the individual unconsciously imitates a particular object”.10

It was not until the 1970s that scholars such as Jan E. Stets systematically

developed the theory of social identity, arguing that individuals recognize themselves as members of specific social groups and develop a corresponding sense of emotional belonging and value-based identification.11

Community

identity, as a spatialized and emotionally grounded extension of social identity, possesses a particularly strong attachment to place and collective experience. In

this study, the key concept of “ community identity in the context of industrial

heritage” aligns closely with social identity theory, while also presenting distinct characteristics due to its deep entanglement with material space, memory, and post-industrial transformation.

In recent years, international heritage conservation discourse has undergone

a significant shift — from a focus primarily on tangible assets to a growing emphasis on the protection of intangible cultural heritage. Industrial heritage

communities, in this context, are not only repositories of valuable material remains, but also critical carriers of collective memory and cultural identity for their residents. However, current industrial heritage redevelopment practices have yet

10 Lin, Chongde, Yang Zhiliang, and Huang Xiting. Dictionary of Psychology. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press, 2003.

11 Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2000): 224–237.

11

to fully incorporate these evolving perspectives, and numerous challenges remain unresolved.

As such, a key question confronting industrial heritage conservation today is

how to effectively navigate the relationship between heritage sites and the original communities that once gave them life. It is imperative to preserve and transmit the cultural memory embedded within these communities and to enhance their sense of identity in the face of spatial transformation. This calls for a more integrated

approach — one that sees the revitalization of industrial heritage not only as a matter of architectural reuse, but also as a process of social and cultural continuity.

12

Chapter 2: Methodology 2.1 Introduction This study focuses on the impact of industrial heritage redevelopment on

surrounding community identity and cultural memory, and reflects on the blind spots in current conservation practices from a community perspective. Specifically,

it analyzes the case of Beijing ’ s Beijing Shougang Park — a site characterized by

both its rich historical legacy and large-scale transformation.

The research centers on how industrial heritage redevelopment influences the

identity and cultural memory of adjacent communities, aiming to critically examine

the limitations and oversights within existing heritage conservation practices through the lens of the local community. As a significant symbol of Beijing ’ s

industrial development, Beijing Shougang Park carries deep historical and cultural

layers and has profoundly shaped the lives of generations of Shougang employees and their families. This site was chosen for its vast redevelopment scale, strong political symbolism, and the highly centralized discourse surrounding its heritage preservation.

Given the nature of the research problem, this study adopts a qualitative

methodology, with semi-structured in-depth interviews as its core. Interviews

were conducted with former Shougang employees who had held various positions and currently reside in different locations, aiming to gather objective and reflective 13

feedback. The goal is to explore how the redevelopment of industrial heritage

spaces affects the emotional connection between original communities and their historical places, and to further reflect on why community identity has been marginalized under contemporary urban renewal logic — and how it might be reinterpreted and addressed.

In addition, the study incorporates supplementary methods such as

questionnaire surveys and case study and comparative analysis to more

comprehensively assess the efforts and shortcomings of Beijing Shougang Park in

addressing community identity during its redevelopment. Literature analysis is

used to systematically review the site's historical and policy background, planning strategies, and current condition. Semi-structured interviews are employed to delve into the emotional and mnemonic shifts among former workers, while

comparative case analysis helps to situate Shougang ’ s transformation within a broader context and evaluate both its uniqueness and generalizability.

2.2 Case study selection

The selection of Beijing Shougang Park as the case study in this research is the

result of both rational and emotional considerations, given its unique historical

background, prominent urban cultural symbolism, and strong familial connection to my personal memories.

14

First, Beijing Shougang Park possesses a profound historical background,

bearing witness to the achievements and challenges of industrialization in Beijing

and across China. The rich history behind Shougang also represents the dedication of generations of people who devoted their youth to China’s industrialization.

Established in 1919, Shougang was one of the pioneers of China’s industrial

system and an important carrier of Beijing’s industrial history. From the founding

of the People’s Republic of China to the reform and opening-up period, Shougang not only shouldered significant social and economic responsibilities by producing

steel but also built a comprehensive living community for its workers, which included education, healthcare, housing, and recreational facilities, forming a

unique “ household ” system. It was during this time that urban development in

western Beijing began to gradually unfold. Large-scale public housing communities were built in the northern and western areas of Shougang to accommodate the

worker population, giving rise to an industrial production-oriented community centered on Shougang itself.

15

Figure 1. Map of Beijing Shougang Park and Surrounding Residential Areas 2002 Version (Source: drawn by author) 1)Shougang Production Zone 2)Moshikouxili District 1

3)Moshikou Nanli (South) 4)Moshikou Zhongli (Central) 5)Pingguoyuan Community

6)Moshikou Dongli (East)

7)Jinding Street Community 8)Zhutie Village (demolished) The predecessor of Beijing Shougang Park can be traced back to the

Shijingshan（石景山） Ironworks of the "Longyan Mining Company（龙烟钢铁公

司 ） ," founded in 1919 and located in Shijingshan District in western Beijing.

16

Initially established with domestic capital, the plant aimed to build a self-sufficient,

modern steelworks by utilizing the abundant coal and iron ore resources in Mentougou （门 头沟 ） and surrounding areas. However, its early development

faced significant challenges, constrained by warlord conflicts and the

monopolization of resources by foreign capital. After the outbreak of the “July 7 Incident（七七事变）” in 1937, the factory was forced to shut down and came under Japanese military control. In 1941, it was renamed "Shijingshan Ironworks,"

becoming one of the colonial industrial facilities during Japan's occupation of China.12 Following Japan ’ s defeat in 1945, the plant was taken over by the Nationalist Government and renamed "Shijingshan Steel Plant" in 1946. However, due to post-war resource shortages and outdated equipment, production recovery was slow.

Shougang then entered a phase of recovery and development. After the

founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Shijingshan Steel Plant was

prioritized in the national reconstruction plan as a key industrial base in Beijing.13

In the early 1950s, the plant underwent technical upgrades and expansion. In 1958, it was officially renamed "Capital Iron and Steel Company" (abbreviated as

“ Shougang ” ), marking the beginning of a modern integrated steel enterprise.

During this stage, Shougang developed rapidly — not only establishing multiple 12 Wang, Shihua. Japan’s Control and Plunder of Industrial and Mining Resources in North China during the War of Aggression against China. Studies on the War of Resistance against Japan 7, no. 1 (1993): 64.

13 Liu, Tian. Relying on the Strength of the Working Class, Yuhua Machinery Plant Grew Up. People’s Daily, October 1, 1949, 4th ed. https://cn.govopendata.com/renminribao/1949/4/18/4/ 17

blast furnaces and steelmaking systems, but also completing China’s first oxygen

top-blown converter in 1962, pioneering a new era of modern steel production in the country.14

Photographs of the factory taken in 1973 clearly document the industrial

prosperity of Shougang at the time. The large-scale blast furnace clusters and industrial installations had become a symbol of Beijing's industrial system. During

this period, Shougang became one of the country ’ s most important steel production bases and played a significant role in promoting economic development and employment in western Beijing.

Figure 2. Beijing Shougang’s Industrial Production Area, 1973 (Source: /beijing.gov.cn/)

After 1979, Shougang entered a relatively stable phase of development. Under

the reform and opening-up policies, the enterprise gained greater autonomy. With the continuous growth of the national economy and the internal drive to increase 14 Shougang Group. “The Development History of Shougang’s Corporate Culture.” Shougang Group Official Website. March 23, 2017. https://www.shougang.com.cn/sgweb/html/qywhtx/20170323/786.html 18

steel output, Shougang continued to expand its production capacity and actively pursued innovations in smelting technology. In 1994, Shougang ’ s No. 1 Blast

Furnace was put into operation, becoming the first large-scale blast furnace in China to be built entirely according to modern technical standards. This marked

Shougang ’ s leading position in the domestic steel industry in terms of technological advancement.14

However, in the early 21st century, Beijing's urban positioning underwent a

major shift — from an industrial city toward becoming a political, cultural, and international exchange center.15 In fact, as early as 1986, concerns had already

been raised about the contradiction between Shougang’s industrial presence and

the city’s ecological and strategic goals. At the time, the Shijingshan Environmental Protection Association posed the question: “Do we want the Capital or Shougang

（ 要 首 都 还 是 要 首 钢 ） ? ” Though the contradiction had not yet reached an irreconcilable level, the issue received limited attention.

