Next Article in Journal
Key Barriers and Challenges to Green Infrastructure Implementation: Policy Insights from the Melbourne Case
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Socio-Economic Vulnerabilities to Urban Heat: Correlations with Land Use and Urban Morphology in Melbourne, Australia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Research on “Identification–Cognition–Perception” of the Pedestrian Spaces Around Subway Stations near Popular Tourist Attractions from the Tourists’ Perspective: A Case Study of Tianjin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/land14050959
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Evolution of Plot Morphology and Design Strategies in Built Heritage Renewal in Central Shanghai from the Perspective of Sharing Cities

by
Zhenyu Li
1,
Mengxun Liu
1 and
Yichen Zhu
1,2,*
1
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Urban Renewal and Spatial Optimization Technology, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(5), 959; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14050959
Submission received: 7 March 2025 / Revised: 18 April 2025 / Accepted: 24 April 2025 / Published: 29 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Land Planning and Urban Regeneration for Achieving Sustainable Development: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the rise of the sharing economy and the concept of the sharing city, the field of urban renewal is facing new opportunities and challenges. This paper innovatively explores built heritage renewal in central Shanghai from the perspective of the sharing economy, focusing on the evolution of plot morphology and associated design strategies. Six representative cases, selected within the framework of three urban renewal policies from 1999 to the present, are analyzed using a diachronic method based on the Conzen school and the street frontage index. Combined with historical maps, aerial photographs, and satellite images, the paper analyzes the changes in plot morphology from 1999 to 2024. The paper highlights how the introduction of sharing city principles significantly impacted plot morphology, facilitating the expansion and diversification of space use and driving the restructuring of plot boundaries, including physical, property, and activity boundaries. The study further reveals how the shared city concept has led to the emergence of privately owned public spaces. Additionally, the paper discusses the pursuit of flow, openness, and sharing in urban renewal, noting how these factors have shifted the focus from purely rentable and sellable areas to more efficient space resource allocation, optimizing spatial configurations. Finally, the paper introduces the concept of “sharing by transfer”, proposing that adjustments to plot boundaries under the sharing economy framework can foster more equitable, efficient, and sustainable urban renewal, providing new perspectives and strategic recommendations for built heritage renewal.

1. Introduction

In the process of modern urban development, there has been growing emphasis on the protection and adaptive reuse of built heritage. Under the pressures of urban growth, existing heritages are increasingly caught in the dilemma of preserving their historical value while being endowed with contemporary functions [1,2,3]. Excessive commercial development often clashes with cultural preservation, and debates have arisen over the “preservation” versus “transformation” of built heritage in planning and design—resulting in imbalances between functional adaptation and preservation requirements [4]. Moreover, conflicts abound among multiple stakeholders, as different parties hold divergent views on the value and renewal strategies for built heritage, making consensus difficult to achieve. The market-driven approach further dilutes the cultural value of built heritage [5], leading to superficial updates that erode both the architectural identity and urban memory [6].
China’s situation confirms this tension, particularly in the central urban areas of Shanghai, where built heritage faces numerous challenges during renewal [7]. On one hand, these heritage sites embody the city’s collective memory and serve as a repository for cultural identity and emotional attachment, underscoring their “intangible” value [8]; on the other hand, governments and developers pursue economic benefits and the enhancement of urban image by transforming, upgrading, or redefining the functions of historical sites to meet market and urban development needs [9,10]. In the context of scarce land resources and aging spatial functions, these dual demands often conflict in terms of benefit distribution and mechanisms for public participation. For example, the case of Xintiandi in Shanghai—where a traditional Lilong residential area was transformed through commercial redevelopment—has had certain adverse impacts on the local community [11].
Within this urban background, the introduction of the sharing economy has played a mediating role in alleviating such tensions [12]. The sharing economy emphasizes the redistribution and efficient utilization of social resources [13], facilitating a shift from “single-interest” approaches to “multi-stakeholder co-governance” in the renewal of urban built heritage [14]. For instance, cities like San Francisco and Boston in the United States operate under models dominated by shared enterprises with supplementary government roles; in Seoul, South Korea, a government-led top-down renewal model prevails; and in Barcelona, Spain, and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, citizen-led co-creation practices foster sustainability and public participation [15,16]. Key attributes of the sharing city include an emphasis on citizen engagement to enhance community cohesion, optimized resource allocation to minimize waste, and the promotion of hybrid policy-making strategies [17]. Through mechanisms of collaboration, feedback, and equitable distribution, the struggle between historical preservation and urban development can be partially eased. Moreover, the sharing model softens the one-sidedness of top-down policies, and the platform effects it brings provide new channels for publicity and increased traffic for heritage renewal, inviting broader public participation in the process [18,19,20].
Following Shanghai’s vision of “readable buildings, walkable neighborhoods, and a city with warmth”1, a series of changes in the renewal of its built heritage have occurred [21,22]. By optimizing the use of existing land to boost urban vitality and governance, new policies have sought to balance commercial exploitation with the protection and adaptive reuse of built heritage [23]. Cities need to establish reasonable development boundaries to reconcile diverse interests. The rise of the sharing economy has reinforced public engagement and community co-construction, established diversified benefit-sharing mechanisms, and promoted the integration of historical culture with modern design—all while placing greater emphasis on sustainable urban development [24]. New design and planning approaches have emerged, influencing heritage projects [25,26].
This paper discusses the alterations and effects of sharing on the revitalization of urban built heritage, focusing on plot morphology, with Shanghai as a case study. The core question addressed here is how sharing has affected the renewal models and morphological evolution of built heritage in central urban areas. Thereby sparking further discussion and exploration of the “sharing by transfer” concept.
The existing research has explored the renewal of urban built heritage from the perspectives of the creative economy or policy impacts [27,28]; the innovation of this paper lies in examining changes in renewal strategies from the viewpoint of sharing. It emphasizes how sharing influences multi-stakeholder utilization, the redistribution of surplus resources, and the integration of top-down and bottom-up policy frameworks. Employing a diachronic study based on the urban morphology of the Conzen school [29,30], this paper comparatively analyzes changes in plot boundary forms and the evolution of activity spaces and spatial vitality over the past 20 years, including shifts in business functions and street frontage indices [31].
Following this introductory section, Section 2 Literature Review explores the impact of the sharing economy and shared cities, the different development models of built heritage under the dual influences of the creative economy and urban renewal policies, as well as research in plot morphology. Section 3 Materials and Methods selects six built heritage cases from central Shanghai—including industrial relics and traditional concession-era lane buildings—as research objects, using 2015 (the onset of the sharing economy in China) as a demarcation line to compare the different renewal outcomes of each case. Section 4 Results demonstrates, from the perspective of changes in plot morphology, how sharing has altered the physical, ownership, and activity boundaries of these sites; Section 5 Discussion shows the transformation brought about by sharing in built heritage renewal, including changes in spatial function and design strategies, and introduces the concept of “sharing by transfer” along with spatial design strategies aimed at serving a broader public.
Finally, the paper reveals the morphological changes in plots driven by sharing, emphasizing its effects on planning models, the physical configuration of plot spaces, and spatial utilization, and calls for greater consideration of sharing and multi-stakeholder participation in current urban renewal efforts.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Sharing Economy and the Sharing City

