Actually I think the word “disappearance” is quite subtle. Architecture in Hong Kong has changed a lot especially after its return due to various reasons, like political transformation, property speculation and hyperdensity. Hong Kong has special history and geographical location as a port city, resulting in its functioning as a middle man between China and the rest of the world. Therefore, from my perspective, the key feature of its identity is a mixed culture. After its internationalisation, the original building had to be rebuilt in order to accommodate the increasing population. So the architectural groups keep expanding horizontally and vertically. But “disappearance” and “reappearance” could never been mentioned separately. What disappeared might be the old regime and the memory of the past, and what reappeared may be a new regime and multiple functions. Hong Kong was once a time a colonial area. So some of the new buildings could see the mixture of Western and Eastern culture in themselves, which is another form of “reappearance”. And the above is my thought about the article.
Weiyi, KONG 3035770616
Appreciate how you pointed out that the notion of appearance/disappearance cannot be seen separately and always comes in pair. Abbas elaborates on how this appearance/disappearance reflected the politics and power-play between the British empire, Hong Kong, and China as well as how the architecture of the city has been built and rebuilt through time. I think it is also worthwhile to revisit your previous statement about how acculturation is part of the key features of Hong Kong’s identity to reflect upon Abbas’ sub-chapter “What Is Hong Kong Architecture?” (p.79). He demonstrates how the appearance/disappearance manifested in three examples early on (HK Cultural Centre, Flagstaff House, Repulse Bay Hotel), but later question Hong Kong’s architectural identity in this sub-chapter. He pointed out how preservation, gentrification and hyperdensity have played a significant role in shaping Hong Kong architecture.