Following Beijing ’ s 2005 policy to “ adjust urban functional zoning, ”

Shougang, classified as a high-energy-consuming and high-emission enterprise, was included in the city ’ s relocation plan. Starting in 2005, Shougang began

gradually transferring its production lines to Caofeidian（曹妃甸）, Tangshan, in neighboring Hebei Province.14 By 2010, steel production in Beijing had ceased entirely, and the original Shijingshan industrial zone formally exited the historical 15 Li, Bin. Study on the Transformation of Shougang’s Industrial Landscape Pattern (1919–2019). Chinese Landscape Architecture 36, no. 3 (2020): 15.

19

stage. This marked the conclusion of nearly a century of steel production by Shougang in the capital.

Figure 3. Diagram of the Development Trajectory of Beijing Shougang (Source: drawn by author)

At the material level of industrial heritage preservation and adaptive reuse,

Beijing

Shougang

Park

has

received

widespread

international

acclaim.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach once praised Beijing Shougang Park highly: "It is incredible that Beijing has transformed a former

steel plant into a training facility for the Winter Olympics. They have repurposed the old factory into offices, leisure areas, and training venues, which also serve as the office space for the Beijing Winter Olympics Organizing Committee. I strongly recommend that everyone visit Beijing if they have the chance."16 In terms of design, the northern part of the park has preserved a large number of industrial relics, reflecting the city and enterprise ’ s profound respect for the land. The Erhai and Qunming Lake areas (Two lakes District) encompass the production systems of

various plants, including ironmaking, oxygen and nitrogen production, water 16 Ye, Zi. A Century of Shougang: The Most ‘Steel’ and the Most Stylish. People’s Daily Overseas Edition, December 17, 2020, 5th ed. http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrbhwb/html/2020-12/17/content_2024031.htm.

20

softening, coal storage and pulverization, power and substation systems, cooling,

and air blowing. Additionally, this area includes supporting facilities such as offices, logistics, staff dormitories, and a cinema, providing the best material carrier for a panoramic display of the original factory ’ s work and living memories across the dimensions of “production” and “residence.”17 2.3 Research Methodology

2.3.1 Overview of Research Methodology This study adopts a qualitative research approach, with semi-structured

in-depth interviews as the core method, supplemented by questionnaire surveys

and case study and comparative analysis. This comprehensive approach aims to capture a more holistic understanding of the memories and sense of identity that the local community and former workers associate with Beijing Shougang Park.

Figure 4. Framework of Research Methods (Source: drawn by author)

17 Bohongtao. Acupuncture-Style Renewal and the Reconstruction of Publicness in the Industrial Heritage of the Northern Area of Beijing Shougang Park for the Winter Olympics. Urban and Rural Planning (Chengxiang Guihua) 6 (2020): 102–107.

21

2.3.2 Core Research Method- Semi-structured In-depth Interviews To understand the emotional attachment of surrounding community residents

and former workers toward the current Beijing Shougang Park, this study adopts a semi-structured interview approach to explore respondents' sense of identity, the preservation of cultural memory, and community interaction.

(1) A total of five interviewees were selected for this study, including:

(2) Three retired workers currently living in Shougang ’ s old residential

communities (Jinding Street Community and Pingguoyuan Community).

(3) One active worker who relocated with the factory to Caofeidian.

(4) One retired worker (the author’s mother) who has moved to the suburbs

of Beijing.

The interviews were conducted between March 4 and March 25, 2025,

spanning approximately three weeks, with each session lasting 15 to 45 minutes.

The interviews were conducted in various formats, including video interviews, telephone interviews, and online text interviews. All five participants voluntarily

agreed to participate in the study after being fully informed about its purpose and

procedures and were aware of their rights and obligations. The author adhered to the principle of responsibility toward the research subjects, respecting and

treating each interviewee as equally as possible, while strictly maintaining confidentiality throughout the research process and preserving all raw data securely.

22

2.3.3 Supplementary Research Method- Questionnaire Survey To compensate for the limitations of semi-structured interviews in terms of

sample size and coverage, this study incorporates a questionnaire survey as a

supplementary research method, aiming to obtain more representative and extensive data. The questionnaire serves to preliminarily validate the qualitative

conclusions derived from the interviews and provides quantitative data support.

Moreover, the multidimensional design of the survey questions helps further analyze potential issues related to community identity in Beijing Shougang Park.

Due to time constraints and geographic limitations, the questionnaire was

primarily distributed through the social network established by the author ’ s parents during their years of employment at Shougang. The core respondents were

former Shougang employees and their family members who were familiar with the environment. A total of 30 valid responses were collected.

The questionnaire covered a range of variables, including respondents’ basic

information (such as age, gender, and years of service), whether they had visited the new Beijing Shougang Park, their attitudes toward the transformation of

Shougang, their recognition of cultural memory, and their current sense of

belonging. After data collection, the responses were systematically organized and statistically analyzed, and the results were compared with the findings from the

interviews. This approach aimed to validate key issues identified through

qualitative interviews at a quantitative level and to explore potential deficiencies 23

in Beijing Shougang Park ’ s efforts to enhance community identity from multiple perspectives. Through this supplementary method, the objectivity and reliability of the research findings were improved to a certain extent.

2.2.4 Supplementary Research Method- Case Study and Comparative Analysis As one of the supplementary methods in this study, the case study approach

aims to develop a deeper understanding of the transformation of community

identity during industrial heritage redevelopment through comparative analysis with other representative cases. Beijing Shougang Park, as a world-class industrial

heritage redevelopment project and the site of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, holds significant value for discussion. However, as previously noted, Shougang's

distinct historical and political context may limit the generalizability of its characteristics. To address this, the study introduces the industrial heritage

community of Tianjin’s Cotton Mill No. 3 as a comparative case. By conducting a horizontal comparison, this research seeks to supplement and deepen the

understanding of how community identity evolves in the broader practice of industrial heritage conservation.

24

Chapter 3: Key Findings and Analysis 3.1 Interview findings Analysis 3.1.1 Basic Information and Background of Interviewees A total of 5 former employees of Shougang Group were interviewed, as shown in the table below:

Table 1.Interviewee Information Table

The author established contact with the interviewees through the social network

of their parents and conducted relatively detailed online interviews. Among the

five interviewees, three currently reside in communities surrounding Beijing Shougang Park, which provides direct insights into the emotional changes 25

experienced by the local community following the park ’ s transformation. The

remaining two interviewees, on the other hand, represent the group of people who experienced the company’s relocation and are now geographically distanced from Beijing Shougang Park, reflecting their emotional and psychological perspectives. ( Please refer to the appendix for the core interview content of all respondents.)

3.1.2 Core Interview Questions and Selected Full Interview Records ( Based on the full interview with Master Wang in the appendix, the following

is a summary and analysis.)

This section outlines the core interview questions used to explore the

emotional attachment, community identity, and perception of cultural memory among former Shougang employees and local residents after the transformation of

Beijing Shougang Park. The questions were designed to encourage in-depth reflections on the changes experienced by the interviewees and their perceptions of the redevelopment.

Mr. Wang has a conflicting attitude toward the transformed spatial

environment of Beijing Shougang Park. On one hand, he acknowledges that the park now looks more aesthetically pleasing and modern. Compared to the sense of decay characterized by abandonment and overgrown weeds, the revitalization of Beijing Shougang Park brings him a sense of comfort and relief. However, on the

other hand, he repeatedly emphasizes a feeling of “ estrangement, ” particularly 26

pointing out the lack of representation of “ people's stories, ” the real working conditions of the workers, and the connection with the community during the

transformation process. For him, the core of Shougang's memory lies in the atmosphere of collective production and living in the past. What remains in the

park today is merely the steel exterior, devoid of the “human warmth” that once filled the space. From the interview, it is evident that Mr. Wang perceives a phenomenon of “ hollowing out ” in Beijing Shougang Park. After reviewing the

interview dialogue and related documents, the author attributes this issue to two main factors:

First, although Beijing Shougang Park has retained many production lines, a

large number of production facilities and workers ’ everyday tools have been dismantled or downplayed. Moreover, modern landscaping techniques have been integrated into the redevelopment. This spatial transformation has created a sense of unfamiliarity for the older generation of workers.

Second, the frequent interactions between the factory and the surrounding

residential areas have disappeared. The redeveloped park now serves a higher international profile, hosting events such as the Winter Olympics, technology

exhibitions, innovation projects, and commercial conferences. These high-end

functions cater primarily to tourists and business activities, occupying a significant portion of the core space in Beijing Shougang Park. As a result, former workers find it difficult to regain their sense of belonging in the newly transformed park.

27

In addition, Mr. Wang expressed some feasible suggestions for improvement.