The idea of the sharing economy is deeply entwined with social habits and stems from consumer ideas. Marcus Felson and Joe L. Spaeth introduced the concept of “collaborative consumption”, and the emergence of peer production in the early 21st century progressively shaped sharing-based business models, thereby establishing the foundation for the sharing economy concept [32]. In 2010, Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers proposed a shift from ownership to usage—that is, from possession to utilization and from ownership to accessibility—thus establishing a model of collaborative consumption [33]. They explained this progression as beginning with code sharing, then advancing to the sharing of lifestyles or content, and eventually evolving into offline resource sharing, where online platforms extend their influence into the physical world. This new model, which integrates offline goods or services via the Internet, marked the birth of the sharing economy concept [18,34].
More scholars have discussed the sharing economy. Arun Sundararajan identified five key characteristics of the sharing economy: (1) a market-based foundation, (2) efficient utilization of capital, (3) a group network structure, (4) blurred behavioral boundaries, and (5) indistinct boundaries between work and life [35]. The sharing economy has also introduced new platform advantages, transforming business models and mechanisms, and creating innovative service offerings for enterprise management, platform participants, and consumers [36]. Curtis and colleagues argue that the sharing economy should promote sustainability, facilitate temporary usage, and encourage the sharing of tangible goods—factors that significantly influence bottom-up policy formation [15].
The rise of the sharing economy has also sparked discussions on the concept of the “sharing city”, which is intimately linked to the utilization of spatial power and the redistribution of urban resources [37]. A sharing city employs new strategies to balance economic growth with environmental sustainability while incorporating humanitarian values [38]. The reuse of idle resources forms the foundation of the sharing economy, and the concept of a sharing city emerges both as a critique of modernist urban planning failures and as an innovative approach to reactivating underutilized urban assets [19]. Julian Agyman and Duncan McLaren have suggested that a sharing city can exemplify sustainable and intelligent urban development by improving quality of life, revitalizing neighborhoods, and markedly decreasing energy use [13]. The governance model of a sharing city reflects a new paradigm in which diverse stakeholders jointly lead urban renewal, transferring resources originally held by individuals, groups, or collectives to multiple users and thereby facilitating the reallocation of idle resources [39].

2.2. Trends and Features of Built Heritage Renewal: From Creative Park Model to a More Sharing Appraoch

Creative park model renovation is an important method for regenerating the built heritage in the central urban area of Shanghai. Beginning in 2004, it was driven by the creative economy and characterized by a creative park renewal model in which the government, developers, artists, and other stakeholders interacted during the transformation process. This model generated distinctive commercial benefits while also giving rise to phenomena of social stratification [27,28,40]. Through the development of creative parks, built heritage sites have preserved their unique historical and cultural features while integrating diverse cultural elements, thereby enriching the city’s cultural landscape. The protective development of heritage requires breaking away from rigid “authenticity” standards by combining commercial functions with cultural preservation and striking a balance between the transmission of historical culture and modern development [41]. Moreover, the renewal of creative parks has emphasized the role of key forces such as artists, involving both elite and non-elite voices, which has facilitated the transformation of traditional industrial parks into creative clusters [42].
However, the renewal and development of these creative parks also have several limitations. For example, there is a trend toward too much commercialization and a pushback against community interests and long-term residents’ concerns [11]. This makes the distribution of public spaces and resources unequal. Some researchers say that while innovation fueled by the creative economy has made things more valuable, making them too commercialized also causes cultural alienation [43]. Various studies have investigated the conversion of industrial heritage into creative parks in megacities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Taipei. For instance, the revitalization of Shanghai, as M50, has stimulated economic vitality through culture-driven development, yet it has concurrently caused pressure on adjacent markets, communities, and the environment [2,44]. Moreover, studies indicate that the successful revitalization of creative parks needs coordinated cooperation among government entities, developers, communities, and various stakeholders. Quantitative assessments of these interactions indicate that the degree of collaboration and public participation are critical elements in fostering multi-stakeholder co-governance and improving decision-making efficiency [45,46].
In 2015, Shanghai launched a policy for urban stock renewal2. This new policy direction transformed the renewal model and governance of built heritage, transitioning from a government-led approach to one defined by multi-stakeholder participation. Simultaneously, the sharing economy has emerged and has developed rapidly in China, significantly changing the way in which urban space is perceived.
This transition evolved from a singular demolition-and-reconstruction model to an interactive institutional reform, highlighting a balance between top-down governmental leadership and bottom-up public involvement [47]. Concurrently, the revitalization of constructed heritage is increasingly emphasizing indirect stakeholders such as media, NGOs, and academia, who, by building alliances, can exert influence on government, developers, and communities. This collaborative method promotes the creation of a more transparent and collective renewal system [48]. The revised renewal policy has implemented economic benefit evaluations for the repurposing of industrial heritage, emphasizing the incorporation of technology like social networks and big data to analyze public preferences about heritage. These findings offer significant design precedents for the repurposing and alteration of built heritage [49,50]. Repurposing abandoned built heritage and other resources preserves cultural and historical continuity while enhancing economic vitality, especially in the creative sector, and maintaining a balance between land use efficiency and social equality [51,52,53].
Under the influence of the sharing economy, more built heritage renewal projects have undergone compound and multifunctional utilization [54]. For instance, Langyuan Vintage in Beijing, China, turned an old factory into a new office cluster by offering flexible leasing and platform-based sharing [55]. The Eastern Suburb Memory turned old factory buildings in Chengdu, China, into a complex with performance spaces, working spaces, and shared markets [56]. The Tempelhof Airport in Berlin, Germany, was turned into a park and culture center [57]. The Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was once a gasworks but is now a place for arts events and shared markets. It was made possible by public–cooperative ownership structures, which allow for multi-stakeholder governance. The Tate Modern in London, UK, turned an old power station into a public culture space that anyone can use [58,59].
Within the framework of the sharing economy, property rights and functioning have become disassociated, resulting in a reconsideration of the functional utilization of heritage places [60]. The utilization of spatial resources has become more diverse and efficient. with maximum value extracted through temporal, functional, and participatory flexibility. Additionally, the renewal models are shifting—from traditional top-down approaches to multi-actor participation, involving communities, third-party platforms, and supportive public policies [54].

2.3. Plot Morphology Evolution and Renewal Methods

The evolution of plot morphology is intricately linked to urban renewal. Due to the inherent ambiguity in defining a plot, the term “plot” is often regarded as a crucial component of urban form. It reflects the relationship between the land ownership structure and spatial configuration formed during a city’s development and serves as an important intermediary connecting street patterns, architectural forms, and land use, playing a key role in the quality of urban built space [61,62]. In the field of urban morphology, Conzen emphasized the significance of the plot, considering it a land-use unit defined by ground-level boundaries and associated with property rights (a parcel of land representing a land-use unit defined by boundaries on the ground) [29,30]. A plot possesses three main attributes: as a tangible element of form, as a land-use unit, and as a unit of land ownership [63]. Muratori’s research highlights the significance of the lot as a constituent unit of urban texture, treating it as a fundamental element in urban analysis [64]. Scheer, in his study of the urban matrix, underscored the importance of understanding the evolution of urban form, including the continuity of morphological organizations such as street and plot patterns [65,66].
Kropf argues that there are two main dimensions in the conceptual definition of a plot: one related to the users and activities within it, and the other concerning its control [62]. The term “usage” refers to the relationship between buildings and open spaces within the built environment, while “control” refers to the land relations manifested through power—essentially, who can acquire and utilize the land and its built forms. In simple terms, “property rights” denote a form of land control established by customs or legal regulations. Moreover, plot delineation is closely linked to urban spatial property rights and urban development [67,68].
At the same time, market forces and spontaneous urban dynamics also influence the renewal of plots and their morphology. Webster and colleagues contend that cities are driven by a “constrained spontaneity”, wherein the property attributes of land can theoretically be subdivided indefinitely, thus allowing for the distribution of rights [17]. Traditional planning must adapt to changes in market information and social needs within the city; it advocates for “flexible planning” that not only protects public interests but also stimulates market vitality, effectively addressing the rigidity and inefficiency of conventional top-down planning. In the context of urban renewal, property rights provide a critical institutional guarantee for both the market and planning, as a clear definition of property rights enables the efficient allocation of land resources and promotes diverse, participatory governance [69,70].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Study and Criteria for Selection

This study focuses on cases of built heritage in Shanghai’s central metropolitan region. Shanghai possesses a diverse array of architectural heritage, including industrial remains along the Huangpu River and Suzhou Creek, colonial-era preservation buildings, and buildings that reflect contemporary architectural styles. These diverse artifacts not only document the city’s transition from a traditional industrial center to a contemporary metropolis but also witness to its complicated historical development. As Shanghai shifts from expansion to stock-based renewal, the challenge of reactivating these heritage spaces has become central to urban renewal discourse.
The research identifies three representative urban renewal policies [71] and selects case studies that align with each while also considering the emergence of the sharing economy in 2015 as a significant inflection point (Table 1) (Figure 1).
The study traces a progression in Shanghai’s renewal framework—from centralized control through land reserve and re-listing policies to the more flexible rights-holder-led approach. This process has progressively redistributed authority, affording the market increased discretionary autonomy while bringing together top-down restrictions with more informal norms, effectively balancing the diverse stakeholder interests.
By comparing projects implemented under the same policy framework before and after 2015, the research highlights how sharing economy principles transformed urban renewal practices. Pre-2015 initiatives primarily focused on traditional leasing and improving usage rates, while later projects incorporated more innovative shared-use models that maximize space utilization and community engagement. This comparative analysis illuminates how emerging economic models can reshape heritage preservation strategies within established policy frameworks, potentially offering insights for future heritage renewal approaches.

