This article provides valuable arguments about the disappearance of historical and colonial spaces. The author proposes new possibilities for the concept of “disappearance”: the “disappearance” of a building does not mean that it disappears without a trace in itself. This “disappearance” can even coexist with the existence and preservation of the building. The preservation of old buildings gives us a historical vision of the site, but it also requires the maintenance of historical and cultural traces. At first I was confused about the relationship between preservation and disappearance, but the author’s examples of the Hong Kong Cultural Center, Flagstaff House and the Repulse Bay Hotel gave me a clearer understanding. In the process of preserving culture and architecture, if one does not have a clear understanding of their historical value and cultural significance, then arbitrary conservation measures may instead backfire.
In recent years, people have become increasingly interested in Hong Kong culture, from which they have gained a sense of identity, and the influence of colonialism has gradually diminished. This also reminds us of the need to recognize our own identity. And Hong Kong, as a city where “new” and “old” coexist, should not lose its own identity.
Name: Yutao Xie
UID: 3036106525
Quite some insightful analysis and personal reflection in your response. I enjoy reading your words! Able to elaborate the unique ‘disappearance’ that Hong Kong possess with clearly-developed ideas. Good work!