While it may be difficult to restore the frequent interaction between the factory

and the community due to the transformation of the park ’ s functions, the

management still has various means to strengthen the emotional connection between former workers and the park. For example, more authentic historical

exhibitions and opportunities for former workers to participate in park activities could be introduced to reinforce the emotional bond between the workers and the park.

Overall, the interview highlights the contradictory mindset of former workers

— “ acknowledging the improvement of the park ’ s external image while feeling emotionally disconnected. ”

This also reaffirms the notion that in industrial

heritage protection, community memory cannot be preserved solely by maintaining the physical space. It is equally important to pay attention to the experiences and stories of the worker community.

3.1.3 Summary of Core Records and Similar Questions Since this study interviewed a total of five respondents and the interview

transcripts are relatively lengthy, only the interview content of Mr. Wang is highlighted in the main text for brevity. The detailed interview records of the other

four respondents are included in the appendix at the end of the paper. Through the

analysis and comparison of the interview content of the five respondents, this paper extracts their relatively consistent or similar views on industrial heritage 28

transformation and community memory and cites representative core excerpts to more intuitively reflect the respondents' perspectives and emotional experiences.

Based on in-depth interviews with five former Shougang employees, this

study organizes and analyzes their narratives thematically, aiming to systematically present their perceptions, emotional responses, and value

judgments in the context of industrial heritage redevelopment. The sentiments

expressed in these dialogues highlight a rupture in the chain linking space, memory, and identity during the transformation of Shougang Park. These findings offer a critical perspective for reflecting on current practices in industrial heritage

conservation. The following analysis summarizes recurring issues and viewpoints extracted from the interviews.

First, many respondents expressed a fading sense of spatial familiarity and a

blurring of identity. Although Shougang Park retains some historical elements —

such as the original blast furnaces, cooling towers, and parts of the building facades—most interviewees described the redeveloped site as evoking a sense of “familiarity and estrangement.” This feeling extended beyond disorientation to a

deeper loss of psychological security. As Mr. Wang put it, “The furnaces and tracks

are still there on the outside, but all the feeling is gone.” Ms. Li added, “Walking in

feels like entering someone else ’ s home — everything is off. ” This reflects a fundamental shift in identity. During the danwei (work-unit) era, space was not

neutral; it was deeply embedded in collective life, social relations, and emotional 29

attachment. Today, Shougang Park has transitioned from a lived space to a performative urban interface — changing from a place to live into a place to be observed. In this redefined spatial logic, the original workers can no longer find their place, and this dislocation marks the first fracture in the chain of community identity.

Second, there was a consistent sense of loss regarding labor memory and

dissatisfaction with how history is represented in the site. Several respondents pointed out that although Shougang Park features industrial exhibition halls and

“ memory-themed ” cultural installations, the narratives predominantly focus on “ technological progress, ” “ urban transformation, ” or aesthetic representation, rather than the lived experiences of frontline workers. This was particularly

apparent for those from auxiliary workshops and female labor positions, like Ms. Li and Ms. Li (a different interviewee), who found the exhibitions alienating. “That

screen tells the national story—not our life,” Ms. Li noted. Mr. Zhao questioned,

“Why doesn’t anyone mention how hard it was when we had to work and move at

the same time?” These observations reveal a major disconnect between “official narratives” and “lived memory.” Current industrial heritage sites often construct a “consumable history” through visual symbolism and design, but fail to preserve the micro-histories and emotional practices of the worker communities. This ultimately weakens the authenticity and inclusivity of the heritage experience.

30

Third, interviewees expressed a shared feeling of being reduced to passive

observers. Despite Shougang Park being physically open and accessible to former

residents, respondents reported being excluded from emotional and discursive

participation. “We didn’t even have a chance to give suggestions,” said Mr. Chen.

“We don’t even know who curated the exhibitions.” Mr. Wang added, “You won’t even let me say a few words—how are we supposed to connect with this place?”

This condition — being visible yet voiceless — has created a complex emotional reality in which the former protagonists of Shougang’s industrial history are now

reduced to “temporary visitors” in a newly defined space. The lack of institutional

mechanisms for community expression deepens the sense of estrangement and exacerbates the crisis of identity among former employees.

Finally,

nearly

all

interviewees

expressed

dissatisfaction

with

the

transformation from “our workplace” to “their park.” This speaks to a profound

discontent with the erosion of spiritual belonging. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the interviews was the shared conclusion: “Shougang no longer belongs to us.”

Ms. Li remarked, “It used to be our place—now it belongs to Beijing, the nation, the tourists. ” Mr. Zhao said bluntly, “ We ’ ve become the backdrop. ” These

statements reflect not only emotional disappointment, but also the dismantling of a

collective cultural identity. Shougang ’ s transformation — from a danwei-based

social unit to a site of cultural consumption—may represent functional success, but for the original community, it is experienced as a “loss of roots.”

31

Former workers can no longer relate to Shougang through bodily presence,

re-enacted memory, or emotional resonance. Their participation is now limited to roles as passive spectators, memory bearers, or nostalgic visitors. In this process,

the cultural ownership of the heritage site has shifted from community memory to urban spectacle. The transition from “community of life” to “cultural landscape”

is a deeply underestimated issue in current industrial heritage practice—one that risks disconnecting space from the very people who once gave it meaning.

3.2 Questionnaire Data Analysis

Based on interviews with former Shougang employees, this study

supplemented the research with a questionnaire survey to obtain more

quantitative reference data. The survey targeted former Shougang employees or

current residents living in communities surrounding Beijing Shougang Park, with a

total of 30 valid responses collected. The survey was conducted online and distributed through social networks. The questionnaire was designed around key

variables such as gender, age, years of service, current place of residence, and attitudes toward and sense of belonging to the new Beijing Shougang Park. The

goal was to provide a reference for understanding the emotional connection and level of identity between the transformed park and the surrounding community residents.

32

Table 2. Table of Questionnaire Results

According to the survey results, among the 30 respondents, 17 were male

(56.7%) and 13 were female (43.3%). The majority were aged over 50, with 26.7%

aged 50 or below, 40.0% aged between 51 and 60, and 33.3% aged over 60. In

terms of years of service, 20.0% had worked for less than 10 years, 33.3% had

worked for 10 to 20 years, and 46.7% had over 20 years of service, indicating a relatively high proportion of senior employees. Regarding the place of residence, 60.0% of the respondents still live in communities near Shougang, while 40.0%

have moved away from their original communities. A total of 70.0% of respondents 33

have visited the new Beijing Shougang Park, but only 40.0% expressed a positive attitude toward the redevelopment, 16.7% were neutral, and 43.3% expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction. Additionally, 16.7% of respondents explicitly

stated that they felt a sense of belonging, while 43.3% were unsure, and 40.0% felt disconnected from the redeveloped Beijing Shougang Park. Overall, the data show that the demographic group characterized by older age and longer service years

pays more attention to the transformation of Beijing Shougang Park. However, there is also a noticeable divergence in emotional recognition and sense of belonging.

Table 3. Survey Analysis Chart

34

Due to the unique nature of work at Shougang, the respondents were

predominantly middle-aged and elderly, with most having long tenures at Shougang. Although the majority had visited the new Beijing Shougang Park, there

were significant differences in their attitudes toward the redevelopment and their sense of belonging. This suggests that the redevelopment of the park has not fully addressed the emotional needs of the original residents and former employees.

Further analysis of the interview content reveals that while many respondents

acknowledged the improvement in the physical space of the park, they remained skeptical or held negative opinions about its effectiveness in authentically reflecting community memories and worker culture. The survey results provide a

certain degree of quantitative support for the subsequent analysis of weakened community identity and insufficient support for cultural memory.

35

3.3 Case Comparative Analysis Tianjin Cotton Mill No. 3 was originally established in 1953, with its roots

tracing back to the Yuda（裕大） and Baocheng （宝成）Cotton Mills founded in the 1920s. It was officially renamed Tianjin No. 3 Cotton Mill in 1950 and quickly became a key component of Tianjin’s light textile industry. In 2021, the site was

officially designated as a "National Industrial Heritage Site".18 The factory

underwent several phases of construction and expansion until development gradually ceased by the end of the 20th century. Initially focused on textile production, the site eventually formed a complete industrial system encompassing

canal transportation, cotton storage, spinning, weaving, packaging, and warehousing.