3.2. Research Methods

This study employs a morphological analysis of plots based on six case studies, drawing on the established approaches of the Conzen school of urban morphology [72,73]. Satellite imagery from 1999 and 2024 is used to perform a comparative overlay analysis of urban maps from different periods, thereby elucidating the evolution of urban form. The satellite map and historical is from Tianditu8. Satellite images enable the identification of key plot characteristics—including boundaries, area, facilities, and surrounding context—providing the fundamental spatial attributes for each case. By systematically comparing the transformations evident in these temporal satellite images, the study focuses on the reconfiguration of plot changes at the district level and critically compares the spatial morphological relationships between urban design decisions and land-use configurations. The morphological methodology is further enhanced through specialized mapping techniques that document changing physical patterns in urban spaces, allowing for identification of persistent elements and transformative processes that have shaped the contemporary urban fabric. The specific software used includes tools like ArcGIS (Version10.8), AutoCAD (Version 2023), etc.
Furthermore, this paper investigates the interrelationship between plots as a nexus of property rights and activity boundaries, comparing changes in physical, ownership, and activity boundaries through morphological analysis. By reviewing the relevant literature, a series of maps illustrating nearly three decades of plot boundaries and land ownership relations was produced. It is important to note that in a strict sense, property rights represent an intangible relationship, whereas physical boundaries manifest the actual material limits of a site. The interplay between these material and intangible boundaries can undergo a certain degree of transformation, which is captured through these planar representations, ultimately revealing shifts in both activity boundaries and their extents.
Additionally, this research summarizes the functional and commercial distributions across the cases and analyzes changes in the plot street frontage index under the new paradigm of sharing urban renewal. The plot street frontage index, defined as the ratio of the plot’s street-facing length to its total perimeter, reflects the accessibility and vibrancy of the spatial interface between renewed built heritage sites and urban public spaces.
The methodology is complemented by economic data analysis, stakeholder perspective collection, and behavioral observations to provide a holistic understanding of the case studies. Economic analysis examines rental rate fluctuations and business mode to identify value creation mechanisms in shared urban renewal projects. Stakeholder perspectives were gathered through structured interviews with architects, developers, property managers, residents, and tenants across all case studies, providing insights into the social dimensions and lived experiences of these transformed spaces. Behavioral observations were conducted through on-site mapping at varying times to document spatial usage patterns and social interactions, supplemented by digital ethnography analyzing social media content related to each space. This methodological triangulation connects spatial configurations with economic outcomes and social practices, revealing the complex interplay that determines the success of urban renewal projects.

4. Results

4.1. Morphological Analysis Results

Analysis of six case studies under three different policy frameworks reveals distinctive morphological transformations in urban renewal projects. The case studies demonstrate varying approaches to boundary modifications and street interface improvements, with significant differences observed in how physical, ownership, and activity boundaries evolved during the renewal process (Table 2).
In terms of plot boundary transformations, projects under the Land Tender, Auction and Listing Policy (Xintiandi and WYSH) exhibit the most dramatic changes, with complete redefinition of ownership boundaries and significant expansion of activity boundaries. Xintiandi transformed from traditional alleyway residences to commercial plazas while WYSH expanded its physical boundaries through the integration of historical buildings with new structures (Figure 2). Projects under the Three No-change Policies (Jingyuan Fashion Creative Center and X Tower) show more conservative boundary transformations, with Jingyuan maintaining all three boundary types virtually unchanged while X Tower modified its physical boundaries to face the city and waterfront without altering property boundaries (Figure 3). Rights-holder-led policy projects (SIOBP Phases 1 and 2) demonstrate an intermediate approach, with Phase 1 retaining property boundaries while expanding physical and activity boundaries and Phase 2 completely transforming all boundary types through a permeable spatial structure (Figure 4).
Plot street frontage index improvements varied significantly across the cases. WYSH achieved the most substantial increase (approximately 2.5 times) by opening boundaries on multiple sides and creating walkable interfaces. X Tower improved its index by introducing a city square and connecting to the Suzhou Creek Promenade. SIOBP enhanced its frontage through multiple entrances and internal circulation routes. Xintiandi showed moderate improvement through commercial pathways, while Jingyuan exhibited minimal change, maintaining a semi-closed management system. These variations in street frontage index correlate strongly with the degree of public accessibility and integration with surrounding urban contexts.

4.2. Case-Specific Analysis Results

The six case studies reveal distinct morphological patterns that reflect their respective policy frameworks. Land Tender projects demonstrate market-driven boundary expansions with high commercial orientation, while Three No-change projects show divergent approaches to preservation—either maintaining rigid boundaries or selectively modifying them while preserving ownership structures. Rights-holder-led projects exhibit a progressive evolution from partial to complete boundary transformation, emphasizing connectivity and permeability. These variations manifest in different spatial arrangements, functional distributions, and degrees of public accessibility, collectively illustrating how policy frameworks influence morphological outcomes in urban renewal (Figure 5).
Xintiandi represents a commercially driven transformation where traditional alleyway residential clusters were reconfigured into public plaza spaces. Satellite imagery from 1999 reveals that the original morphology consisted of densely packed shikumen houses connected by narrow alleyways with clearly delineated property boundaries. The project’s plot boundaries underwent partial physical transformation, with selective preservation on the eastern portion while completely reconfiguring the western side. The ownership boundaries shifted completely from individual residential properties to unified commercial ownership. This transformation replaced the fine-grained alley network with expansive consumer-oriented spaces. The street frontage index improved moderately through the creation of a primary commercial pathway, though the commercially exclusive environment imposes new limitations on public interaction.
WYSH demonstrates a more complex morphological transformation that preserved industrial heritage while introducing new spatial connections. The project’s plot boundaries experienced significant expansion as physical boundaries were extended to incorporate adjacent historical preservation houses with diverse ownership rights. This boundary expansion was complemented by the creation of an interwoven building corridor system that reimagined the space vertically. The street frontage index increased approximately 2.5 times through strategic boundary opening on both the north and south sides, establishing a continuous, walkable interface that seamlessly connects with surrounding streets.
Jingyuan Fashion Creative Center maintained rigid plot boundaries with minimal intervention. The physical, ownership, and activity boundaries remained virtually unchanged after renewal, preserving the original industrial campus layout. The street frontage index showed negligible improvement, as the project maintained a semi-closed management system with vehicular access limited to primary roads and no designated pedestrian walkways. Despite the adjacency to Suzhou Creek, the absence of waterfront connections further limited the potential for street frontage enhancement.
SIOBP Phase 1 preserved historical structures while expanding physical boundaries. The project maintained its property boundaries under the Shanghai Biological Products Research Institute ownership while expanding physical and activity boundaries through the creation of multiple entrances and public spaces. The street frontage index improved moderately by establishing two primary internal axes for cultural and hospitality activities, effectively creating “internal streets” that enhanced permeability and connected to surrounding urban features including Sunke Villa Garden and Anxi Road Plaza.
X Tower presents a more nuanced morphological transformation while still operating under the Three No-change policy. Comparative analysis of satellite imagery from 1999 and present conditions reveals that while the three main industrial buildings maintained their original spatial relationships, significant modifications were made to their engagement with surrounding urban elements. The plot boundaries were strategically altered to face the city and Suzhou Creek, while property boundaries remained unchanged. This selective boundary dissolution allowed activity boundaries to extend toward the community and waterfront. The street frontage index improved substantially through the introduction of a southern city square and direct connection to the Suzhou Creek Promenade, transforming former internal roads into streets accessible to community groups and visitors.
SIOBP Phase 2 represents the most radical morphological transformation among the case studies. Unlike Phase 1’s building-by-building preservation approach, Phase 2 reconfigured the spatial organization through a semi-open, elevated cluster of structures interconnected by sky corridors, completely reconfigured physical, property, and activity boundaries. This innovative morphological strategy dissolved traditional plot boundaries in favor of a three-dimensional network of spaces and connections. The street frontage index increased significantly as the permeable ground floor created multiple access points distributed across different areas, transforming linear pathways into an exploratory network-like circulation system spanning multiple levels.

