The ideas of the “Hong Kong: Culture and the politics of disappearance” and the discussion in the tutorial has provoked me to think more about the meaning of a building. There are always hidden messages or some historical meanings behind each architecture. However, usually the only thing we notice are the design and outlook of the buildings, while ignoring the story behind.
Meanwhile, I totally agree with the stance and reason suggested by the writer in the first two paragraphs in P.86, said that the demand of the market and commercial considerations has ruined the development of architecture. I utterly agree that’s the major reason why the uniqueness of architecture is fading out in Hong Kong. This is so ironic that Hong Kong is such an international metropolis which keeps emphasizing it’s work in preserving historical sites, but what actually happens is many buildings are literally “in site” while actually its own“story” is disappearing.
This reading has encouraged me to learn to understand more about the “meaning” of the building, since it has normally been “concealed”, due to a bunch of commercial considerations.
Poon Kwan Yiu, Marco 3035797432
It is good to hear that the piece has triggered you to think beyond the facades of buildings. In Abbas’ piece, he has carefully looked into the layout of architecture (Clocktower & Hong Kong Culture Centre), the usage (the Flagstaff House), and the stakeholders (the Repulse Bay Hotel). I would encourage you to see architecture differently as he does.