A large number of industrial buildings from different historical periods

remain on-site, featuring a wide range of types and relatively well-preserved

structures, giving the site significant historical value and potential for industrial heritage research and conservation.19 In 2015, a state-owned enterprise in Tianjin began a conservation-oriented transformation of the site, repurposing it into the “ Mian3 Creative District. ” With a development strategy focused on “ Culture +

Technology ” and “ Office + Fashion,” the district is centered around four main sectors: creative design, new media, e-commerce, and animation & gaming

18 People’s Government of Hedong District, Tianjin. “Unveiling Ceremony of the Ninth Batch of China’s 20th Century Architectural Heritage Projects – Tianjin Third Cotton Textile Factory Held in Hedong District.”

Official Website of Tianjin Municipal People’s Government, May 6, 2024. https://www.tj.gov.cn/sy/zwdt/gqdt/202405/t20240506_6616820.html.

19 “About Us.” Mian3 Creative District. 2024. https://www.mian3.com/AboutUs.html#11113. Accessed April 13, 2025.

36

industries. It also incorporates fashion retail, startup incubation, cultural arts, and talent development initiatives. The goal is to preserve the site's industrial fabric while introducing creative industry elements, ultimately creating a culturally rooted and vibrant industrial cluster.

Figure 3. Historical Photograph of Tianjin No. 3 Cotton Textile Factory.

(Source: Mian3 Creative District, Official Website)

37

Figure 3. Present-Day View of the Mian3 Creative District (Source: Mian3 Creative District, Official Website)

The author selected Tianjin Cotton Mill No. 3 as a comparative case study for

several reasons. On one hand, Cotton Mill No. 3 differs significantly from Shougang Park in several key aspects. First, the scale of redevelopment between the two

projects is vastly different. The Cotton Mill project covers approximately 10.5 hectares,4 aligning with the typical size of small to medium-scale industrial

heritage revitalization efforts. In contrast, Shougang Park spans a much larger area of 863 hectares, representing a large-scale national redevelopment initiative.

Therefore, by selecting Cotton Mill No. 3 as a point of comparison, this study offers

insights that may be more broadly applicable to a wider range of industrial heritage projects.

Second, in terms of resources and planning strategies, Shougang Park —as a

nationally prioritized project — received extensive policy support and financial

investment. Its redevelopment reflects a highly integrated, top-down approach,

jointly orchestrated by the government, Shougang Group, and various academic and design institutions. By contrast, the transformation of Cotton Mill No. 3 was spearheaded by Tianjin Housing Group in 2013 and followed a more

market-oriented logic,4 which is representative of the general conditions under which many industrial parks in China are redeveloped today. The juxtaposition of

these two cases — one state-led and large-scale, the other market-driven and

38

modest in scale—offers a valuable and balanced reference for evaluating industrial heritage renewal under different institutional frameworks.

On the other hand, despite these structural differences, both Shougang Park

and Cotton Mill No. 3 exhibit striking similarities in the weakening of community identity during the heritage transformation process. Both sites originated as typical “ danwei ” (work-unit) communities under the planned economy, where

the factory functioned not only as a production site but also as the nucleus of workers’ daily life, social relationships, and identity formation. However, during redevelopment, this integrated structure of “ life – work – identity ” gradually

dissolved. The heritage sites were redefined as functional and consumer-oriented public spaces, leaving little room for the continuation of emotional memory among the residents of the original affiliated communities.

Moreover, neither project achieved genuine community participation during

the transformation process. The current Mian3 Creative District serves the cultural

and creative industries and is almost entirely disconnected from the surrounding community. As Sun Shuting, Xu Subin, and other scholars have shown, many former employees residing in the Cotton Mill dormitories and at Workshop No. 4

no longer perceive any connection between the present-day industrial park and the historical factory where they once worked.4 This disconnection underscores a

critical gap: the original resident communities—who are key carriers of industrial

39

memory — have not been meaningfully included in either the spatial redevelopment or the cultural reinterpretation of the heritage site.

In 2022, scholars Sun Shuting, Xu Subin, and others conducted a study titled A

Study of Heritage Community Identity in the Transformation of Industrial Land, 4 which investigated the post-redevelopment living conditions and emotional shifts of residents from the original affiliated community of Tianjin’s Cotton Mill No. 3.

The study emphasized the importance of heritage community identity and pointed

out that, as the site's functional transformation and urban planning advanced, the original residential community was increasingly excluded from the renewal

process. This exclusion led to significant changes in residents ’ sense of spatial belonging, lifestyle habits, and identity. Many long-term residents reported feeling that they “couldn’t understand, access, or use” the new park; cultural memory

had not been preserved, and their daily ways of living had been forcibly disrupted

—resulting in a clear “emotional rupture” and a state of “cultural voicelessness.”

The study underscored that industrial heritage should not only focus on preserving physical space, but also on maintaining the social structures and memory

continuity of the original communities. The persistence of community identity, the authors argue, is a key social foundation for the success of heritage revitalization.

This phenomenon strongly echoes the feedback from former Shougang

employees during its redevelopment, who described their experience as one of

being “familiar yet estranged.” Despite the considerable differences in scale and 40

resources between the two projects, both cases exhibit a striking similarity in the

absence of community recognition and the marginalization of emotional and cultural narratives. Together, they reflect a broader structural dilemma in current industrial heritage practices: a prioritization of spatial reconstruction at the expense of community re-identification.

From the transformation of Tianjin's Cotton Mill No. 3 to the redevelopment of

Shougang Park, we can observe that recent industrial heritage projects in China

have generally achieved positive outcomes in terms of physical preservation.

However, both cases also reveal a common shortcoming: the difficulty in sustaining the intangible dimension of community memory. During fieldwork at

Cotton Mill No. 3, residents expressed nostalgia for their former working lives —

remarking that “the scenes of going to work are memorable, but they’ve all been changed.” Similar sentiments were echoed in interviews conducted at Shougang

Park, where former employees questioned whether the renewed spaces still reflected the reality of their lived experiences.

Such feedback reflects a broader concern: a perceived loss of authenticity in

industrial heritage redevelopment. In many of China’s industrial heritage–based

creative industry parks, the focus is primarily on tourism or commercial use, while emotional connections with original worker communities are largely overlooked.

This tendency risks undermining the holistic integrity that heritage protection should strive to uphold.

41

In my view, if we are to regard the factory and its affiliated residential

community as a cohesive heritage entity, then a key criterion for evaluating the

quality of redevelopment should be whether it succeeds in preserving the

residents ’ sense of place and emotional identification. In this sense, industrial heritage renewal should not merely be seen as the reactivation of physical space,

but as an opportunity to reconstruct a sense of belonging and historical continuity within the community.

42

Chapter 4: Discussion and Recommendations 4.1 Rethinking Industrial Heritage and Community Memory 4.1.1 The Disconnect Between Tangible Preservation and Intangible Emotional Continuity Beijing Shougang Park stands as a milestone in the history of Beijing ’ s

industrial development, with a deep-rooted cultural and historical foundation. As a

key component in the transformation of western Beijing ,20 the park has benefited

from strong policy, financial, and technical support, achieving notable success in spatial restoration and in shaping the brand identity of the area’s future. From the perspective of urban development, Beijing Shougang Park shows long-term

potential following its strategic redevelopment. Today, the park hosts functions

spanning science fiction, artificial intelligence, aerospace, and exhibitions, serving both its political role in urban revitalization and its designated mission as a core

component of Beijing ’ s international science and innovation hub, international consumer city, and emerging and future industries base.21

For ordinary residents and visitors, Beijing Shougang Park offers a clean and

beautiful environment, uniquely aesthetic industrial-style buildings, and upscale

services such as elegant restaurants and cafés. It has become a popular destination 20 Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission. Action Plan for Accelerating the Transformation and Development of Western Beijing: Building a New Landmark for the Capital’s Urban Revival in the New Era (2022–2025). March 24, 2022.

21 China Tax News. “Urban Regeneration: Enabling the ‘Secondary Growth’ of Cities.” China Tax News, October 15, 2024. http://beijing.chinatax.gov.cn/bjswj/c104276/202410/33e5b3feae9b48cb8a9b64a33df230cf.shtml.

43

for leisure walks and photo-taking, and is seen as a site with the potential to replicate the success of the 798 Art District.

However, when we shift our focus to memory as the core lens for interpreting

Beijing Shougang Park, a different narrative emerges. Behind the commendable

physical preservation lies the erosion of intangible culture and emotion, resulting

in a loss of community identity and even the risk of a cultural memory rupture.

