中國擁有自己的紐約、洛杉磯和矽谷。但它也需要波特蘭、丹佛和夏洛特

*我原來寫了英文版的。後來，中文版是中美聚焦翻譯的（鏈接：中國需要丹佛這樣的城市）

中國擁有自己的紐約、洛杉磯和矽谷。但它也需要波特蘭、丹佛和夏洛特。

當中國開啟向市場經濟轉變的改革進程時，一場世界前所未見的大規模城市化進程也同時拉開了帷幕。諸如北京、上海、深圳等擁有炫目天際線、世界級基礎設施、承辦高規格大型活動能力的城市，成為中國向世界展示其城市化變革的代言人。

2009年至2015年，筆者作為一名城市和地區規劃者在中國工作生活，並研究了上百個不同形態和規模的中國城市。由此得知，中國並不缺乏充滿魅力和吸引力的中小型城市，這些城市其實都可以成為「中國丹佛」的候選者。但是，由於一些歷史、地理、政治和文化上的原因，中國中小城市缺少動感、創新和自信。換句話說，這些城市缺少那些令充滿創新精神的人們願意在此生活和工作的特質。它們是中國版的紐約、洛杉磯和矽谷，是這個國家的政治權力中心、金融中心、娛樂中心、媒體中心和科技中心，同時也是匯聚胸懷將這些城市打造成為這些中心的雄心壯志者們的夢想之地。但是，如果我們沿著城市等級往下探尋，就會發現很難在中國找到如美國波特蘭、丹佛、鹽湖城、明尼阿波利斯和夏洛特等集動感、歷史吸引力和經濟活力於一身的中小型城市。

用通俗一點的話來說，中國人喜歡將他們的城市劃分為三六九等。人們理所當然地認為，一個城市的級別與其名聲和經濟競爭力成正比，同時亦與其吸引中產階級和新經濟工作機會的能力成正比。在一個極其重視提高個人物質生活的國度，每個人都面臨攀爬社會階層階梯的巨大心理壓力。其結果就是，一線城市工作機會和房地產價格競爭激烈，而在另一端的三四線城市則面臨人才流失。

在美國人對好萊塢和布魯克林的嚮往中，我們也可管窺到類似現象，但在美國卻找不到瀰漫在中國的對生活在三四線城市的自卑感。在美國人心目中，無論是傑弗遜崇尚的田園牧歌遺韻，還是粗獷的天賦使命中的個人主義精神，這些都令美國人相信，來自一個小城市不僅可以被接受，甚至會成為自豪的源泉。紐約或洛杉磯或許在一些高端領域是宇宙中心，但對於成百上千萬的美國工程師、醫生和其他專業人士來說，在三四線城市工作生活不僅不錯，甚至還好過在那些大城市。

對於很多美國成功的小型城市來說，適宜的氣候、貼近大自然、自行車道和登山路，是吸引一代擁有環保意識專業人士的重要因素。而位於中國西部的雲南（這是我生活長達六年的第二故鄉）就擁有很多坐擁這些優點的城市——美麗的群山環抱、有益健康的氣候，以及在中國來說算得上奢侈品的清潔空氣。有些城市已經開始意識到它們可以從這些優點中受益，但到目前為止它們在吸引遊客和退休人員上的成功要遠遠大於吸引僱主和年輕專業人士。

無論在古代還是改革開放的頭二十年，當投資主要集中在東部沿海城市時，雲南的競爭力疲弱可以被歸結為基礎設施不足。但現在的情況已經大不相同。進入新千年後，政策已經開始向中西部省份傾斜，以期改變地區不平衡，而雲南等長期被忽視的內陸地區正是這些政策的最大受益者。今天，新機場、高速公路和鐵路幫助雲南克服了那些阻礙其經濟發展的地理障礙。在這片密布高山深谷的複雜地形中，新建高速公路和鐵路超過50%的長度都是隧道和橋樑。

