CHINA’S fascination for replicas of world famous landmarks is not new. There have been so many of them over the years that they have ceased to amaze. Yet every new one that crops up tends to make headlines world over.

There are reportedly 16 “White Houses” and several “Eiffel Towers” in the country. The latest one to catch the eye of the world is the supposed Pentagon replica — aptly named The Pentagonal Mart — in suburban Huinan Town in Shanghai.

A massive complex structure, it covers an area of 480,000 square meters. It has been around since 2009, but it was only recently that its resemblance to the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in Virginia began to emerge, thanks to pictures taken from drone cameras and posted online by hawk-eyed netizens.

But the similarity is only really minuscule. It is nothing like the real Pentagon, except for its exterior structure when viewed from an elevated platform. Otherwise, it is just a giant sized shopping mall — largely empty — with a huge hall.

A board member of the developer, Shanghai Maigemao Land Company, a person surnamed Huang, insisted the design was not inspired by the American Pentagon but was guided by the five elements (wu xing) in Chinese philosophy.

“Five is an important number in Feng Shui. For private entrepreneurs like us, the five elements are very important for a successful venture,” Huang told Shanghai Daily.

Very few, however, are buying that argument. Zheng Shiling, a professor of urban planning and an academician at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, dismissed the Shanghai Pentagonal Mart as just another example of a bad design that was completed in haste.

Zheng said real estate developers were not only copying foreign architecture styles but also domestic monuments “regardless of the environment and culture associated with them.”

To understand the obsession behind such abject copy of works and the general public’s interest in replica structures, Shanghai Daily spoke to planning and design industry experts to get their views on them.

Ding Hui works with the Shanghai Yangpu District Planning and Land Management Bureau and part of his duty involves censoring blueprints of architectural design.

Zhang Danyin is a lecturer in the Department of Environmental Design, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology. Her research field involves urban design, city form and theory of neo-urbanism. Linda Jiang is a former journalist and specializes in design.

Q: 1. Why do you think Chinese developers have so much fascination for western landmarks?

Ding Hui: It relates to three factors — visual consumption, level of education and problem of the architectural design industry. Since the economic reforms, Chinese have been dazzled by information and pictures of different countries but only few could afford to make the trips abroad. This created a market for visual consumption, and the developers willingly cashed in on it. The lower the economic level, greater was the enthusiasm of the developers to replicate. In Zhong County in Chongqing, they have recreated “Tian’anmen Square” as a local government building. In Jiangsu Province’s Funing County, they have a copy of the China Art Museum which was built during the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. Then there is the Windows of The World in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, and 21st Century Park in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province. I suspect with more and more Chinese able to travel abroad, the enthusiasm for such structures will slowly die down.

Zhang Danyin: I think there are two main reasons: the culture diffidence and the need for visual consumption and space production. Since 1840, we have felt the impact of colonial and other foreign rulers. To some extent our culture became a symbol of backwardness and that has hampered creation for which we struggle even today. With the growth of the economy since 1978, besides development, there was also a negative trend. The developers, instead of looking inward, were looking elsewhere. The speed with which they accepted western culture was really amazing! Western form or symbol was an expression of power.

As for visual consumption and space production — these are the terminology that describes a phenomenon when the commodity economy is developed. Attraction and attention are the key words. A landmark always draws people’s attention, and these copycat buildings are easier to identify with.

Linda Jiang: I think all these famous architectural landmarks belong to the whole human race. We are learning something from other countries, but if you go back to history, our ancestors had also developed great buildings, bronze-wares and other creations that have inspired other people, like the old architectures/building/temples in Japan or some old pavilions in European countries, including the famous Trivoli Gardens in Denmark.

Q: But do people really like them?

Ding Hui: I think some of them do. It meets the curiosity of some people but for those who have seen the original, it does not matter much to them.

Zhang Danyin: I don’t think people really like them anymore. People are well educated and well informed, so they have an aversion toward them.