Logan William, in his study on conservation strategies for the Thang Long–Hanoi Citadel in Vietnam, argued that without preserving the original intangible culture,

even the most well-maintained temples would be nothing more than empty shells.22

Many former Shougang workers interviewed expressed that they “ cannot

find a sense of familiarity” in the new park and that it “no longer feels like the place we used to work.” Although landmark structures such as the blast furnace

and cooling tower have been retained, the lived experiences and collective

memories behind them are difficult to recover. The park’s historical narrative has become highly aestheticized and symbolic, constructed more for visual consumption by tourists and outsiders than as a space of memory for those who

once lived and worked there. This has created a situation where the space is physically accessible but emotionally alienating.

22 Logan, William. Cities: Palimpsests of Cultural Memory and Their Management. In The Routledge Handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific, 29–47. London: Routledge, 2019.

44

In addition, the dramatic shift in the park’s functional orientation has further

deepened the sense of emotional disconnection among community members.

Spaces once used for industrial production and community life have been redefined as venues for exhibitions (such as the China International Fair for Trade in Services and the ESIE 2024 Energy Storage Exhibition), cultural and creative

industry bases, and high-end event locations. The rising threshold for participation and the shift in functional logic have left many former Shougang residents—those who once considered the park their “home”—feeling psychologically excluded.

Shougang has become “a place to visit,” rather than “a place we belong to.”

This cognitive dissonance has made it more difficult for local community

residents to accept and identify with the outcomes of Beijing Shougang Park ’ s transformation.

4.1.2 Causal Analysis and Mechanism Reflection Based on interview findings and publicly available information, a series of

underlying issues can be identified in the transformation process of Beijing

Shougang Park, which have contributed to emotional disconnection and weakened community identity. As a key project under the jurisdiction of Beijing, the

redevelopment of Beijing Shougang Park was primarily led by government

agencies and market capital, reflecting a highly top-down planning logic. While this

model demonstrates efficiency in resource integration and overall implementation, it has largely neglected the emotional participation and voice of original 45

community residents, effectively excluding them from the core agenda of heritage reconstruction and lacking mechanisms for genuine interaction and co-creation.

Laurajane Smith has proposed the concept of Authorized Heritage Discourse

(AHD) to critique how mainstream heritage narratives often disregard the value of local communities and intangible memory.23 Liu Lihua and other scholars argue

that personal memory is an irreplaceable resource in industrial heritage sites, and that a community ’ s attitudes, emotions, and recognition of heritage value constitute the most reliable foundation for heritage conservation.9

This suggests

that the residents who once actively participated in the construction of Beijing

Shougang Park ’ s history should naturally be included in the process of its protection.

In terms of spatial selection and heritage presentation, the government and

design teams during the transformation process tended to preserve industrial structures with landmark features and strong visual impact — such as blast furnaces and cooling towers. These structures undoubtedly possess high

conservation value and can serve as future icons for reshaping the park’s spatial

identity. However, this protection approach, guided by “visibility” and “symbolism,” essentially follows a material-centered Western heritage paradigm.23 It often

overlooks the more human and intangible dimensions of heritage, such as personal

23 Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge, 2006.

46

stories, traces of labor, and collective memory, gradually detaching the heritage from its original narrative logic.

Furthermore, following the redevelopment, Beijing Shougang Park has been

increasingly endowed with high-end functions such as cultural and creative industries, exhibitions, and sporting events. Its operational model now favors

attracting outside tourists and middle-class consumers. While this repositioning boosts regional economic performance, it also distances the park from its original community ties, transforming it into a consumption-oriented urban spectacle. The identities and memories of the former residents have been marginalized, reduced

to symbolic cultural backdrops. In this process, Shougang’s industrial culture has

been translated into a new visual landscape and consumer narrative, severing its continuity with the site’s authentic history of labor.

4.2 Recommendations Based on the findings of this study regarding the weakening of community

identity in the Shougang Park redevelopment, the author believes that fostering a

more constructive relationship between industrial heritage transformation and community identity requires rethinking the connections between “heritage” and “ community ” across several dimensions — including planning logic, modes of

representation, mechanisms for participation, and spatial strategies. The following

forward-looking recommendations are proposed not as prescriptive solutions, but as reference points for future industrial heritage redevelopment projects.

47

First, industrial heritage transformation should shift from a material-centered

to a people-centered approach — from spatial renewal to emotional activation.

Many current heritage projects remain focused on restoring physical structures

and enhancing spatial aesthetics, while neglecting the most essential emotional resource behind heritage: human memory. It is recommended that redevelopment efforts incorporate the personal memories and everyday experiences of community members — through oral history collection, the creation of memory

walls, or the reconstruction of former work scenes—so that the transformed space not only “looks historical” but also “feels remembered.”

Shougang Park has made some attempts in this regard: for example, Blast

Furnace No. 3 has been transformed into a museum that presents the site's development history, and its industrial machinery has become a popular attraction for tourists. However, interviews with former workers reveal that these top-down

memory preservation strategies fail to resonate emotionally with the “ old

Shougang people.” Machinery that once roared with life in clouds of dust is now encased in polished display cases—severing its connection to the lived experience of labor.

The author suggests a more immersive and layered approach to memory

preservation—recreating historical scenes through sound, form, and lighting, and

moving away from grand narratives in favor of fine-grained storytelling. Only

48

through such techniques can emotional resonance be re-established with those who once worked there.

Second, it is essential to avoid a purely top-down model of redevelopment

dominated by power and capital, and instead position community participation as a vital part of memory preservation. Interviews revealed that local communities, particularly former workers, had virtually no say in the transformation process of Shougang Park — they were, like the general public, mere observers of a vast redevelopment project.

Yet as the original stakeholders of the site, community members should be

active participants in shaping both the heritage narrative and the tourism development process. Human memory is an irreplaceable resource in industrial heritage sites, and a community’s emotional recognition of heritage value is often

the most reliable basis for its protection.7 Redevelopment projects should

therefore establish mechanisms such as consultation channels, resident forums,

and employee storytelling sessions—ensuring that community members have the

right to speak and participate in decisions related to interpretive content, spatial

naming, and cultural storytelling. This would not only enhance their sense of belonging but also improve the perceived authenticity and public acceptance of the heritage site.

49

Third, on the spatial level, current industrial heritage sites are often physically

separated from their original affiliated communities. To address this, it is necessary to break down the rigid boundaries between "tourist zones" and "residential zones" and create more porous, inclusive “shared spaces.”

In the case of Shougang Park, there remains a strong spatial divide between

the new park and the surrounding neighborhoods. It is recommended that redevelopment projects incorporate transitional spaces — such as neighborhood

plazas, memory corridors, and community event areas — that serve as low-threshold, non-commercial venues for daily interaction. This would allow

industrial heritage sites to act as bridges between communities, rather than barriers.

Fourth, future redevelopment efforts should place greater emphasis on the

preservation of intangible cultural memory and establish corresponding

assessment systems. In addition to safeguarding buildings on the physical level, these systems should also support emotional continuity and community identity,

thereby preserving the authenticity of heritage. The author suggests that heritage management frameworks include indicators such as “ changes in community

identity,” along with regular surveys of how local residents perceive and evaluate the outcomes of redevelopment. Furthermore, a “ community identity feedback

mechanism” should be embedded in the early design stages, allowing institutional structures to actively support the generation and maintenance of local identity.

50

Finally, it is important to note that the suggestions offered in this section are

not intended as precise technical solutions, but rather as reflections based on feedback from long-term residents near Shougang Park. Industrial heritage is not

only a visible spatial form, but also a sociocultural place carrying emotion, memory, and identity. Only when transformation strategies are truly responsive to the human dimension can the reconnection between public space and community identity be meaningfully realized.

51

Appendix The First Interviewee Name: Master Wang（王师傅）(pseudonym) Gender: Male Age: 73 Interview Method: Phone interview Date of Interview: March 2025 Transcript Format: Structured Q&A excerpt Background: Former senior technician at the No. 3 Steelmaking Workshop of

Shougang. Joined in the early 1970s. Currently resides in Jinding Street Community.

This interview was conducted via phone in March 2024 and lasted approximately 42 minutes.

Q: Hello Mr. Wang, thank you for taking the time to chat with me today. I’d just

like to talk casually about your life working at Shougang and what you think about all the changes happening now. Please feel free to share whatever comes to mind.

A: Sure, let me just speak from the heart. The moment you brought this up, I

felt like I got pulled right back—like it all just happened yesterday. You see, 52

Shougang, or I guess it’s called Shougang Park now, it’s really quite something.

Young people love it, taking photos, sipping coffee, it’s bustling. But to tell you the truth, I feel a little conflicted.

