But according to Chinese architectural experts, some less interesting suggestions – such as requests for protection of inheritance, a credit system for designers and the appointment of major architects – might signal finer evolution in the way Chinese cities are planned.

“The document is really not just about height,” Li Shiqiao, an Asian architecture professor at the University of Virginia, said in a telephone interview. “It’s about Chinese culture, city context, city spirit and the appearance of modernity.”

“This has been a lot in academic discussions, but somehow it hasn’t been in government documents until now.”

Cut to size

Of the 10 complete buildings measuring above 500 meters worldwide, half are found in mainland China.

Among them are the second tallest skyscraper on the planet, the twisted Shanghai Tower 632 meters (2,073 feet) high, and the Ping An Financial Center in Shenzhen, which is 599 meters (1,965 feet) from the base to the tip.

Fei Chen, a senior architecture professor at Liverpool University in England, described the 500-meter boundary as “very arbitrary,” adding that the 499-meter skyscraper was “a building that is still very, very high.” But the new document confirms increasing intolerance towards buildings that are “out of scale or out of context,” he said.

Chen also expressed official concern about the use of “reckless” tall buildings, where expensive and unprofitable towers were used by real estate companies to mark their development – or by local governments to put their cities on the map.

“(The guideline) responds to an identity crisis that we have all noticed since the 1980s, when cities began to borrow standards and types of buildings from an international context,” he said in a telephone interview. “And since the 1990s, cities have been promoted as competitive in the market through the construction of landmarks and large public buildings.”

As such, these new restrictions concern economics and design. Above a certain height, the cost of building a skyscraper increases exponentially with each additional floor. The Chinese ceiling is now filled with unfinished towers due to slowing economic growth and developers facing credit pressure.

Workers at the top of the Wuhan Greenland Center, which are still not completed eight years after construction began. Credit: STR / AFP / Getty Images

“If you consider Pudong as the paradigm of Chinese urbanization from 2000 to today, then you see Xiongan – which is not dominated by real estate speculation or iconic buildings – as a new paradigm … then that is a very amazing change we are witnessing.”

New framework

But Li stated that limiting the height of 500 meters was, from an academic point of view, “perhaps the least interesting” from the new government guidelines.

Elsewhere, the circular contains a number of other steps, including a ban on “plagiarism, imitation and imitation behavior.” The Chinese-owned Eiffel Tower and London-inspired Thames Town outside Shanghai are two more extreme – and ridiculed – examples of how imitation architecture developed rapidly in the 2000s.

The Eiffel Tower replica in Tianducheng, a luxury real estate development in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. Credit: JOHANNES EISELE / AFP / Getty Images

This official shift, once again, might only reflect changes in design culture in China. But explicit bans on plagiarism continue to prove useful in countries where “the level of quality varies greatly,” Chen said.

“There is already recognition in the architecture industry that (copying) is not accepted,” he said. “But China is very big, and some cities are better than others.

“In the east coast cities, or more developed areas, architects have better design skills, so they produce better buildings. But in rural cities you still see buildings that mimic other people’s styles or architectural languages, and it does not produce very good design. “

But one of the new suggestions the government proposed was something completely new in China: the chief architect for each city.

Moscow and Barcelona are among the cities that have appointed an individual to approve or veto new proposals. Li welcomed the idea as a way to ensure the design was appropriate for the overall urban context.

“The doubt is whether ensuring uniformity means that a city can be predictable and unattractive, or whether you really maintain a certain level of creativity,” he added. “But we have a new generation (Chinese designers) who are great at maintaining urban structures and creating very interesting architecture. The key is to institutionalize a system that guarantees that process.”

The city skyline of Chongqing, in southwest China. Credit: Wang Zhao / AFP / Getty Images

How – or even whether – more exploratory government advice begins to produce results remains to be seen. The new guidelines provide a broad framework for cities, but better details must be completed at the local level, said Chen, whose research focuses on urban planning in China.

Characterizing a circle as a series of red lines that must not be crossed (more “no” than “dos”), he also suggested that work was still needed to positively articulate what constituted good design.

“There are policies and documents that talk about what you are should not do … which is a good thing, but they never say what you are Should do, “he explained.” Urban architects and designers might benefit from fairly specific guidelines about what design is good.

“But this needs to be linked to the local context, so I would not expect national governments to produce guidelines like this. What works in one context might not work in another context.”