In recent years, it has become increasingly important to renew and redevelop areas of inefficient land use so as to curb uncontrolled sprawl of the city. A key topic constantly explored in the field of community planning pertains to two balances that need to be struck: one between development and preservation, and the other between efficiency of redevelopment and effectiveness in collaboration. This case is derived from the redevelopment of Xiancun, one of Guangzhou's first urbanizing villages that have undergone the state-led model with the government as the sole decision maker in the redevelopment process. It has yielded some painful lessons to inform redevelopment planning in the future. 

Conventional single-party decision making model was adopted in the process of redeveloping Xiancun. In the early phase, the government was responsible for demolishing buildings, preparing funds, and designing redevelopment plan. In the execution phase, the government was the only party carrying out the plan, neither making the plan transparent nor considering opinions of other stakeholders. In this sense, the government was both the planner and the executor. Due to immature plan, lack of transparency, and lack of supervision mechanism, several serious problems occurred. Members of Xiancun village committee defalcated redevelopment funds. Severe conflicts broke out between villagers and the committee. Demolition came to a standstill, leaving some spots abandoned. Some complex pre-existing conflicts within Xiancun did contribute to this redevelopment impasse. Nonetheless, the single-party decision-making mentality was an important factor leading to the failure in this case. 

The failure has shed light on how to better redevelop urbanizing villages. First, the single target should be replaced by multiple targets because redevelopment affects the interests of many parties, not just the government, but also individuals, groups, and the public. Multifaceted conflicts could be expected when these interests competed with one another in the redevelopment process. The case shows that in the early phase of redevelopment all interested parties should be acknowledged, and proper mechanism should be established for them to make decisions together. It also shows that in the execution phase information should be made available to all interested parties so that they can work together to set directions for redevelopment, reach a balance of interests, and achieve a win-win situation of collaborative governance. Second, procedure justice should be upheld in the decision-making processes. Without procedure justice ensured by the establishment of a scientific system of decision-making and management, it would not be possible to implement decisions efficiently or orderly, nor would it be possible for all interested parties to reach a consensus.