In the text, Abbas mentioned the disappearance in Hong Kong history and monuments. To me, disappearance means that the fade away of a certain kind of style. It can be building style, behaviours or people’s lifestyle. The change happening in Hong Kong is really quick— especially environmental. Some old buildings are demolished and rehabilitated. Diesppearance seems to be happening everywhere in Hong Kong. Abbas mentions that preservation projects can keep history in sight and keep buildings in site. However, it comes to the spotlight that rehabilitation may make the building different from the original one, as referred, ‘the unfamiliar in the familiar’, echoing with the side-by-side existence of both the ‘old’ and the ‘new’. Whether these buildings will become placeless, in my opinion, depends on the connection between itself and history. Preserved characteristics should be symbolic of past activities. For examples, buildings in colonical period should contain something related to British even upon rehabilitation. With this, it is not truly that something has disappeared. Not physically, also no historically—It is still alive on us. This ‘old in the new’ building style, is something basic that forms the uniqueness of Hong Kong’s architecture style with its own history.
Tsang Ka Ho, 3035924310
This is a well-structured reflection on the dialectical relationship between the “old” and “new.” Abbas observed that “preservation is selective and tends to exclude the dirty and pain (p89)”. The restoration and preservation of buildings can sustain history and memory, though new spatial needs will contest their use. It is crucial to consider the negotiation between the “new” and the “old.” If preservation is a visible reminder of the city’s disappearance, to what extent does the film foreground these issues?