5. Discussion

5.1. From the Sharing Economy to the Sharing City

The sharing economy has changed urban renewal project positioning and planning from economic benefits to diverse values. Built heritage renewal involves reallocating spatial authority, cultural capital, and commercial assets. Sharing concepts have transformed an elite-dominated “closed cultural container” into a citizen-participatory “carrier of social life and culture [74]”. This change has led to multidimensional explorations, from diversifying functional formats to gradually replacing rentable and sellable goals with everyday human flow and from enclosed physical spaces to open, shared environments. Thus, public participation has replaced government and developer control over these projects [75]. Under the policy of land sale listings, new urban areas have focused on the “gentrification” of existing sites, using local alleyway culture as an exterior layer to create spaces with “quiet days and bustling nights” and a single function. The WYSH project created a “community-based office” model in a creative park by introducing sharing. Cultural and creative events and community engagement are common at the project.
Second, historically preserved buildings are being redesigned as “Instagrammable”9 landmarks where visitors can check in. By combining new features with traditional architecture, these sites create new search hotspots. The SIOBP project turned the countryside club pool into a popular check-in point on social media, boosting online search traffic. This approach emphasizes spatial rights sharing, blurring physical boundaries, and activity space flexibility, turning static spaces into dynamic places and revitalizing built heritage beyond preservation and display (Figure 6).
Third, closed zones are being replaced by open, community-like public spaces, which affects urban form. The WYSH Project transforms office space into a lifestyle venue. The project creates a multi-layered pedestrian network on Wuyi Road and Zhaohua Road with sky corridors, underground passages, and spiral staircases. Passersby and tourists are drawn to “ground-level shopping, aerial office work and rooftop socializing” in this vertical circulation. Combining built heritage with architectural strategies creates continuous, walkable interfaces for commercial visitors and office workers and public vantage points for urban landscape appreciation for local residents. While earlier heritage renewal projects removed physical barriers, they followed commercial or leasing circulation patterns that made these spaces “tourist check-in spots” rather than community-centric public spaces.

5.2. New Features in the Evolution of Plot Morphology: Three Types of Boundary Change Bring About an Increase in the Street Frontage Index and the Emergence of POPS

First, the boundaries of plots have undergone significant transformation. Traditional rigid delineations are evolving into more fluid interfaces. Physical boundaries are dissolving into active, three-dimensional interfaces. Through “active boundary withdrawal”, buildings set back from streets create spaces for “visual permeation”. Such changes open urban façades, interconnect previously isolated corridors, and convert static boundaries into vibrant, walkable spaces that extend urban activities beyond traditional limits.
Simultaneously, ownership boundaries evolve from exclusive control toward inclusive co-governance. The X Tower project exemplifies this approach by transforming a 30,000-square-meter campus into modular units governed jointly by property owners, tenants, and residents’ committees. Regular commercial-cultural events diversify stakeholder participation beyond traditional property relationships. Initiatives like the “Half Suzhou River” market at X Tower illustrate how actively relinquishing private rights fosters meaningful community engagement by regularly providing free venues for public welfare activities10. Activity boundaries extend beyond physical and ownership limits as demonstrated in projects like X Tower, where relinquishing riverside plots removed barriers to public waterfront access while allowing cultural and economic elements to flow into previously restricted areas.
Secondly, the boundary transformations directly contribute to a notable increase in the street frontage index—a key indicator of urban interaction. Enhanced pathways and spatial reorganization attract greater pedestrian flow, as illustrated by comparative analyses of projects such as X Tower and Jingyuan. Both are riverside developments of similar scale with industrial-to-office conversions, yet their public engagement differs dramatically. X Tower, with its sharing economy model, creates multiple entry points and active street frontages, while Jingyuan maintains a traditional creative industry park approach with limited permeability. The impact of these different approaches is quantifiable through social media engagement—X Tower generates approximately 50 times more attention on Rednote than Jingyuan (Figure 7).
Projects like WYSH, SIOBP, and X Tower enhance their street frontage index by arranging active functions along streets, opening internal passages, and creating permeable courtyard spaces, significantly improving their integration with the urban fabric compared to earlier projects characterized by centralized layouts with approximately 30% street exposure.
Simultaneously, the research on commercial rentals, office rents, and business models across six different cases reveals the influence of the sharing economy. The elevated rental prices in Xintiandi can be attributed to its central location and its early development in 1999, rendering it a well-established property in a high-consumption zone. Consequently, the Xintiandi case emphasizes the influence of consumer culture on land development. The WYSH project and the initial two stages of the SIOBP project possess the most recent development timelines (2023, 2020, 2024), and due to sharing and boundary opening, their rental rates are comparatively elevated. The Jingyuan project has relatively straightforward functions and minimal sharing, as evidenced by its lower rental rates compared to the other six cases, indicating the project’s limited life. The X Tower project is located next to Jingyuan and, via the incorporation of community vitality and adaptable lease options, shows its significant contribution to the local urban context (Table 3).
Ultimately, the evolution of plot morphology and enhanced street frontages facilitate the emergence of privately owned public spaces (POPS), signaling a paradigm shift from absolute private ownership toward shared usage rights. In the SIOBP Phase I project, developed and operated by Vanke, the historic Columbia Country Club has been transformed into a multifunctional cultural complex. The renovation preserved the building’s heritage character while opening its ground floor as a cultural exhibition space with a bookstore–café. This space hosts regular literary salons, art exhibitions, and community workshops drawing 50–80 attendees, creating public vitality within what was previously an exclusive institution. The operators specifically designed a membership program that balances commercial sustainability with accessibility, offering tiered engagement options including free community events. Similarly, the WYSH project integrates diverse community functions, accommodating various demographic groups throughout the day.
However, the implementation of POPS also introduces ethical and practical complexities. While spaces may be physically open, invisible socio-economic barriers can still emerge through programming and securitization practices. The effectiveness of multi-stakeholder governance models depends significantly on the developer’s attitude and capabilities. Exemplary cases—such as those by Vanke (SIOBP) and K.Wah Group (WYSH)12—demonstrate that proactive operational expertise and genuine community engagement philosophies are crucial for effective POPS management. Without this commitment, governance structures often lack transparent frameworks for resolving conflicts between commercial interests and public needs (Figure 8).