Q: What psychology plays behind such creations?

Ding Hui: In some remote areas, the thinking may be “if I cannot be the president of the US, I’ll live in my own White House ... I am the king of my area, I can do anything I want.” They build the replicas for their own self-satisfaction.

Zhang Danyin: It is deeply rooted in Confucian concept of “xin” (the heart-mind). One of the most important expressions of it is the requirement for the official standard and class consciousness.

People of higher status and positions are always keen on finding symbols as an expression of power. Architecture is their best choice. In Chinese traditional architecture, different kinds of roof decorations are expressions of power. For example, the Forbidden City’s roof style is double-hipped roof（重檐庑殿顶)and only the emperor had the right to use this style. Nowadays, the roof styles are no longer a symbol of status, the western style has taken over. So in Yuhua District in Nanjing, there is a “Capitol Hill,” and in Hangzhou there is a “White House.” People build them to fulfil their hopes and ambitions.

Linda Jiang: I think it is a learning process and a type of education. Twenty, or even 10 years ago, it was difficult for people to go abroad to see such fantastic things in the world, so we tried to bring in the goods things. It was better than having nothing. Now, with more people going international, these kind of buildings will be seen less and less.

Q: Should there be a law against them?

Ding Hui: I don’t think a law is necessary.

First, technically, it is hard to judge whether a construction is a copycat or not. You cannot simply say that the buildings with the same elements are copied from another. For example, you cannot say that buildings with large domes and Roman style pillars are all copies of Capitol Hill, or buildings with double-eave-roofs (重檐歇山顶) are all copies of Tian’anmen either. Even if the exteriors look similar, the inner structures might be totally different. Apparently, the blueprint of the US Pentagon is a secret, and the “Pentagon” in Shanghai has a totally different inner design although it looks similar from outside.

Second, the constructions are reflections of the societies. It stands for the mind of the ruler and civilians. Decades later, these reproductions will be seen as historical buildings. It will provide evidences of the economic level or the thinking of our time. For example, old Summer Palace (圆明园) has both Chinese and western influences — some direct “copies” of the Jiangnan gardens (江南园林) — but it is now hailed as historic. We can guide the developers to focus less on copying designs, but we should not prohibit them outright.

Zhang Danyin: Having a law against them is not realistic, because it throws up several questions that are hard to answer. The first one is: How does one define weird buildings or copied architecture?

Architecture is very complex. Even if you come up with some rules to define them, the law cannot resolve the issue fundamentally because the problems of some buildings are not their style, but their improper function. Take the Shanghai Pentagonal Mart as an example, the most serious problem with it is that it is empty. It is obvious that people do not want to use that space, which is the biggest failure of the building in terms of modern architecture. So only judging an architecture style by some rules is meaningless because there are other serious problems with it.

Besides, finding the right person or organization to execute the law is the hardest thing.

Linda Jiang: Yes, I think there should be. We are in the process of protecting the copyrights ... There will be more restrictions for other industries as well. I am entirely against making copies as it will kill a nation’s creativity.

Q: Should the government get involved in approving development projects or should they stay out of it?

Ding Hui: Governments should guide them, but not enforce them, whether approving or prohibiting.

I think the government should approve the building design based on the Approved Urban Plan and public opinions. In Shanghai, we call the plan Regulatory Detailed Plan (控制性详细规划). This plan is organized by the government and planned by qualified planners.

Zhang Danyin: I think the participation of government is necessary, but they can’t be the only participant involved in it. Citizens, architects and urban planners should also get involved in it.

Linda Jiang: I think they should get involved in approving development projects.

Q: What can the architects and town planners do about it?

Ding Hui: Architects and planners should push to have their opinions heard, rather than just cater to the leaders, even if it sometimes seems useless.

Zhang Danyin: They should find out the real relationship between the citizens’ ordinary life and city environment, and must have a social sense of responsibility. In most cases, architects design their buildings based on imagination that is different between real urban space and real usage.