I started working there in 1973, just over twenty, full of enthusiasm. Back

then, we were fired up by slogans like “Refine good steel for the nation.” It was hot work in the workshop—no big glass windows like today. Winters were freezing,

summers like an oven. But the spirit, the pride, it was there. We felt we were doing something meaningful. Working shoulder to shoulder with the guys near the furnace, we were like brothers.

Q: Do you still visit the park now? Maybe with family or old colleagues?

A: Yeah, I went once or twice. A couple of years ago, my wife said, “Let’s go see

where you used to work.” So we went. But honestly, the moment I walked in, I was

lost. None of the entrances were familiar, my sense of direction was gone. I spent nearly forty minutes just trying to find the No. 3 workshop. Eventually a security

guard pointed it out—it had already been turned into some kind of art gallery. I heard that, and my heart just sank.

Q: What do you think about the current setup—like the cafés and the

exhibitions?

53

A: Oh, those are places young people like. I’m not saying it doesn’t look

nice—those lights, the landscaping, it’s impressive. But it’s not meant for folks like

us. I walk in, can I order a cup of coffee? It’s over thirty yuan a cup—I wouldn’t know what to do with it. I checked out the exhibitions too. They say it’s about Shougang’s history, but all I saw were photos, installations, fancy concepts. I kept thinking, who wrote this? How come there’s not a single mention of “how we handled summer night shifts” or “who fixed the furnace when it jammed?” It’s like we never existed.

Q: Does anything in the park still feel familiar to you? Or does it bring back old

memories?

A: Familiar? If I had to put it in words: “Looks familiar, but doesn’t feel like

home.” It’s like going back to the courtyard you grew up in, only now someone’s renovated it. The original windows are gone, the kang bed replaced with modern

furniture. You know it’s your old place, but you can’t sit still there, it just doesn’t

feel right. That’s what Shougang Park is to me now. The outer shell of industrial heritage is still there, but that deep connection between us workers and the space—it’s gone.

Q: Do you still consider it “your” Shougang?

A: Geographically, sure. But emotionally? No. Let me give you an example. My

grandson studies art, and one time his teacher took the class to Shougang Park to 54

sketch. He came back and said, “Grandpa, you really worked there?” I said yes.

Then he asked, “What did you do?” And I told him, “I spent my life working with

that big red furnace you saw.” But honestly, I felt a bit hollow saying that, because what he sees is a giant metal sculpture, while I remember what it felt like when the

furnace blew—how we’d shrink back instinctively. What he sees and what I remember—they’re not the same thing.

Q: Do you feel like there are any channels for workers to express their stories

there? Anything you’d want to participate in?

A: Nobody’s asking us to speak. How would I get involved? Nobody interviews

us, we’re not on TV, we don’t have degrees, so we’re not seen as people worth

“putting on display.” Back in our day, the toughest jobs and the dirtiest

work—nobody’s talking about that now. The exhibition only talks about “historical significance” and “technological advances,” but not how we carried scrap metal on

our backs to meet production targets. If you ask me, I think there should be a “Workers’ Memory Hall”—not some grand space, just a place with a few chairs,

some old photos, maybe a thermos and a long bench where us old guys can sit and talk. That’s the kind of space that would mean something.

Q: So overall, how do you feel about these changes—good or bad?

55

A: Honestly, the world needs to move forward. I’m not against it. The Winter

Olympics, cultural projects—these are national priorities. I’m proud that Shougang became part of that. But I also think we shouldn’t just chase the new and forget the old. The hard times, the feelings, the sweat—they all deserve a corner somewhere.

Not as a monument, but as something alive. If redevelopment only puts things on display, without keeping a place for us to look back, then it’s not really heritage—it’s just a pretty shell.

The Second Interviewee Name: Ms. Li (pseudonym) Gender: Female Age: 69 Interview Method: Video call Date of Interview: March 2025 Duration: 12 minutes Transcript Format: Structured Q&A

56

Background: Former production dispatcher at the Cotton-Spinning

Workshop; joined Shougang in the 1970s; currently resides in the Apple Garden Community

Q (Researcher): Ms. Li, thank you for joining. Today we’re just going to chat a

bit about your time working at Shougang, and also your thoughts on the recent changes in the park. Feel free to speak casually — this is just a conversation.

A (Ms. Li): Oh, you ’ re talking about Shougang... That place was pretty much

the core of my whole life. I joined in 1975 — back then, my entire family lived off

my wages. You know the cotton-spinning workshop? Mostly women, and plenty of work. We stared at the looms all day long — our eyes would go blurry. But honestly, we didn’t feel it was hard, since we were all in the same boat. After work,

we’d line up in the canteen, chatting as we waited for food — who’s kid got sick, whose mother-in-law was in town —

we all knew. But now, when I go to

Shougang? Sigh... It’s like wearing old clothes to a fancy wedding. Nothing fits.

Q: Have you been back to the park since the redevelopment?

A: I have, I have — I was curious at first. A few neighbors and I made a little

trip together. We even took the subway, thinking we’d try to find some traces of the old days. But the moment we stepped in, my heart just sank. It’s all cafés now,

and things like “creative markets” and “eco experience zones.” I honestly don’t

know what any of it is. It just feels like it has nothing to do with the factory we 57

worked in. I still remember there was a little patch of green near our workshop

where we used to sit in the summer, cooling off and stitching insoles. Now? It’s a glass exhibition hall. You even need a reservation to go in. I didn’t dare — felt like I wasn’t dressed well enough to belong there.

Q: What’s your opinion on the fact that the park is now so newly redeveloped?

A: It ’ s definitely new, I ’ ll admit that. It ’ s fancy, high-end. But is it still our

Shougang? I really can ’t say it is. I stood next to that big blast furnace for a long

while — my husband said, “ Didn ’t you used to enter the workshop from here

every day?” And I said, “I used to walk by here every day, but now I can’t even go in. ” Isn ’ t that strange? It ’ s still called Shougang, but it doesn ’ t belong to us

anymore. It belongs to tourists, to the stylish folks — the ones in trench coats sipping coffee and snapping pictures.

Q: Do you ever talk to your family or the younger generation about your time

working at Shougang?

A: Sure I do. My granddaughter once asked, “ Grandma, you used to work

there too? ” I told her, “ Yep, we got up at 4:30 a.m., gathered at 5:30, and the

machines roared to life at 6. ” She was surprised and said, “ It looks like a park

now.” I choked up a bit. We used to sweat buckets in there, and now people go just

to take pretty pictures. It’s not that I’m petty — it’s just such a stark contrast. It’s

58

gotten to the point where I don ’ t even feel comfortable saying, “ That was my workplace.”

Q: Do you feel there’s anything left in the park that still reminds you of your

time there — like the atmosphere or daily life?

A: No, not really. I saw some exhibition areas claiming to “ honor industrial

memory,” but when I went in, it was just a bunch of curators’ words, fancy lights,

and projections — nothing to do with us regular folks. I’m not saying they owe us

something, but at least give us a “worker’s corner,” right? Somewhere we can tell our stories, write down our memories. Now, going in there, I feel like we’re not the

hosts anymore. We ’ re just spectators. And even that — you have to scan a QR code to get in.

Q: If you had the opportunity to participate in planning something in the park

— say, a “Workers’ Memory Exhibition” — would you be willing?

A: Of course I would! The things we remember, you won ’ t find in books or

online. I still recall one summer — there was an electricity shortage, and they had us working the night shift starting at 11 p.m. until 7 in the morning. A whole

workshop of women, dripping in sweat. We wrapped wet towels around our heads

and went to work. Can you imagine showing that in the park? If they’re willing to hear us, to document that — I’d gladly take part, even without pay.

59

Q: So overall, what ’ s your emotional takeaway from the redevelopment? Do

you feel more proud or more disappointed?

A: To be honest, more disappointed than moved. I know cities have to develop

— I ’ m not someone who insists everything must stay the same. But I think

Shougang Park has been scrubbed a little too clean — so clean it washed the

people away. Isn’t heritage supposed to leave some trace of human life? Not just

the blast furnaces, pipes, and laser light shows. Shougang wasn’t built by machines alone — it was made by people. But now, where are the people? All left standing outside the exhibition hall.

The Third Interviewee Name: Mr. Chen (pseudonym) Gender: Male Age: 75 Interview Method: Phone interview Date of Interview: March 2025 Duration: 10 minutes

60

Transcript Format: Structured Q&A Background: Former Deputy Director of the Production Scheduling

Department at Shougang, with long-term experience in frontline management and workshop operations; currently resides in the Apple Garden Community.

Q (Researcher): Hello Mr. Chen, thank you for your time today. We ’ re just

having a casual chat. Since retiring, have you visited Shougang Park? It’s changed quite a lot in recent years—what do you think about the transformation?

