The book and the tutorial make me think more about the meaning of a building. With a complex historical background, Hong Kong have many different kinds of architectures. However, the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 have great impact on the cultures and self-identities of Hong Kong people. The way of preservation have become an issue. Although some of them are kept in site, are they really properly preserved? I have the same idea with the author. The cultures and characteristics are actually disappearing. Take the Tsim Sha Tsui Clock Tower as an example, the architecture has become a decoration and the meaning behind it has lost. A lot of other architectures are disappearing due to the lack of commercial value. The market ignored the true value behind the historical sites.
Preservation is not an easy task. I believe that using films and movies to record down the history will be a good idea, but it would not be enough the conserve our culture. In the year of 2021, hope everyone can pay more attention to this issue, and make Hong Kong special again.
3035789966 Yu Yuet Chi Yovela
It is true that keeping the buildings ‘in site’ does not equal preserving the culture/history of it. You mentioned that using films to record history would be a good idea. Why is it a good idea? How does film help to anchor architectures in our culture? Also, why is film ‘not enough’ to conserve the culture? What is it lacking? It would be great if you could be clear about your opinion so that it is more convincing to your readers.