The writer claims that Hong Kong’s colonial space is particularly a space of disappearance. However, what he means is disappearance does not imply going entirely unnoticed. It can work really well with projects of preservation and a concern for the present.
The writer brings out three examples to support his argument. They are Hong Kong Cultural Center, Flagstaff House, and Repulse Bay Hotel. He against the use of preservation as history to bring about the disappearance of history. Preservation of these architecture intentionally add Chinese elements into colonial architecture or integrate the “old” and the “new”. It leads to the colonial history of Hong Kong became vague and not that obvious which disappearance of history is caused. The writer also argue that it is a political means with the help of architecture. It is a quite surprising finding to me as we usually not notice the disappearance of history when we see those architecture. However, after I read the reading and reflected, I find that we usually focus on what is displayed in the architecture but merely focus on the building itself and the history behind. As a consequence, the Architecture seems to become an empty shell without its own meaning.
Wong Pui Fan 3036076990
You are able to capture some of the ideas introduced by the writer. You have also attempted to express your personal thoughts based on the reading but your expression seems not well-developed enough and readers may not be able to fully comprehend your ideas.