Hong Kong has prided itself on its constant changing skyline as the hallmark of economic success, however it also rendered the city unrecognizable. Abba made his point that historic buildings indeed gave way to profitable buildings, our city would lose its character. I would say that Hong Kong has always been so true to reveal itself. Central has always been business hub of the city, old buildings built in the concept of Victoria City no longer exist as they served for entrepôt trade, thus modern skyscraper represents the city as financial centre. It is our nostalgic emotional attachment to the past making us unable to recognize our city’s new feature as ‘hyper-density’, ‘anonymity’ and ‘placeless’ as Japanese architect mentioned.
History should not only be given in site but also in sight as Abba mentioned. He named the Cultural Center, Flagstaff House and Repulse Bay Hotel as failed attempt of historical preservation. I would stress the importance of the atmosphere. Picture the scene: When you are in old district of Sheung Wan due to the true atmosphere with old neighborhood at Wing Lee Street and antiques sellers at Lascar Row, you will be taken down to the memory lane. When you are in 1881 Heritage where filled with luxury flagship stores, you would find it like being in The Venetian, whole structure was like replica to attract people to shop.
We may lament on the disappearance of historical structures and cultural value which they embodied under the changing urban environment, spatial identity was deeply ingrained in our mind that we would never forget Clock Tower was a part of Kowloon-Canton Railway Terminus.
Lau Chun Ho Darren
UID: 3035708819
Great reflection on Abbas’ notion of disappearance and preservation – fantastic that you included also these specific heritage sites that were controversial and pose as challenges to Hong Kong’s cultural identity crisis.