Hong Kong, a city which is neither western nor eastern, fount it hard to identify itself, especially in the year of 1997. Since Hong Kong is a changing city with receptivity to all kinds of architectural styles. What happened was that there are always some unfamiliar elements subliminally settled within the familiar scenes. Therefore, conservation of local Hong Kong culture is not to capture a fragment but a continuous history. In this case, the movie as a record of a specific moment might be helpful but not sufficient enough for the preservation of culture.
Talking about preservation, it seems to be in contrast to the disappearance. However, like what the author indicated, different ways of preservation can cause disappearance in different aspects. Take the Hong Kong Cultural Centre as an example, the intention is to keep part of the old buildings and stimulate individuals’ nostalgia. The project, however, combines the historical clock tower with some modern “placeless structures” that do not relate to any Hong Kong culture. This leads to an uncanny scene, bringing shocks to the public while the project can hardly recall cultural reflects.
Accompanied by the author’s pessimistic views, we have to admit that preservation may never be perfect to keep the history and culture. As disappearance substitution gradually tear down the original culture, another question is thrown to us, are we doing the preservation in vain?
Lin Wei 3035767554
You have synthesized and understood Abbas’ piece well. It is true that no preservation can be perfect. But then, to you, what is perfection? Preservation, most of the time, goes hand-in-hand with gentrification, if not disappearance. Apart from asking if the preservation effort is in vain, what more powerful question shall we ask the conservation projects? An example would be, how are the stakeholders of the architecture being affected by the conservation project?