The image of Hong Kong used to be that of the only global city with both Eastern and Western features. However, with its changing relationship with the Britain and China’s rapid globalisation, Hong Kong is beginning to take on the characteristics of a generic city. As mentioned by the author, it is the “image of the city” that makes the city invisible, not legible. Hong Kong today seems to be a movie city, people use images to show the character of its past, like lanterns, old trademark and rickshaws. Hong Kong is keeping changing now, but in the same time, signs which contain the images of Hong Kong are growing. Hong Kong’s past identity is blurred, and it appear to be in conformity with other new global cities. It is obvious that Hong Kong tries to present its culture image, but Hong Kong is unable to express its uniqueness now.
Zhang Linzhuo 3035777511
You correctly pointed out how some elements have represented the city well in the past (maybe too well) that they got carried away to the present. On the other hand, at the same time, the cities are renewing themselves times and again. To better narrate your points, you could also reflect upon the role of films in representing the city. For instance, how do you mean by Hong Kong as a movie city? Has the disappearance of Hong Kong’s cultural identity in the built environment been the impact of the shifts in its political relationship? What are the characteristics of the generic city that led you to argue that Hong Kong is one? Through these types of questions, you might be able to better situate your arguments.