Youth is the most creative and developmental potential social group. The overall goal of modern people's cities is that high-quality urban development cannot be achieved without the continuous investment and contribution of young people in innovation, governance, and urban public spaces. As a key component of realizing a modern people's city, youth development oriented cities aim to institutionalize, normalize, and spatialize youth development issues, transform the core concerns of youth in education, employment, housing, public services, and social participation into actionable institutional arrangements and spatial carriers, and promote the mutual promotion of high-quality youth development and high-quality urban development on this basis. The basic direction of youth development oriented city construction is to respond to the structural difficulties faced by contemporary youth groups in terms of employment, housing stability, accessibility of public services, and social integration through policy guidance and resource integration, so that young people can truly stay, develop, participate, and contribute in the city. This is a comprehensive layout aimed at building a strong country and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, with the aim of activating the kinetic energy of young people, promoting their deep participation and investment in the city, and achieving the vitality enhancement and high-quality development of the city. It can be said that the goal of a youth oriented city is to achieve a two-way journey of "making the city more friendly to young people and making them more productive in the city". 'More friendly' and 'more proactive' are not two parallel indicator systems for the bi-directional pursuit of youth development oriented cities. The emergence of the word 'more' is not a requirement for cities and youth to 'do better than before', nor is it a simple linear exchange logic between 'cities providing more benefits' and' youth contributing more '. On the contrary, this implies a proactive breakthrough in the existing logic of urban governance, requiring the "city youth" relationship to break away from the traditional cognitive framework of "provision benefit" and "mobilization response", and transform into a structural reshaping of mutual promotion and joint construction between the two. The relationship between "being more friendly" and "being more responsible" is not a static division of labor, but a dialectical unity relationship that exists in tension and mutual generation. Firstly, 'more friendly' does not mean that cities are more considerate of young people in terms of resources, nor is it just about providing welfare services such as employment services, housing support, and living environment for young people. We need to "take care of the characteristics of young people and create city business cards rich in youth characteristics", and require the "establishment and improvement of a joint conference mechanism for youth work", forming a normalized work mechanism of "strategic research policy coordination project implementation supervision and implementation" in the field of youth development. It can be seen that youth development has been elevated to a permanent issue in urban governance. Cities are the spatial carriers of youth development, and it is necessary to use institutionalized allocation and spatial co construction that are in line with the characteristics of youth, so that young people can settle down and work in cities, establish relationship networks, and obtain public services. This will give young people a legitimate and stable presence in cities, and provide them with affordable, secure, and sustainable living and development space. Secondly, "being more proactive" does not mean "young people making more contributions and giving back to the city", but rather viewing young people as co builders of urban development. The more proactive policy statements such as "pioneering the trend", "stimulating entrepreneurial and innovative vitality", "guiding young people to participate in urban construction and social services", "allowing young people to participate in grassroots governance and public affairs", "exploring public spaces and service standards according to the actual needs of young people, and enhancing their participation and contribution" are a positive recognition of the qualification of young people to propose solutions, the ability to lead the trend, and the right to participate in governance. Young people can jointly define the social spatial production content and direction of how cities are positioned and developed with urban carriers. This requires cities to provide clear locations, developmental channels, sustainable resources, and follow-up promotion and transformation mechanisms for young people to enter urban construction, social governance, public services, and cultural dissemination at the organizational, spatial, and institutional levels, so that young people can generate sustainable participation practices in urban space and truly become co creators and collaborators involved in high-quality urban development. In summary, 'more friendly' provides structural spatial conditions for young people to grow and develop steadily in the city, while 'more friendly' provides institutionalized spatial practice paths for young people to continue to act and contribute as the main body in the city. The two are based on a dynamic and circular development approach. Cities recognize the presence of young people through institutional arrangements and spatial allocation, enabling them to settle down and gather; Through continuous practice in urban space, young people participate in the production and reproduction of urban space, and in turn shape the operation mode, governance structure, and cultural style of urban space. It can be said that "more friendly" and "more responsible" together constitute a dynamic process of social spatial production that takes the city as the carrier and integrates into the youth as the main body. It is necessary to break through the one-way "rational regulations" of institutional planning in this process and explore the collaborative governance paradigm of "defining space together" between youth and cities; We should also comprehensively consider the differences among the youth group and the diversity of their living needs, and provide them with reasonable, suitable, and comprehensive spatial resource allocation; More importantly, we should take the original spiritual values and emotional identity of the city as a starting point, explore the meaning space of the integration of urban local memory and youth subject practice, and achieve structural balance of urban spatial production in the dialectical unity relationship of their dynamic development. This is also the meaning of "two-way rush". The reshaping of the institutional space of negotiated co governance and the "two-way rush" of social space production first requires the reshaping of the institutional space of the governance paradigm. Youth development oriented cities practice the concept of "youth first development", aiming to provide "more friendly" stability and legitimacy for young people, and regard them as