In Abbas’s article, he focuses on the “disappearance” and transformation of some buildings in Hong Kong, and the word “disappearance” has a special meaning. According to the article and my feelings, I think “disappearance” means that some colonialism had some serious influence on Hong Kong and wiped out some local cultural identity. Abbas also said that Hong Kong’s “disappearance” can be partly reflected in the special buildings in Hong Kong, such as the Flagstaff building, which was imposed by colonialism to enhance Western culture, and the Rewater Bay Hotel, which exemplifies the replacement of traditional buildings by tall buildings. I think it is very sad and regrettable that some classic architecture or culture is slowly disappearing. In his article, we can also see a lot of words about rights. For example, Hong Kong architecture just shows some false images of rights without establishing its own cultural foundation. Something else that came up in the context of the idiosyncrasies of Hong Kong’s urban space that I’d like to add to the class question is the Idiosyncrasies of Hong Kong’s urban space. Of course, what we are talking about here is the vanishing space. The space in Hong Kong city is very strange. It is the financial center of the world, and its buildings are also very densely distributed. In the end, Hong Kong’s architecture is often better in movies than it in reality.
Fang Tianran 3036105674
You have connected the ideas of colonialism and disappearance in Abbas’ reading. A more nuanced understanding of the implications of Hong Kong’s colonial history and closer read on Abbas’ text will explain the unique context of Hong Kong and the different ways in which its architecture mediates the tension between East and West. Some elaboration and examples will help clarify your point on the false images of Hong Kong architecture and its strangeness.