基礎設施建設是經濟發展的先決條件，在這個層面上中國三四線城市已經極大地追趕了上來。這令製造商不再僅僅集中於沿海城市，而是轉向內陸，以利用其更加低廉的勞動力。三線城市正在追隨一線城市的步伐，建造現代地鐵線路、高層商品住房、高級購物中心和炫目的卡拉OK。然而，這些設施並沒有成功吸引一二線城市居民的注視。它們更多是旨在吸引四五線城市居民移居至此。

不幸的是，很多三四線城市的城市改造非常膚淺。它們在社會基礎設施建設層面——如教育和醫療——依然遠遠落後。對於一貫以實用性為先的中國中產階級來說，令他們對一線城市趨之若鶩的原因並非僅僅是這些大城市的時尚華麗，更多是因為這裡擁有最好的學校和醫院。在制度層面上，北京任命的各級市長們很少是在這個城市土生土長的，而是每五年任期輪換。這意味著市長們常常更關心修建那些可以被記入政績的華麗炫目的「面子工程」，而非那些可以切實提高本地居民生活質量或推動長期可持續性發展的戰略項目。

應對中國城鎮體系的系統性失衡是一項長期艱巨的任務。與此同時，在中國的確存在宜居城市。如果輔以有效推廣手段和經濟激勵措施，這些城市有望成為中國的波特蘭或丹佛。隨著服務業和高科技在中國經濟中扮演的角色日益增強，沒有理由認為公司和工作機會不會更均衡地分布於中國的城市網路，正如它們在美國一樣。在美國，世界500強企業選擇將總部設在明尼阿波利斯或奧馬哈的可能性並不亞於紐約。

若想令這一目標成為現實，鼓勵創業者選擇小型城市的社會和經濟激勵措施必不可少。一些藝術家和創意產業先鋒者可以開啟積極正面的反饋迴路，來挑戰那些認為大城市天然好於小城市的固定思維。放鬆國家壟斷，尤其是削弱國家在第三產業的壟斷地位，將極大推動在傳統權力中心以外創建新的市場競爭空間。

中國在投資建設城市和城市間基礎設施方面做得很好。現在它需要更多地投資於可以激勵創新的機構和企業，培育能夠吸納人力資源的能力，促進良性循環，以實現城市居民——無論他或她來自於幾線城市——都可以享受教育、健康、繁榮和尊嚴的生活。

When China launched the reformsthat put it on the path towards a market economy, it also set in motion the largestscale urbanization the world has ever seen. With their glittering new skylines,world class infrastructure, and hosting duties for high profile events, citieslike Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen are the face of this urban transformationthat China chooses to project to the world.

They are Chinas counterparts toNew York, Los Angeles, and Silicon Valley, centers of power for the nations political,financial, entertainment, media, and tech elites, as well as aspirationalcities for ambitious people trying to make it in those fields. A few rungs downthe urban hierarchy, however, its much harder to find Chinese counterparts tomatch the combination of vibrancy, millennial appeal, and economic robustnessof small and medium sized American cities like Portland, Denver, Salt LakeCity, Minneapolis, and Charlotte.

As a scholar and observer of cities and regions living in China from 2009 and 2015, I studied up close hundreds of Chinesecities of different shapes and sizes. I learned that China doesnt lack charmingand attractive small and medium sized cities, candidates if you will for the"Chinese Denver". But due to historical, geographic, political, andcultural reasons, Chinas small and medium sized cities lack dynamism,innovation, and confidence, in other words the qualities would make enterprisingpeople want to live and work there.

In popular parlance, Chinesepeople like to classify their cities according to numbered tiers. Its taken asa given that a citys rank is proportional to its reputation and economiccompetitiveness, and by extension, its ability to attract middle class and neweconomy jobs. In a country where so much emphasis is placed on improving onesmaterial lot in life, there is enormous psychological pressure to climb theladder. The result is job market extreme competition and sky-high real estateprices in first tier cities, and on the other end of the spectrum a brain drainin third and fourth tier cities.

