When it comes to preservation work in Hong Kong, what comes to mind might not be a redeveloped and well-organised community. Instead, rooms left vacant, people protesting against urban renewal and absurd conservation ideas are more likely to be seen in Hong Kong. But why is this happening?
Ackbar stated in the text that he believe preservation is selective and tends to exclude the dirt and pain. So it sounds like a good thing, however, in Hong Kong’s situation, we almost appreciate every single moment of the history-no matter good or bad. For example, the walled city. It was one of the messiest and crime-packed societies in human history, we still find the beauty in it and said no to the dismantling project. I think the disappearance of identity and history drive people to hoard old buildings. However, without good strategies in renewal, these architectures will eventually devalue and lost its meaning.
Yeung Hoi Ling 3035686932
To the people who are protesting against urban renewal, there must be logic as to why they are against it. Reflecting upon Abbas’ notion on “appearance/disappearance”, would it has anything to do with the so-called “cultural identity”? You mentioned how people tend “to hoard old buildings”. Then, it would be constructive to reflect upon Abbas’ takes on preservation (for example, the three examples he posed: Hong Kong Cultural Centre, Flagstaff House, Repulse Bay Hotel) as well as his thorough explanation on how hyper dependency has determined Hong Kong’s architecture (see p.70-76, sub-chapter “Spatial Histories”).