In this article, one of the writer’s points is that Hong Kong is a place being infixed and undefined, and there is no ideological interference coming from its own culture. Yet, I am not entirely agreeing with this stance.
The writer proves her stance by citing some architectural buildings, like the Chiang Kai-shek cultural complex is a pastiche of Chinese architectural style, and the Main Building of the University of Hong Kong was built in the colonial style. As all the buildings in Hong Kong belong to another historical era, it is determined that the identity of HK is unfixed.
However, it is Hong Kong’s own history that it belongs to China based on the partition of territory, while it was being acquired by Britain. This is the uniqueness and the special identity gained by Hong Kong. Due to these histories, there appears mixed architectural styles in Hong Kong as it is a place having multi-cultures. It could be identified as Hong Kong’s own identity.
Though, I still agree that the writer said “what is rebuilt are more profitable buildings. It is hoped that the significant buildings could be well preserved so that there will no longer be a fast change in the buildings.
Wong Kwan Mei 3036075398
Your piece of writing is in lack of overall coherence. Please be careful in selecting examples to support your point of view, e.g. Chiang Kai-shek cultural complex is not located in Hong Kong and so using it as an architectural example discussing on HK’s architectural/social identity is inappropriate. Also, language and expression is a huge problem as it hinders readers’ understanding of your personal thoughts.