We can see hints of this phenomenonin Americans drawn to Hollywood or Brooklyn, but theres no American parallelto the inferiority complex that lower tier Chinese cities are saddled with.Something in the American psyche, be it Jeffersons lingering agrarian ideal,or the rugged individualism of Manifest Destiny, tells us that its okay, infact its a source of pride, to be from a small city. New York and LA may bethe centers of the universe for a handful of prestige industries, but formillions of American engineers, doctors, and other professionals, third andfourth tier cities are just fine, even preferable.

For many of Americas successfulsmall cities, a pleasant climate, proximity to nature, bike lanes, and hikingtrails are important pull factors for a generation of environmentallyconscientious professionals. Cities in the western Chinese province (and myadopted home for six years) of Yunnan possesses many of the same amenities —beautiful mountain backdrops, a salubrious climate, and — a rarity in China —clean air. Some of these places have realized that these are assets tocapitalize on, but so far theyve done a better job attracting tourists andretirees than employers and young professionals.

In both ancient times and duringthe first two decades of reform, when investment mainly benefited cities onChinas eastern coast, Yunnans competitive weakness could be blamed on its paucityof infrastructure. That is no longer the case, as policy shifts since the 2000shave sought to rectify regional imbalances, prioritizing long-neglected inlandregions like Yunnan. Today, new airports, highways and railroads overcomegeographical obstacles that long kept Yunnan isolated. In this complex terrainof towering mountains and deep river valleys, more than 50% of the length ofnew highways and railroads are tunnels and bridges.

Physical infrastructure is a prerequisitefor economic development, and on this measure lower tier Chinese cities havecaught up significantly. This has allowed manufacturers to not be so tied tocoastal cities as they once were, to move inland and take advantage of lowercost labor. Third tier cities are following in the footsteps of first tiercities, installing modern subway systems as well as the consumer trappings of residentialhigh rises, shiny new shopping malls, and gaudy karaoke palaces. But theseamenities arent enticing residents of first and second tier cities to give thema second look; theyre aimed more at residents of fourth and fifth tier citieslooking for an upgrade.

Unfortunately, many of theimprovements in lower tier cities are only skin deep; they continue to lag farbehind in areas like education and health care. Perennially practical, middleclass Chinese are drawn to first tier cities less for their chic and more fortheir schools and hospitals. On a structural level, city mayors are appointedby Beijing, rarely hail from the cities they serve, and are rotated every fiveyears. This means mayors are often more concerned with splashy "faceprojects" that can count towards their promotion than with projects thatactually improve the quality of life for city residents, or with crafting strategicplans to maximize the long term sustainabilty of the cities they serve.

Addressing the systemic imbalancesin Chinas urban system will be a difficult and long-term endeavor. In the meantime, there are livable cities in China which, with the right marketing andeconomic incentives, could become Chinese Portlands or Denvers. As serviceindustries and technology expand their role within the Chinese economy, theresno reason why firms and good jobs cant be more evenly spread out across thenational network of cities, as they are in the US where Fortune 500 companiesare just as likely to be located in Minneapolis or Omaha as they are in NewYork.

For this to happen, there needto be more entrepreneurs willing to take a chance on smaller cities. A fewpioneers, along with a healthy mix of artists and creative types, could startpositive feedback loops, challenging the mindset that large cities areautomatically superior to small cities. Loosening state monopolies, especiallyin the service sector, would be a significant step in moving the ball forward,creating new spaces of market competition outside the traditional powercenters.

China has done a good jobinvesting in urban and intraurban physical infrastructure; now it needs toinvest in the institutions and enterprises that spur innovation and buildcapacity for human capital, promoting a virtuous cycle wherein every citizen,no matter the size or status of his or her city, can be educated, healthy, prosperous,and live with dignity.