urban co construction partners, providing them with "more meaningful" institutional support. However, the "conceptual space" formed by policy and institutional planning is often only a one-way rational regulation. If urban construction only stays at the rational provisions of policy texts and administrative systems, young people, although being "prioritized", will still be simplified as passive recipients of resources. In fact, as the primary users and practitioners of space, only young people are qualified to provide judgments and answers on whether the layout of the educational environment is appropriate and whether the support for a healthy environment is sufficient. Therefore, the social spatial production of youth development oriented cities must first achieve a paradigm shift in governance, that is, from one-way rational regulations to a system space of consultation and co governance. This requires that the institutional conceptual space must undergo continuous testing, revision, and adjustment of the real experience of youth living space. Firstly, it is necessary to establish a normalized perception and feedback mechanism. For example, by utilizing the "Youth Work Joint Meeting Mechanism", young people can provide real-time and authentic evaluations and opinions on their spatial usage experience feedback. Secondly, in the early stages of urban planning and renewal, the practice of integrating and institutionalizing the "third space" for young people outside of their homes and workplaces that have already been formed on the ground. Thirdly, the Youth City Council can be held regularly to enable young people to apply their experience and knowledge to the decision-making process of urban planning and renewal, forming a negotiation process between youth and the city to jointly define how space should exist. The above activation methods for youth subjectivity will not only naturally shape a "youth characteristic city card" with a sense of identity, but also stimulate the innovative potential of young people to participate in urban construction, enabling them to "take the lead" and contribute to urban development. The basic prerequisite for the social spatial production of "two-way rush" is to provide stable spatial resource guarantee for young people. Under the framework of negotiated spatial governance, the priority issue that youth development oriented cities need to answer is how to ensure the justice of the living space of the youth group through stable spatial resource supply. This is not only a material prerequisite for the production of urban social space, but also the fundamental path for the implementation and transformation of urban planning system conceptual space in the daily living space of young people. Specifically, in urban construction, multidimensional spatial resource allocation should be utilized to meet the diverse and multi-level development needs of young people, and to optimize the spatial coordination of multidimensional environmental connections such as housing, employment, public services, and cultural life for young people, so that their perceptions and feedback can be transformed into lasting and effective spatial order and spatial belonging. Firstly, the structural guarantee of residential space should be in place. Only by settling down can one work happily. The youth group is in the initial stage of life and development, and their mobility is relatively high. The housing security for them cannot be limited to short-term relief through one-time subsidies, but should establish a strengthened multi-level "rental security" system and long-term rental stability mechanism to ensure that the differentiated housing welfare needs of young people are met. Secondly, cities need to explore and establish standards for the construction of public service spaces and facilities that are suitable for youth living and employment, educational environment, and medical security, in order to build a "short-term, high-efficiency, and low-cost" life service circle for young people and maximize their daily needs and living desires. Thirdly, the social support network is also an important component of spatial resource allocation. It should support the regular supply of youth communities such as peer assistance, skill learning, emotional counseling, and public participation, so that heterogeneous youth groups including out of town graduates, new forms of employment workers, and freelancers can also be included in a stable spatial resource allocation system. By establishing a broad and inclusive youth social network, every young person can integrate into urban life and realize their own value. The goal of the social space production of "bidirectional rushing" in the meaning space of mutual integration is the common reproduction of urban meaning space. A youth development oriented city is not a one-way support and achievement for young people by the city. The social spatial production of youth development oriented cities is the encounter, acquaintance, and mutual promotion between cities and youth subjects. Cities are not passive carriers, but the foundation for the growth and development of young people. Cities do not become "youth cities" just because young people come, but rather "living" urban entities that carry historical context, local memories, and cultural traditions, witnessing the changes of time. Therefore, the construction of youth development oriented cities should not move towards the unified template of "one thousand cities and one side", but should inherit and activate the original spiritual value of the city, and form the common reproduction of urban meaning space in the integration of urban local memory and youth space practice. One is to take the city as the foundation and achieve the inheritance and revitalization of local meaningful spaces. In urban renewal and spatial governance, it is necessary to safeguard the historical context, strengthen the construction of iconic cultural landscapes, and enable young people to establish a local identity with the city. This is the deep driving force for young people to continue to participate in practical activities in urban space. Explore the establishment of a youth oriented local memory inventory (such as old neighborhoods, factories, markets, etc.) and corresponding participation mechanisms, allowing for a continuous dialogue between the spiritual temperament of urban subjects and the contemporary expression of youth subjects, in order to form new local significance spaces. Secondly, make the "third space" for young people a natural extension of the urban significance space. Cities should consciously designate and protect a certain proportion of non-profit, low regulation, and highly autonomous "third space" areas for young people, encourage them to engage in social experiments, artistic expression, informal socializing, and other activities, and institutionalize the informal creativity and innovation potential of young people into the production process of urban space. By using the "third space" to promote the connection and spatial co creation of spontaneous practice and local memory narrative among young people, this highly autonomous participation in spatial practice can stimulate