A (Mr. Chen): Ah, yes, it's changed a lot indeed. I think I visited back in 2019,

when it wasn't too crowded yet. To be honest, when I was walking near the big blast furnace, looking at the steel frames, the exhibition halls, the fountains — I

couldn ’ t quite describe what I was feeling. Speaking from a management

perspective, I have to admit — it’s been redeveloped well, looks impressive. But emotionally? It just didn’t feel like the Shougang where we used to work.

Q: What made you feel that way — was it the architecture, or the overall

atmosphere?

A: Both. Architecturally, yes, they kept some things — the blast furnace, the

cooling towers, their locations haven’t changed. But go inside, and it's all become photo ops. You take a picture, have a coffee, stroll a bit and then leave. But for us, back in the day, those places were real work zones. We had shifts by the furnace,

61

the dispatch office, greasy hallways… Now you don’t see any of that — not even in pictures. And you know what? No one ever asked us about it. All those years of

experience, of hard lessons and stories — weren't they worth preserving? No one came to ask.

Q: So in your opinion, how does today’s presentation of the park differ from

your memories of Shougang?

A: The difference is massive. Take my role in the production dispatch — I

worked there over a decade. Back then, if we had to adjust production, work

overtime, repair equipment — we’d issue ten or more directives in just one hour.

It was all about experience and the trust between people. But now? The exhibitions all say things like “Shougang as a new urban landmark” or “industrial aesthetics as fashion” — who wrote this stuff? If Shougang is reduced to just a "style" or a "symbol," what ’s the difference between that and a shopping mall? Don ’t us old Shougang workers even deserve a single sentence?

Q: You mentioned no one has reached out. Do you think there was ever a

chance for workers or managers to participate in the redevelopment process?

A: Let me tell you — this whole thing was “top-down planning.” From the

very beginning, the narrative was that “ the new Shougang will be a model of urban renewal.” Us old workers? At best, we’re “historical participants”; at worst,

we ’ re irrelevant. I actually got a call once from someone in PR — said they 62

wanted to record some oral history — but that went nowhere. I get it — they want to tell stories that the public likes to hear. But if you ’ re writing about

Shougang without including its workers, what are you really writing? Concepts.

Landscapes. Detached narratives without people.

Q: Do you feel this change has created a kind of “ rupture ” between the

workers and the redeveloped park?

A: That ’ s the right word — rupture. Physically, you can still walk in. But

spiritually, you can’t enter anymore. What you’re seeing is a place where we spent half our lives, now turned into someone else ’ s project, asset, or ticketed venue.

People like us — who once had a voice and a place — now don ’ t even get

mentioned. I ’ m not saying we all need to be up on walls or in the spotlight, but there should be some way for us to connect. Otherwise, this isn’t revival — it’s a rewrite. And it’s a rewrite that erases our entire generation.

Q: Do you still go to the park? Maybe to reminisce with your family?

A: Not really, no. I took the kids once. They thought it was amazing — said,

“Grandpa, this place is really cool! ” I smiled, didn ’t say much. But deep down I knew — every step I took there, none of it matched the Shougang I remembered.

It wasn’t “cool” to me — it just felt like, “I’m no longer part of this.”

63

Q: If in the future the park genuinely wanted to hear from former workers,

what do you think they could do?

A: I don ’ t think it needs to be anything grand. Just set up a “ Shougang

Memory Platform” for us — online or offline. Collect stories, images, equipment

we used, even photos of the old residential areas. Don’t underestimate these things.

Decades from now, this is what will have real historical value. What they ’ re

showing now — those “industrial visuals” — are basically performances. But

our memories? That’s the script. You need to collect the script before you can tell if your performance is accurate.

The Fourth Interviewee Name: Mr. Zhao (pseudonym) Gender: Male Age: 54 Interview Method: Phone interview Date of Interview: March 2025 Duration: 25 minutes

64

Transcript Format: Structured Q&A Background: Former Workshop Supervisor at Shougang, relocated to

Caofeidian, Tangshan with the factory in 2009; currently resides in Caofeidian

Q (Researcher): Hello Mr. Zhao, thank you so much for agreeing to this phone

interview. You represent the group of employees who relocated to Caofeidian after the factory moved, and I’m particularly eager to hear your reflections on Shougang after the move.

A (Mr. Zhao): Ah... you ’ ve touched on something that still weighs on me.

Honestly, I haven’t lived in Beijing for over a decade now, and every time I go back, it feels like a dream. If you ask me to “return to Shougang,” I sometimes don ’t

even dare walk in too far. It ’ s still called Shougang, sure, but it ’ s no longer my Shougang.

Q: When did you move to Caofeidian? What were your thoughts at the time?

A: I moved in 2009, part of the last batch of core workshops that went south.

When the relocation was first announced, I was torn. I really didn’t want to leave.

But once the policy was out, there was no choice. They said it was for “industrial

upgrading and a greener capital,” and we understood. But leaving still broke my

heart. I’d been working there since I was 18 or 19. To be told in my 40s that I had to move... it wasn ’ t easy. I remember standing at the factory gate for ten extra

65

minutes before leaving, thinking — once I go, I might never be the same person again.

Q: Have you been back to the Shougang Park since? What was your first

impression?

A: I’ve returned two or three times, mostly for work or when passing through.

The first time was in 2018. I heard they built a ski big air ramp for the Winter Olympics. I went to check it out and — whoa — I barely recognized it. Blast

Furnace No. 3, the main plaza — the landmarks are there, sure, but the spirit is gone. I turned to my wife and said, “ Feels like we ’ re visiting a museum, not

coming home.”

Q: Who do you think Shougang Park is for now?

A: That ’ s a great question. Let me tell you — Shougang Park now mainly

serves tourists, investors, and event organizers. And people like us, who came from

Shougang? We’ve become the backdrop. We’re now “those who used to be there,” not “those who still belong.” I walk around, see the blast furnaces, the cafés, the

office buildings... and I feel no sense of belonging. It’s not that they’re pushing you

out — it’s that you just don’t fit in anymore.

Q: Would you say this sense of loss is spatial, or more about identity?

66

A: Both, really. Let me give you an example. I live in Caofeidian now, work

there too. My household is settled. But at night I still dream of working night shifts in Shougang. The sound of the furnace, the phone ringing in the dispatch room, the smell of sweat during shift changes — it’s all still fresh in my mind. But when I

wake up, I’m in another place. The ringtone’s different. Isn’t that like... a relocation

that never really finished? A ripped memory?

Q: What’s your impression of the cultural exhibitions in the park — like the

museum or the commemorative installations?

A: I’ve seen them. Honestly, they look good, must’ve cost a fortune. But here’s

the thing — whose story is being told? Is there any mention of us who were

relocated? The exhibitions talk about the construction of the blast furnaces, about

hosting the Winter Olympics — and I don’t object to that — but couldn’t they

also mention how we kept production going while moving the lines? How we faced challenges and pulled through? That’s part of history too.

Q: If Shougang Park wanted to launch a “ relocated workers ’ memory ”

project, would you be willing to participate?

A: Absolutely! In fact, many of my old colleagues talk about this in our WeChat

group. They say, if we don ’ t speak up, no one will know how Shougang was “disassembled while still operating.” You know how we ran between two sites just to calibrate the lines? Who shut down the last furnace, who pressed the last switch, 67

who cried, who touched the gate for the last time — all of that is part of our shared memory. If we don ’ t tell it, it disappears. Exhibitions talk about the “nation.” What we talk about is “life.”

Q: Last question — what does Shougang mean to you now?

A: Shougang... was the most important period of my life. But now it feels like a

relative I once knew, who moved away, got rich, and stopped calling. Can I blame them? No. But do I feel hurt? Absolutely. These days, when I talk about Shougang, I don’t say “our Shougang” anymore. I say, “I used to work at Shougang.” That shift in wording — it says it all.

The Fifth Interviewee Name: Ms. Li (author's mother) Gender: Female Age: 53 Interview Method: Video call (with her children present) Date of Interview: March 2024 Duration: 30 minutes Transcript Format: Structured Q&A 68

Background: Former steel workshop worker at Shougang, joined in the

1990s, later transferred to a support position; currently resides in the outskirts of Beijing

Q (Researcher): Mom, for this thesis I need to include some interview material.

I’d like to ask you to talk about your time working at Shougang, and also how you feel about the changes at Shougang Park in recent years. Just speak freely, no pressure — we’re just chatting.

