I appreciate a perception mentioned in the tutorial that “architecture is defined by the people living in it”. For me, architecture and the people, even civilization are always mutually affecting each other and are inseparable. Architecture itself is lifeless, it is people that anthropomorphize every brick and block of a city so they can witness communal history. As Hong Kong be caught between two colonialities and plunges into drastic socio-economic change, a desperate desire emerges to grasp a sense of belonging. Preservation of the past is pacifying solace. That’s why people react strongly to the demolition of Kowloon wall city and replicated the Repulse Bay Hotel.
Architecture, being ensouled by people, is a backbone, a cornerstone that provides Hong Kong unique spatial identity against the torrent of homogenization and the fear of the ‘end of Hong Kong’. Demise of old buildings and the pursuit for economic success are an obvious paradox, but the cultural/ideological value of architecture does not disappear easily, they outlive the passage of time.
Sze Lui 3035799337
People and architecture are definitely inseparable and always in a to-and-fro dialogue. With regard to Ackbar Abbas’ article, it would be constructive to also reflect upon how the people-architecture relationship affects or is affected by the city’s cultural identity. Abbas mentions Hong Kong’s hyper dependency as well as how it is an inter-national city and para-site (see p.72-76). Would be interesting to relate it with the people and their representation in the city. “Consider the representation of Hong Kong as an East-West city, mixing tradition and modernity like memory and desire” (p.71).