I think the concepts of “disappearance” is used quite interestingly in this article, as the author explores how disappearance is tightly tied to culture. However, in my personal opinion, I don’t think such architecture can disappear in the way the author puts it. Even though colonial type architecture has mostly faded, their styles and aspects are part of the foundation of the modern architecture we see today, it can even be argued that the concept of “disappearance” doesn’t exist, rather the architecture simply changed and evolved over time.
Moreover, I disagree with how the author states that the two bank buildings are “impressive architecture”. In my point of view, these buildings are “anonymous” and don’t have any identity of their own, as they are bland and boring due to the number of such high-rise buildings. Rather, I see the houses and places the local people stay in as impressive, as these architecture are changed by those who live in it.
Bertin Tong Ho Yin 3035745130
Appreciate the disagreement. Although, Abbas does not particularly suggest that the architecture is disappearing, but rather questioning the architecture’s cultural identity. He situates Hong Kong in a context of the (post-) colonialism history in Hong Kong (see p.65) and 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 the time.
As for the two banks as an example, you might also want to put it in a certain context. HSBC tower construction was completed in 1985, and the Bank of China Tower in 1990. Both towers were constructed as a redevelopment of previously existing buildings (the old HSBC building and the Murray House) and are among the most structurally advanced buildings (especially back then). The Bank of China Tower was even one of the tallest buildings in the world back then. Putting them on a bigger picture, what could it mean to Hong Kong’s identity?