5.3. “Sharing by Transfer” and “Architecture for the Other”

From the perspective of the sharing city, a novel spatial concept has emerged, emphasizing “architecture for the other” and offering “more ways to use space”. This concept introduces a transfer-based sharing model where owners voluntarily transfer partial rights—such as usage and management—to multiple stakeholders. By doing so, urban spaces become more accessible to diverse users beyond traditional owners and regular occupants, encompassing incidental visitors and broader community participants. Such spaces are purposefully designed to serve “others”, significantly improving resource efficiency and social inclusiveness in urban renewal (Figure 9).
Under this transfer-based sharing model, urban space display enhanced multi-use potential, expressed in three primary forms: allocated use, borrowed use, and co-use. Allocated use refers to the time-sharing of space, which can further be divided by operational mode into public welfare and commercial functions [76]. Under this model, urban renewal minimizes ownership while distributing investment costs and emphasizing the temporal allocation of space. Borrowed use represents the emergence of new sharing functions and secondary spaces in addition to the primary function. For instance, the X Tower project integrates outdoor areas with the building facade, creating a borrowed sharing model that serves both public and commercial purposes. Co-use occurs when similar or compatible functions coexist simultaneously within the same space as demonstrated by projects like SIOBP, where office users and tourists simultaneously share spatial resources.
This diversified framework challenges conventional spatial boundaries, strategically responding to urban pressures by promoting sustainability, efficiency, and equity.
Emerging design strategies highlight three critical innovations. Firstly, the building and plot boundaries become increasingly permeable, even dissolved. By employing design techniques such as overhead spaces and open public plazas, a greater number of users, such as surrounding community groups, are able to access and utilize these spaces. Secondly, public and private spaces undergo constant reconfiguration. The emergence of POPS exemplifies this shift, where vertical layering, horizontal division, and temporal scheduling reshape traditional ownership patterns, creating mixed public–private spaces and significantly improving spatial efficiency. Thirdly, pathways have become integral to experiential design. By visualizing intangible flow lines, the renewal of built heritage increases the street frontage index. Paths can be toured, lingered on, and admired, and the structural relationships of spaces are reorganized, transforming the spatial organization to prioritize experience over mere traffic efficiency.
This “sharing by transfer” approach, emphasizing broader accessibility and multiple usage modes, calls for expanded possibilities in future built heritage renewals. In privately invested heritage renewal projects, traditionally guided solely by economic objectives, the concept suggests allocating dedicated public-sharing spaces, balancing private profitability with community benefit. Appropriate spatial incentives can be provided to encourage fee-based utilization, thereby balancing private profit with public benefit.
Conversely, publicly funded heritage renewals must prioritize increasing both the quantity and quality of publicly accessible shared spaces. Updating urban planning policies and encouraging bottom-up regulatory adjustments will ensure the planning process explicitly emphasizes and reflects contemporary communal needs. Furthermore, incorporating a temporal strategy through flexible scheduling enables broader stakeholder engagement across different periods, maximizing sharing efficiency.
Finally, the renewal of built heritage should move beyond superficial preservation to fully exploit all spatial components—rooftops, perimeters, courtyards, and other interior spaces—maximizing their sharing potential. By doing so, the renewal process can be revitalized and achieve a higher degree of integrated, multifunctional utilization, ultimately fostering a more sustainable and inclusive approach to heritage renewal.

6. Conclusions

This research analyzes the influence of the sharing economy on the revitalization of urban built heritage. The study utilizes a morphological analysis of plots to examine the impact of sharing on the renewal process and introduces a novel model—sharing by transfer—which incorporates a multi-stakeholder, service-for-others framework for multi-use renewal. Initially, utilizing research by Kropf, we applied the three essential concepts of plot boundaries—physical, property, and activity boundaries—to examine our case studies [62,63]. This investigation indicated that changes in these borders, especially between physical and property boundaries, provoke changes in the activity boundaries. Additionally, by combining Li’s study, we delineated the three different urban renewal policies in Shanghai and set up the emergence of the sharing economy as a comparative temporal reference for our case studies [71].
This paper concludes that sharing has established an innovative approach in urban renewal, particularly concerning built heritage, marked by a synergistic effect of multi-stakeholder participation and multi-interest coordination, thus creating new opportunities for urban heritage revitalization.
Through the introduction of the “sharing by transfer” as a framework in urban renewal, Shanghai’s built heritage has undergone at least three substantial transformations:
  • The evolution of renewal strategies: Functional planning is no longer exclusively centered on a singular economic gain but rather prioritizes a multifaceted value proposition. The combination of online and offline components, coupled with the exploration of traffic and sharing, progressively impacts conventional functional positioning.
  • Modification of Plot and Architectural Morphology: Previously enclosed sites have been changed through intentional design strategies into more open physical layouts that provide new activity zones and spatial images. The physical removal of borders has broken vertical constraints and improved space accessibility.
  • Changes in Spatial Utilization: Areas accommodating a wider spectrum of users and emphasizing service for others have become more common. Architectural spaces are being used more frequently through several modalities—such as allocated use, borrowed use, and co-use—to accommodate a greater number of individuals, therefore creating an innovative route for renewal based on transfer for the advantage of others.
The contribution of this study lies in exploring built heritage renewal from the perspective of the sharing economy. Furthermore, we explore the changes brought about by sharing through a quantitative analysis of urban morphology. The renewal of urban built heritage, viewed through the perspective of sharing, transcends mere protective transmission of historical culture; it highlights a participatory update by citizens, integrating top-down policy with bottom-up engagement and emphasizing the significance of public accessibility [12,77].
The sharing economy has influenced not only Shanghai but also other urban areas in the world Therefore, the “sharing by transfer” framework proposed in this paper can also be applied to heritage renewal research in other countries and regions, ensuring that more built heritage is protected and developed for the public interest and that a greater number of people can participate in the process.
Despite the fact that this study thoroughly examined the urban morphology of six exemplary cases throughout a number of time periods, this paper has some limitations. The chosen case studies originate from diverse urban planning and development zones, each characterized by distinct policies and spatial configurations, the models generated from the three primary renewal policies may not be universally applicable to all urban areas (for example, under the “Three No-change” policy, the rights-holder-led policy with land price adjustments may coexist within intricate plots).This work examined the evolution of plot morphology and assessed changes in physical properties and activity boundaries; however, it has not performed a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of these changes.
The next step of this research is going to involve the establishment of quantitative analytic metrics for plot morphological changes incorporating functional analysis with pedestrian flow data to perform a thorough evaluation of the case studies. Concurrently, by integrating data analysis with the formulation of machine learning techniques, we seek to establish a tiered regional framework for the renewal of built heritage, develop transitional and dynamic zoning strategies, and enhance evaluation through comparative study with existing conditions.
In general, this study examines how built heritage renewal has changed from the perspective of the sharing economy, proposing a new renewal model specifically designed for urban heritage that highlights the essential role that sharing by transfer plays. As urban stock renewal progresses, the problem of protecting while developing built heritage must take into account the blending of many interests and give priority to sharing and increasing the number of people to involve. By doing so, cities can better serve a wider population, offering valuable insights for policymakers, urban planners, and designers alike.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z., Z.L. and M.L.; formal analysis, M.L. and Y.Z.; investigation, M.L. and Y.Z.; resources, Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, Z.L. and Y.Z.; supervision, Z.L.; funding acquisition, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51978468.

