In the reading, the author mentions that Hong Kong, due to its nature of being an inter-national and a parasitic-city, it has to continually respond to changes. This has resulted in progress becoming routine. In transforming spaces, we are doing things procedurally and not actually understanding the process. In this process of routine progress, the “old” and the “new” exist together side by side without integrating. I agree with the author on this point but would like to add on that the old/traditional values, beliefs, structures and ways of doing things that continue to exist merely exists because they are not in conflict of the present plans for the future. The reading mentions the use of bamboo scaffolding to build new buildings or the use of pseudoscience numeracy to name a business. In these examples, the traditional ways of doing things are found to be efficient and hence are still being utilised today. However, should a better method comes along, they would be disposed away with no hesitation. Another example is the Tai Po fishing village on Lantau Island. Tourism advertisements may describe it as a symbol of the past, a glimpse of the livelihoods and life in the past but what it actually is a left behind community. There is no development in the area and most of the residents in the area are elderly.
Hence, to echo the author’s point of view, indeed modern cities develop without a regard for the past and perhaps there is even a certain misconception that we are keeping traditions alive when we see the littlest hints of the past in the modern city when in fact what they represent are our lack of concern for the history and the past instead. This however then raises another question, should we be preserving the past just for the sake of it? How can we respectfully preserve the narratives of the past while also not forgetting that we are also writing new stories that will make up the future’s past?
By Emily Wu Mei Chang (3035611705)