A (Ms. Li): Oh my, you ’re interviewing me now? Alright, I ’ll speak from the

heart. You’re talking about Shougang... well, I wasn’t like your dad, working in a

skilled technical position all his life. I was just an ordinary female worker, later transferred to manage team documentation. But I was there for nearly twenty

years. You were little back then — your dad worked night shifts, I took the early shift. Our whole life revolved around that factory. The staff housing, the

kindergarten, the canteen — everything was linked to the plant. We practically lived twenty-four hours a day inside Shougang.

Q: Do you still go back to Shougang Park to walk around? Do you feel the

changes are significant?

A: I’ve been once — remember when you took me? I was quite excited then,

saying, “ Come, let me show you where I used to work.” But once we went in, I

was stunned. Nothing looked familiar. The factory gate was gone, the furnace area 69

was cordoned off, and signs read “Creative Street” and “Public Leisure Plaza.”

Your dad stood there for a while and said, “Is this really our old workshop?” I said, “It doesn’t look like it.” I couldn’t find my bearings, or that familiar feeling. Back then, we ’ d finish a shift and walk home from the East Gate, with the scent of

molten iron following us. Now the whole street smells like perfume — it’s like a shopping mall.

Q: Do you think the current state of Shougang Park is “ improved ”

“erased”?

or

A: If I had to pick one phrase, I’d say — it’s been cleaned up too much. The

place lights up at night, red and blue lights flashing, bustling with young people

taking selfies and going on dates. But you know what? That same area used to be where we, the female workers, brought our kids to cool off in the summer. Your dad on night shift, I’d grab some food from the canteen with you in tow, and let you

ride a little tricycle next to the workshop. Now it ’ s all been “ upgraded, ” and people like us feel out of place walking in.

Q: Do you feel that the exhibitions there mention workers like you?

A: Oh, don’t get me started. I walked into the exhibition hall, and it felt like I

was looking at someone else’s history. They call it “industrial memory,” but to me it’s all been designed and staged. Giant screens, VR setups, scripted narrations —

all talking about the factory ’s official history and its “national mission.” But us 70

women who operated shifts, cleaned out furnaces, hauled water — not a word. I thought to myself, “Aren’t we part of Shougang’s memory too?” Who arrived first

every day? Who was the last to leave? Weren’t we the ones doing all the menial but essential work?

Q: So would you say Shougang Park still feels like “ home ” ? Or is it just

another place now?

A: Hmm... you’re getting to the point here. Honestly? That place now belongs

to Beijing, to the state — not to us anymore. I’d still go if you asked me to, sure.

But to say it feels like “going home”? That feeling’s long gone. Back then, we were

“people of the unit” because everything we did — eat, sleep, raise kids — was

tied to that place. Now it’s tourists sipping lattes and making videos. What are we

supposed to do there — just watch? It’s not our show anymore.

Q: Do you think the younger generation sees Shougang the same way your

generation does?

A: Not at all. Recently a young colleague at work posted a picture from

Shougang Park, showing off her ski trip and captioning it “ retro-industrial chic

landmark. ” I almost burst out laughing. I thought — do you even know how

workers used to do rotating shifts next to that furnace? Do you know how we used to scrape ice off the floor in winter? They see “design,” we see “scars.” That’s how far apart we are.

71

Q: If the park were to invite former workers to share their stories and

experiences, would you be willing to participate?

A: Of course! I always joke about losing my memory, but if you ask me about

the old operation protocols or how we rotated shifts, I could tell you with my eyes closed. If you want me to talk about how we women managed childcare,

housework, and night shifts together — I could talk all night. I don ’ t need the

spotlight — I just want people to know that Shougang wasn ’ t just steel and machines. It was people. It was about how a mother finished her shift in the heat and still went home to cook for her kid. That’s Shougang too.

Q: What, in your view, is the true “Shougang Spirit”?

A: The Shougang Spirit? Well, I won’t say something grandiose. But to me, it’s

not what’s printed on a wall. It’s us — the people who weren’t flashy, never lazy,

and always stuck to the task until it was done. Is the park still something to be proud of today? Sure, I’d say so. But don’t forget — the foundation of this whole

place was built by folks in gray uniforms working two shifts a day. If you erase the people and leave only the shell, that ’ s not “ preservation. ” photoshoot.

72

That ’ s just a

Bibliography 1. Zhang, Jingcheng, Liu Liyong, and Liu Guangyu. Protection and Utilization of Industrial Heritage: A Perspective of the Creative Economy Era. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2013.

2. Chen, Chang, Chen Hong, and Li Sidong. Challenges and Countermeasures in the Protection of Industrial Heritage in Shanghai. Scientific Development 4 (2018): 97–107.

3. TICCIH (The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage), The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (Moscow: TICCIH, 2003).

4. Xing, Huaibin, Ran Hongyan, and Zhang Dejun. Preliminary Study on the Value and Protection of Industrial Heritage. Journal of Northeastern University (Social Science Edition) 1 (2007).

5. ArchDaily, “Tate Modern’s Switch House / Herzog & de Meuron,” ArchDaily, August 1, 2016, https://www.archdaily.com/790195/tate-moderns-switch-house-herzog-a nd-de-meuron.

6. Sun, Shuting, Xu Subin, and Nobuo Aoki. Study on Community Identity of Heritage in the Transformation of Industrial Land. China Cultural Heritage 109, no. 3 (2022): 41–48.

7. Cizler, Jasna. Urban Regeneration Effects on Industrial Heritage and Local Community – Case Study: Leeds, UK. Sociologija i Prostor (2012).

8. Song, Feng, and Xiong Xinkai. National Heritage, Collective Memory, and Cultural Identity. Chinese Landscape Architecture 28, no. 11 (2012): 23–26.

9. Liu, Lihua, and He Jun. Traumatic Memory of Industrial Heritage and Its Mechanism for Shaping Community Cultural Identity: A Case Study of Tiexi, Shenyang. China Ecotourism 13, no. 2 (2023): 316–328.

10. Lin, Chongde, Yang Zhiliang, and Huang Xiting. Dictionary of Psychology.

Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press, 2003.

11. Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.

Social Psychology Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2000): 224–237.

12. Wang, Shihua. Japan’s Control and Plunder of Industrial and Mining Resources in North China during the War of Aggression against China. Studies on the War of Resistance against Japan 7, no. 1 (1993): 64.

13. Liu, Tian. Relying on the Strength of the Working Class, Yuhua Machinery Plant Grew Up. People’s Daily, October 1, 1949, 4th ed. https://cn.govopendata.com/renminribao/1949/4/18/4/ 14. Shougang Group. “The Development History of Shougang’s Corporate Culture.” Shougang Group Official Website. March 23, 2017. https://www.shougang.com.cn/sgweb/html/qywhtx/20170323/786.html

73

15. Li, Bin. Study on the Transformation of Shougang’s Industrial Landscape Pattern (1919–2019). Chinese Landscape Architecture 36, no. 3 (2020): 15.

16. Ye, Zi. A Century of Shougang: The Most ‘Steel’ and the Most Stylish.

People’s Daily Overseas Edition, December 17, 2020, 5th ed. http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrbhwb/html/2020-12/17/content_202403 1.htm.

17. Bohongtao. Acupuncture-Style Renewal and the Reconstruction of Publicness in the Industrial Heritage of the Northern Area of Beijing Shougang Park for the Winter Olympics. Urban and Rural Planning (Chengxiang Guihua) 6 (2020): 102–107.

18. People’s Government of Hedong District, Tianjin. “Unveiling Ceremony of the Ninth Batch of China’s 20th Century Architectural Heritage Projects – Tianjin Third Cotton Textile Factory Held in Hedong District.” Official Website of Tianjin Municipal People’s Government, May 6, 2024. https://www.tj.gov.cn/sy/zwdt/gqdt/202405/t20240506_6616820.html.

19. “About Us.” Mian3 Creative District. 2024. https://www.mian3.com/AboutUs.html#11113. Accessed April 13, 2025.

20. Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission. Action Plan for Accelerating the Transformation and Development of Western Beijing: Building a New Landmark for the Capital’s Urban Revival in the New Era (2022–2025). March 24, 2022.

21. China Tax News. “Urban Regeneration: Enabling the ‘Secondary Growth’ of Cities.” China Tax News, October 15, 2024. http://beijing.chinatax.gov.cn/bjswj/c104276/202410/33e5b3feae9b48cb 8a9b64a33df230cf.shtml.

22. Logan, William. Cities: Palimpsests of Cultural Memory and Their Management. In The Routledge Handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific, 29–47. London: Routledge, 2019.

23. Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge, 2006.

74