Data Availability Statement

Data are unavailable due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely acknowledge the interviewees, including the residents, planners, architects and developers, involved in the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1
In May 2017, Shanghai proposed for the first time that there should be “readable buildings, walkable neighborhoods, and a city with warmth”. The phrase “readable buildings”, with its literary quality and profound respect for the city’s history, resonated widely and sparked considerable public interest.
2
Shanghai has officially issued the “Implementation Measures for Urban Renewal in Shanghai” (Shanghai Government Document No. 20, 2015) and introduced a series of supporting documents, thereby formally and systematically regulating urban renewal work.
3
On May 9, 2002, the Ministry of Land and Resources issued the Provisions on the Assignment of State-owned Land Use Rights through Bidding, Auction, and Listing (Decree No. 11), which came into effect on 1 July 2002. This decree fully established a system for the transfer of land use rights for operational purposes through bidding, auction, or listing and clearly stipulated that all types of operational land—such as those for commercial, tourism, entertainment, and commodity housing purposes—must be assigned through one of these market-based methods.
4
WYSH, short for Wuyi Shanghai, is located in Changning District, Shanghai, between Wuyi Road and Zhaohua Road. It brings together old garden villas and a number of historic buildings predominantly showcasing Spanish, English country, and Art Deco styles. It is one of the urban renewal initiatives in Changning District.
5
The Shanghai Municipal Government issued the “Opinions on Promoting Saving and Intensive Utilisation of Industrial Land and Accelerating the Development of Modern Service Industry” (Hufuban [2008] No. 37), which puts forward the policy of the three principles of unchanged property owner, unchanged building structure and unchanged land use nature. The policy is often referred to as the “Three No Change” policy.
6
Since 2014, Shanghai’s land planning authorities have issued a series of documents, including (1) Implementation Measures for Revitalizing Stock Industrial Land in Shanghai (Trial) (Hufuban [2014] No. 25); (2) Shanghai Urban Renewal Implementation Measures (Hufufa [2015] No. 20).
7
SIOBP, short for Shanghai Institute of Biological Products and also known as Columbia Circle, is an urban renewal project located at 1262 Yan’an West Road. It includes Sunke Villa, Columbia Country Club, Navy Club with its attached swimming pool, and several industrial buildings. The property rights are retained by the Shanghai Biological Products Research Institute, while the land use has transitioned from educational and research purposes to a combination of commercial, office, and community service uses, altering the usage rights of the parcel.
8
Tianditu is the public version of the national geographic information public service platform led by the National Administration of Surveying, Mapping, and Geoinformation. It is an important part of “Digital China” and aims to provide authoritative, reliable, and unified geographic information services to the public, enterprises, professional departments, and government agencies. Website: https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/ (accessed on 20 April 2025).
9
Attractive or interesting enough to be suitable for photographing and posting on the social media service Instagram. Cambridge English Dictionary.
10
Since April 2023, the “Half Suzhou River” public welfare market at X Tower provides free venue space for monthly community activities, featuring public welfare stalls and a “circular marketplace” for household item reuse. Based on the interview with the architects, developers, property managers, and residents.
11
Founded in 2013, Rednote is not merely a content-sharing app but has gradually evolved into a lifestyle platform centered around content-based social interaction. It has significantly shaped young people’s consumer perceptions, aesthetic standards, and modes of social expression, becoming a quintessential example of a new-generation “discursive space”.
12
Based on the structured interviews with the developers, designers, and merchants of WYSH. Different positions on issues related to governance models and co-management.

