At present, urban renewal has become a key investment priority across regions, with local governments continuously refining and upgrading both the underlying principles and operational models. This has given rise to diverse approaches—ranging from government-led initiatives to market-driven strategies, as well as public–private partnerships. However, on February 23, at the launch of the “China Urban Renewal White Paper (2022)” (hereafter referred to as the “White Paper”) and the “Compilation of Typical Cases in China’s Urban Renewal and Existing Building Renovation for 2022,” hosted by the Urban Renewal Branch of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce Real Estate Chamber, it was revealed that, owing to an incomplete institutional framework, an underdeveloped policy system, and difficulties in establishing viable financial‑balance mechanisms for certain project types, implementation faces numerous challenges. Moreover, significant variations exist among regions in terms of renewal content and priorities, necessitating tailored strategies—“one city, one plan” and “one district, one plan”—for each specific context.
　　
　　Several urban renewal projects worth tens of billions have been unveiled.
　　
　　Since 2022, local governments across China have accelerated the research and development of urban renewal standards and policy frameworks, with more than 30 provinces and municipalities issuing over 70 policies related to urban renewal. At the same time, urban renewal has emerged as a key investment priority in major projects nationwide, with cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangdong, and Zhejiang actively rolling out urban renewal initiatives—many of which feature projects valued at tens of billions of yuan. For example, the Haigang Area Urban Renewal Project in the Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone covers 6.5 square kilometers and boasts a total investment of approximately RMB 10.7 billion; in Guangzhou, the Hetangxia Old Village Renovation Project is slated for RMB 36.401 billion, the Lijiao Urban Village Renovation Project for RMB 30 billion, and the Chentian Village Urban Village Renovation Project for RMB 28.895 billion.
　　
　　The white paper indicates that, since the 13th Five-Year Plan period, China’s large and medium-sized cities have generally shifted from large-scale, outward‑expansion‑driven incremental development to a focus on upgrading quality and efficiency through stock‑based operations and intrinsic value‑adding. Localities have continuously iterated and upgraded both the underlying principles and operational approaches of urban renewal, giving rise to diverse models—ranging from government‑led and market‑led initiatives to public–private partnerships. However, owing to incomplete institutional frameworks and an underdeveloped policy system, it remains challenging to establish viable financial‑balance mechanisms for certain types of projects, resulting in numerous implementation hurdles.
　　
　　Xia Huamin, deputy secretary-general of the Urban Renewal Branch of the All-China Federation of Real Estate Associations, noted that urban renewal is a complex undertaking with lengthy project cycles, making it difficult for enterprises to get involved. Such projects typically span extended periods and encounter significant obstacles during implementation. Moreover, localities exhibit marked differences in the scope and priorities of urban renewal efforts, necessitating tailored strategies—“one city, one plan” and “one district, one plan”—with no universally applicable models or readily transferable best practices.
　　
　　For example, in the “Three Olds” (old urban areas, old factories, and old villages) redevelopment initiative, “old factory” projects typically involve a single owner, clear property rights, and relatively low initial coordination challenges, with an overall development cycle of about 3 to 5 years. By contrast, “old village” and “old urban area” redevelopment projects are characterized by complex property rights and generally take 5 to 8 years to complete; moreover, these projects carry certain risks, and if progress stalls, the timeline may extend beyond 10 years. At the same time, renewal projects often integrate diversified business segments such as real estate, cultural and creative industries, and tourism, placing higher demands on participating entities in terms of operational expertise, financing capabilities, project experience, organizational coordination, and technical proficiency.
　　
　　Furthermore, depending on the funding entity, urban renewal projects draw on government fiscal funds, private‑sector investment, self‑funded contributions from property owners, and market‑based financing. However, at present, market‑driven financial‑balance models for initiatives such as the renovation of older residential neighborhoods, urban village redevelopment, and the revitalization of historic and cultural districts remain in an exploratory phase, lacking viable business models. This has resulted in substantial fiscal pressure on governments, deterred private investors, and made it difficult for residents to contribute financially.
　　
　　The traditional urban renewal business model will also undergo a transformation.
　　
　　E Junyu, the incoming rotating president of the Urban Renewal Branch of the All-China Federation of Real Estate Associations, stated that since 2017, the branch has annually collaborated with leading experts, scholars, and frontline project managers in the urban renewal field to jointly compile the “China Urban Renewal White Paper” and the “Selected Cases of Urban Renewal and Existing Building Renovation in China.” The aim is to provide the industry, from both theoretical research and practical implementation perspectives, with scientifically grounded, guidance‑oriented approaches to urban renewal, as well as actionable, scalable solutions.
　　
　　For 2023, it remains a shared consensus that both the government and enterprises will continue to vigorously explore sustainable business models for urban renewal. Looking ahead, as the overarching trend of strengthened public–private collaboration persists, the respective roles and operational mechanisms of government and businesses will become increasingly clear. The government’s role lies in mobilizing the enthusiasm of market actors, while the market’s strength resides in its capacity for efficient implementation; thus, public–private cooperation has emerged as the prevailing dynamic driving urban renewal.
　　
　　The white paper indicates that, from the government’s perspective, mobilizing the enthusiasm of market entities is a crucial safeguard for achieving the desired scale of investment in urban renewal, with the key lying in intensifying policy innovation. In particular, policies related to land use, urban planning, financing, and fiscal and tax matters should be closely aligned with the practical challenges faced by market players. During the implementation of urban renewal projects, it is essential to holistically balance the interests of original property right holders, ensure a sound return on investment for participating enterprises, and maximize the social and economic benefits for the government, thereby striking an optimal equilibrium among diverse stakeholders.
　　
　　From a market perspective, the white paper notes that enterprises, as key drivers of urban renewal, will see their traditional business models undergo significant transformation—shifting, for example, from a conventional “development‑oriented” approach to an “operation‑driven” model. Historically, companies involved in urban renewal have relied on phased, demolition‑and‑redevelopment strategies, using proceeds from property sales to finance the entire project. However, under the demands of the new era, this old “demolition‑construction‑sale” accounting framework and the corresponding implementation practices must be recalibrated to meet the challenge of transitioning from a short‑term, quick‑profit development model to one that prioritizes slower, long‑term returns and sustainable value creation.