Reading Response: Ackbar Abbas
City evolves, building ages, people change. There is no eternal principle to the built environment, and Hong Kong as a city where the east meets the west is no exception. In this high time when many questions the true identity of Hong Kong, Abbas’s writing brings in-depth reflection from the perspective of architecture on how the city is shaped.
As a past colony of the British Empire, Hong Kong is a city in the east while preserving many western, often British characteristics. Victorian style architecture such as the Murray House the Old Supreme Court and more greatly reminds us of the colonial history and influences it brought. Yet after the return to Chinese sovereignty, many of the historical sited were being washed away physically and spiritually, questionably diminishing the piece of history which people with power would like to hide.
What interested me is the extend of conservation and preservation that should be carried out to these historical projects. While old things sometimes have to make way for new development, we shall not forget the significance of these disappearing structures that shaped Hong Kong.
Tang King To Anson
3035797963
It would be helpful to have a closer reading to his text in order to convey a clearer relevance in your response. Which of Abbas’ discussions on preservation, disappearance, history, or culture are you responding to?
I would suggest one to be more careful in identifying architectural styles of buildings – both the Murray House and Old Supreme Court are neo-classical architectures. However, since you’ve mentioned the buildings reminds people of its significance, the architectural style doesn’t matter as much as the colonial elements they share, such as the Chinese tiled roofs and verandahs which adapts to the subtropical climate. The preservation of the buildings are completely different and you may wish to elaborate a bit more rather than reducing them to mere “disappearance” since they still physically exist.