References

  1. Rey-Pérez, J.; Díaz-Borrego, J.; Fernández Muñoz, C.; de la Fuente Peñalver, A. The Definition of the Heritage Status of Modern Residential Architecture from a Multi-Scalar and Perceptual Approach. A Heritage Perspective in the Case Study of the Neighbourhood of El Plantinar in Seville (Spain). Land 2022, 11, 2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chung, H.; Lee, J. Modern Industrial Heritage as Cultural Mediation in Urban Regeneration: A Case Study of Gunsan, Korea, and Taipei, Taiwan. Land 2023, 12, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Makhzoumi, J.; Al-Harithy, H.; Bazzi, M. Contextualizing UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape Approach: A Framework for Identifying Modern Heritage in Post-Blast Beirut. Land 2024, 13, 2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, J.; Zhang, G.; Li, M. Exploring a Low-Carbon Oriented Strategy for Urban Renewal: From “Demolition, Redevelopment and Preservation” to “Preservation, Transformation and Demolition”. World Archit. 2022, 8, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  5. Križnik, B. Local Responses to Market-Driven Urban Development in Global Cities. Teor. Praksa 2014, 221–250. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jiang, J.; Zang, T.; Xing, J.; Ikebe, K. Spatial Distribution of Urban Heritage and Landscape Approach to Urban Contextual Continuity: The Case of Suzhou. Land 2023, 12, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shan, M.; Chen, Y.-F.; Zhai, Z.; Du, J. Investigating the Critical Issues in the Conservation of Heritage Building: The Case of China. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 51, 104319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jigyasu, R. The Intangible Dimension of Urban Heritage. In Reconnecting the City; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 129–159. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, H.; Jiang, W.; Mu, J.; Cheng, X. Optimizing Supply Chain Financial Strategies Based on Data Elements in the China’s Retail Industry: Towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, J.; Pan, J.; Dou, Q.; Fu, F.; Shi, Y. Digital Footprint as a Public Participatory Tool: Identifying and Assessing Industrial Heritage Landscape through User-Generated Content on Social Media. Land 2024, 13, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. He, S.; Wu, F. Property-Led Redevelopment in Post-Reform China: A Case Study of Xintiandi Redevelopment Project in Shanghai. J. Urban Aff. 2005, 27, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Belk, R. Sharing: Table 1. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 36, 715–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McLaren, D.; Agyeman, J. Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 9780262329705. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chris, W.; Lai, L.W.-C. Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  15. Curtis, S.K.; Lehner, M. Defining the Sharing Economy for Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Barile, S.; Ciasullo, M.V.; Iandolo, F.; Landi, G.C. The City Role in the Sharing Economy: Toward an Integrated Framework of Practices and Governance Models. Cities 2021, 119, 103409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Glasze, G.; Webster, C.; Frantz, K. Private Cities; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 9781134294466. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jin, S.T.; Kong, H.; Wu, R.; Sui, D.Z. Ridesourcing, the Sharing Economy, and the Future of Cities. Cities 2018, 76, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cohen, B.; Muñoz, P. Sharing Cities and Sustainable Consumption and Production: Towards an Integrated Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhu, Y.; Li, Z. ‘Sharing’ as a Critical Framework for Waterfront Heritage Regeneration: A Case Study of Suzhou Creek, Shanghai. Land 2024, 13, 1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cao, Y.; Tang, X. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community Public Open Space Renewal: A Case Study of the Ruijin Community, Shanghai. Land 2022, 11, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guo, R.; Ding, Y.; Shang, L.; Wang, D.; Cao, X.; Wang, S.; Bonatz, N.; Wang, L. Sustainability-Oriented Urban Renewal and Low-Impact Development Applications in China: Case Study of Yangpu District, Shanghai. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2018, 4, 05017006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhong, X.; Leung, H.H. Exploring Participatory Microregeneration as Sustainable Renewal of Built Heritage Community: Two Case Studies in Shanghai. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, D.; Xiong, Q.; Huang, G.; Du, B.; Feng, H. How to Share Benefits of Old Community Renewal Project in China? An Improved Shapley Value Approach. Habitat. Int. 2022, 126, 102611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gao, K.; Jia, R.; Liao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Najafi, A.; Attard, M. Big-Data-Driven Approach and Scalable Analysis on Environmental Sustainability of Shared Micromobility from Trip to City Level Analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 115, 105803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wei, Z.; Cao, K.; Kwan, M.P.; Jiang, Y.; Feng, Q. Measuring the Age-Friendliness of Streets’ Walking Environment Using Multi-Source Big Data: A Case Study in Shanghai, China. Cities 2024, 148, 104829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhong, S. Artists and Shanghai’s Culture-Led Urban Regeneration. Cities 2016, 56, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, J. “Art in Capital”: Shaping Distinctiveness in a Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Project in Red Town, Shanghai. Cities 2009, 26, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Conzen, M.P. Thinking About Urban Form: Papers on Urban Morphology, 1932–1998; Peter Lang Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  30. Whitehand, J.W.R. British Urban Morphology: The Conzenian Tradition. Urban Morphol. 2001, 5, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kickert, C.; Karssenberg, H. Street-Level Architecture; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; ISBN 9781003041887. [Google Scholar]
  32. Felson, M.; Spaeth, J.L. Community Structure and Collaborative Consumption: A Routine Activity Approach. Am. Behav. Sci. 1978, 21, 614–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption; HarperBusiness: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cheng, M. Sharing Economy: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Belk, R. Why Not Share Rather than Own? Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2007, 611, 126–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Constantiou, I.; Marton, A.; Tuunainen, V.K. Four-Models-of-Sharing-Economy-Platforms. MIS Q. Exec. 2017, 16, 231–251. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ranchordás, S.; Goanta, C. The New City Regulators: Platform and Public Values in Smart and Sharing Cities. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2020, 36, 105375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stokols, D. Designing Resilient and Sustainable Communities. In Social Ecology in the Digital Age; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 265–317. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sánchez-Vergara, J.I.; Ginieis, M.; Papaoikonomou, E. The Emergence of the Sharing City: A Systematic Literature Review to Understand the Notion of the Sharing City and Explore Future Research Paths. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zheng, J. The “Entrepreneurial State” in “Creative Industry Cluster” Development in Shanghai. J. Urban Aff. 2010, 32, 143–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. González Martínez, P. From Verifiable Authenticity to Verisimilar Interventions: Xintiandi, Fuxing SOHO, and the Alternatives to Built Heritage Conservation in Shanghai. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2019, 25, 1055–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gao, Q.; Yin, D.; Zhu, H. Urban Regeneration and Emotional Politics of Place in Liede Village, Guangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2020, 103, 102199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Niu, S.; Lau, S.S.Y.; Shen, Z.; Lau, S.S.Y. Sustainability Issues in the Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse: Rethinking Culture-Led Urban Regeneration through Chinese Case Studies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2018, 33, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, G.; Fu, X.; Han, Q.; Huang, R.; Zhuang, T. Research on the Collaborative Governance of Urban Regeneration Based on a Bayesian Network: The Case of Chongqing. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, X.; Duan, J. What They Talk about When They Talk about Urban Regeneration: Understanding the Concept ‘Urban Regeneration’ in PRD, China. Cities 2022, 130, 105640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Verdini, G. Is the Incipient Chinese Civil Society Playing a Role in Regenerating Historic Urban Areas? Evidence from Nanjing, Suzhou and Shanghai. Habitat Int. 2015, 50, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhong, J.; Li, B.; Shen, G.; Zhou, L. Ally, Deterrence, or Leverage in the Tripartite Game? The Effects of Indirect Stakeholders in Historic Urban Regeneration. Cities 2024, 149, 104931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zarepour Sohi, S.; Banihashemi, S.; Sheikhkhoshkar, M.; Abdollahi Roshan, P. From Data to Design: Social Network Insights for Urban Design and Regeneration. Front. Archit. Res. 2024, 13, 1377–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, J.; Burgess, G.; Sielker, F. Political Mobilisation and Institutional Layering in Urban Regeneration: Transformation of Land Redevelopment Governance in China. Cities 2023, 141, 104508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Den Hartog, H. Shanghai’s Regenerated Industrial Waterfronts: Urban Lab for Sustainability Transitions? Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Luo, J.; Jian, I.Y.; Chan, E.H.W.; Chen, W. Cultural Regeneration and Neighborhood Image from the Aesthetic Perspective: Case of Heritage Conservation Areas in Shanghai. Habitat Int. 2022, 129, 102689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, A.; Ho, D.C.W.; Lai, L.W.C.; Chau, K.W. Public Preferences for Government Supply of Public Open Space: A Neo-Institutional Economic and Lifecycle Governance Perspective. Cities 2023, 141, 104463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, Y.; Shen, L.; Ren, Y.; Zhou, T. Regeneration towards Suitability: A Decision-Making Framework for Determining Urban Regeneration Mode and Strategies. Habitat Int. 2023, 138, 102870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bolici, R.; Leali, G.; Mirandola, S. Reusing Built Heritage. Design for the Sharing Economy. In Regeneration of the Built Environment from a Circular Economy Perspective; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 315–324. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, X.; Lu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Yang, R.; Yang, X. Evaluation of Architectural Perception in Urban Industrial Heritage Buildings Based on Eye Tracking Technology. Hum. Factors Archit. Sustain. Urban Plan. Infrastruct. 2024, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xia, J.; Wang, S.; Cheng, A. Industrial Heritage and Urban Renewal: A Quantitative Study and Optimization Strategies for Chengdu East Suburb Memory. Front. Environ. Sci. 2025, 13, 1537211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Favargiotti, S. Renewed Landscapes: Obsolete Airfields as Landscape Reserves for Adaptive Reuse. J. Landsc. Archit. 2018, 13, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tabak, P.; Sirel, A. Adaptive Reuse as a Tool for Sustainability: Tate Modern and Bilgi University Cases. Proc. Int. Conf. Contemp. Aff. Archit. Urban.-ICCAUA 2022, 5, 554–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Thomas, R. Russell Thomas The Redevelopment and Repurposing of Historic Gas Sites. In Economic History of the European Energy Industry; Routledge: London, UK, 2025; pp. 145–169. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kip, M.; Oevermann, H. Neighbourhood Revitalisation and Heritage Conservation through Adaptive Reuse: Assessing Instruments for Commoning. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2022, 13, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kropf, K. Aspects of Urban Form. Urban Morphol. 2009, 13, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kropf, K. Plots, Property and Behaviour. Urban Morphol. 2018, 22, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tümtürk, O.; Karakiewicz, J.; de Haan, F.J. Measuring the Impact of Plot Types on Physical Change: A Diachronic Analysis of Urban Form Evolution in New York, Melbourne and Barcelona. Cities 2024, 154, 105380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Andersson, E. Synthesis, Landscapes and Sustainable Cities. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267821 (accessed on 20 April 2025). [CrossRef]
