In the article, the writer mentioned that Hong Kong is an open city that is exposed to all architectural styles and influences, however, architecture has frequently been built and rebuilt due to the rapid economic development. I would like to express the feeling of regret on this point that Hong Kong will eventually lose its cultural memories, for example, Central mentioned in the text, remains only a little vestige of this History. We cannot change the fact that Hong Kong’s architecture is inscribed in building space as capitalism, owing to the hyperdensity and the economic status. Hong Kong is a unique place with mixed culture and architecture, which should be kept in my opinion. We can hardly find a place in the world that was combined with both Western and Eastern architecture and also such rich history background. The Hong Kong government take preference to the profitable buildings and keep erasing its own irreplaceple culture. The saddest and the pittiest thing is that there is no way to stop the current situation. It is worrying that soon the urban appearance will loss totally.
Ip Yuen Yi (3036064313)
I appreciate your reflections on the disappearing nature of Hong Kong architecture and how confluences of various culture and ruling authorities have shaped the city’s urbanism. Your sentiments on the capitalistic drive towards disappearance is valid, but perhaps it is more productive to accept this as a defineable identity of Hong Kong architecture and part of its cultural lexicon.