  65. Scheer, B.C.; Ferdelman, D. Inner-City Destruction and Survival: The Case of Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnat. Urban Morphol. 2001, 5, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Scheer, B.C. The Epistemology of Urban Morphology. Urban Morphol. 2016, 20, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lai, L.W.C.; Davies, S.N.G.; Chau, K.W.; Ching, K.S.T.; Chua, M.H.; Leung, H.F.; Lorne, F.T. The Determination of the “True” Property Boundary in Planned Development: A Coasian Analysis. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2018, 61, 579–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Webster, C. Property Rights and the Public Realm: Gates, Green Belts, and Gemeinschaft. Environ. Plan B Plan Des. 2002, 29, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bobkova, E.; Marcus, L.; Berghauser Pont, M.; Stavroulaki, I.; Bolin, D. Structure of Plot Systems and Economic Activity in Cities: Linking Plot Types to Retail and Food Services in London, Amsterdam and Stockholm. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Combining the Historico-Geographical and Configurational Approaches to Urban Morphology: The Historical Transformations of Ludlow, UK and Chinatown, Singapore. Urban Morphol. 2020, 25, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, J. Insights from Historical Institutionalism: The Institution and Evolution of Shanghai’s Urban Renewal. Urban Plan. Forum 2024, 04, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
  72. Song, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Han, D. Deciphering Built Form Complexity of Chinese Cities through Plot Recognition: A Case Study of Nanjing, China. Front. Archit. Res. 2022, 11, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhai, Y.; Tong, M. The Transformation of the Lilong Form: A Morphological Study on Changing Boundaries. Urban Des. Int. 2022, 29, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yonesu, M. Learning from Each Other: Citizen Participatory Community Design in the United States and Japan, and the Role of the Architect; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Boston, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  75. Brisudová, L.; Klapka, P. “It Should Be Treated in a Better Way”—Perceived Topovacancy in the Participative Urban Planning. Cities 2023, 141, 104505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, Z.; Zhu, Y. Towards a Sharing Architecture. Archit. J. 2017, 12, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
  77. Bertacchini, E.; Frontuto, V. Economic Valuation of Industrial Heritage: A Choice Experiment on Shanghai Baosteel Industrial Site. J. Cult. Herit. 2024, 66, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 00959 g001
Figure 1. Map of Shanghai and the distribution of the central urban area and location of the six case studies. (Source: The author redrew based on the original map. The original map base was drawn by Shanghai Surveying and Mapping Institute. The administrative boundaries shown on this map are for reference only and are not legally binding).
Figure 1. Map of Shanghai and the distribution of the central urban area and location of the six case studies. (Source: The author redrew based on the original map. The original map base was drawn by Shanghai Surveying and Mapping Institute. The administrative boundaries shown on this map are for reference only and are not legally binding).
Land 14 00959 g001
Land 14 00959 g002
Figure 2. Xintiandi and WYSH: Satellite Image Map 1999/2024 (A–D) and Plot Boundaries Change Map (E–H). Source: Authors.
Figure 2. Xintiandi and WYSH: Satellite Image Map 1999/2024 (A–D) and Plot Boundaries Change Map (E–H). Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g002
Land 14 00959 g003
Figure 3. Jingyuan and X Tower: Satellite Image Map 1999/2024 (A–D) and Plot Boundaries Change Map (E–H). Source: Authors.
Figure 3. Jingyuan and X Tower: Satellite Image Map 1999/2024 (A–D) and Plot Boundaries Change Map (E–H). Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g003
Land 14 00959 g004
Figure 4. SIOBP I and II: Satellite Image Map 1999/2024 (A,B) and Plot Boundaries Change Map (C,D). Source: Authors.
Figure 4. SIOBP I and II: Satellite Image Map 1999/2024 (A,B) and Plot Boundaries Change Map (C,D). Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g004
Land 14 00959 g005
Figure 5. The change in plot boundaries, activity areas, and street frontage index in Xintiandi, WYSH, Jingyuan, X Tower, and SIOBP I&II in 2024. Source: Authors.
Figure 5. The change in plot boundaries, activity areas, and street frontage index in Xintiandi, WYSH, Jingyuan, X Tower, and SIOBP I&II in 2024. Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g005
Land 14 00959 g006
Figure 6. Historical preserved buildings are being transformed into more accessible places: (a) SIOBP swimming pool turned into a hotspot for visitors; (b) SIOBP Hot Topic Word Cloud Heatmap (Tsutaya is a Japanese chain of bookstores known for its lifestyle and entertainment offerings beyond just books). Source: Authors.
Figure 6. Historical preserved buildings are being transformed into more accessible places: (a) SIOBP swimming pool turned into a hotspot for visitors; (b) SIOBP Hot Topic Word Cloud Heatmap (Tsutaya is a Japanese chain of bookstores known for its lifestyle and entertainment offerings beyond just books). Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g006
Land 14 00959 g007
Figure 7. Statistics on posts for the popular Chinese internet sharing app Rednote11, based on digital behavior observation. The SIOBP Phase I and Phase II data are treated as the same project on the Internet. Data source: Rednote, as of 12 April 2025.
Figure 7. Statistics on posts for the popular Chinese internet sharing app Rednote11, based on digital behavior observation. The SIOBP Phase I and Phase II data are treated as the same project on the Internet. Data source: Rednote, as of 12 April 2025.
Land 14 00959 g007
Land 14 00959 g008
Figure 8. The X tower project achieves a high street frontage index by opening to cities and the waterfront: (a) WYSH’s courtyard open to the public; (b) The historic preservation building Columbia Country Club has been transformed into a bookstore and public space; (c) X Tower’s south plaza faces to the street that opens to the community. Source: Authors.
Figure 8. The X tower project achieves a high street frontage index by opening to cities and the waterfront: (a) WYSH’s courtyard open to the public; (b) The historic preservation building Columbia Country Club has been transformed into a bookstore and public space; (c) X Tower’s south plaza faces to the street that opens to the community. Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g008
Land 14 00959 g009
Figure 9. Sharing by Transfer: space serving for the other and more possibilities for use. Source: Authors.
Figure 9. Sharing by Transfer: space serving for the other and more possibilities for use. Source: Authors.
Land 14 00959 g009
Table 1. Three different urban renewal policies issued in Shanghai and their main features and influence.
Table 1. Three different urban renewal policies issued in Shanghai and their main features and influence.
StageTimeFeatures Cases Examined
1st:
Tender, Auction, and Listing Policy		2002–Present
  • Implemented through the “Regulations on the Transfer of State-Owned Land Use Rights through Tender, Auction, and Listing (Order No. 11 of the Ministry of Land and Resources)”3;
  • Characterized by complete plots offered for market-led renewal.
Shanghai Xintiandi (pre-sharing economy) and WYSH4 (post-sharing economy)
2nd:
“Three No Change” Policy		2008–Present
  • Mandates no change to property rights, building structures, and formal land use attributes;
  • Permits informal usage modifications without changing legal categorization5
Jingyuan Fashion Creative Center (pre-sharing economy) and X Tower project (post-sharing economy)
3rd:
Rights-Holder-Led Policy		2014–Present
  • The policy permits changes to the land use purpose and the re-signing of land grant contracts;
  • Allows developers to develop non-residential commercial properties on existing sites;
  • Requires compensation for land attribute variations and public welfare contributions6.
First and second stages of SIOBP7 project (spanning pre-and post-sharing economy periods)
Table 2. Morphological analysis results summary for six cases.
Table 2. Morphological analysis results summary for six cases.
CasesPolicy
Framework		Physical Boundary ChangeOwnership
Boundary Change		Activity Boundary ChangeStreet Frontage
Index Improvement
Xintiandi Land Tender, Auction and ListingPartial transformationComplete redefinitionSignificant expansionModerate (commercial pathway)
WYSHSignificant expansionDiversifiedSignificant expansionHigh (2.5× increase)
JingyuanThree No-changeMinimal changeUnchangedMinimal changeMinimal (semi-closed system)
X TowerModified to face cityUnchangedExtended toward communitySubstantial (city square, waterfront)
SIOBP Phase 1Rights-Holder-LedExpansionUnchangedExpansionModerate (multiple entrances)
SIOBP Phase 2Complete transformationComplete transformationComplete transformationHigh (permeable network)
Table 3. The retail and office rental schedule for six projects. Data source: Chinese real estate information rental websites Anjuke, WYSH official rental website, SIOBP official rental website, etc. Data collection time: 12 April 2025.
Table 3. The retail and office rental schedule for six projects. Data source: Chinese real estate information rental websites Anjuke, WYSH official rental website, SIOBP official rental website, etc. Data collection time: 12 April 2025.
Project NameRetail RentOffice RentBusiness Mode
Xintiandi20–25 RMB/m2/Day/High-end business, consumer seating
WYSH7–7.5 RMB/m2/DayNot disclosed to any third partiesCommercial integration of community-oriented offices, light dining mixed with trendy consumption, and provision of public spaces.
Jingyuan/4–4.5 RMB/m2/DayDecentralized leasing, park-style office
X Tower10–15 RMB/m2/Day4.5–7 RMB/m2/DayIndividual tenants combine community commerce, flexibly partitioning office spaces.
SIOBP I&II11 RMB/m2/Day7–9 RMB/m2/DayPrimarily commercial, with some multi-story sections for office space.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z.; Liu, M.; Zhu, Y. The Evolution of Plot Morphology and Design Strategies in Built Heritage Renewal in Central Shanghai from the Perspective of Sharing Cities. Land 2025, 14, 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14050959

AMA Style

Li Z, Liu M, Zhu Y. The Evolution of Plot Morphology and Design Strategies in Built Heritage Renewal in Central Shanghai from the Perspective of Sharing Cities. Land. 2025; 14(5):959. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14050959

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhenyu, Mengxun Liu, and Yichen Zhu. 2025. "The Evolution of Plot Morphology and Design Strategies in Built Heritage Renewal in Central Shanghai from the Perspective of Sharing Cities" Land 14, no. 5: 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14050959

APA Style

Li, Z., Liu, M., & Zhu, Y. (2025). The Evolution of Plot Morphology and Design Strategies in Built Heritage Renewal in Central Shanghai from the Perspective of Sharing Cities. Land, 14(5), 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14050959

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop