Hong Kong City
1)This is an old city, because it has a long history. In detail, it has many old buildings that have witnessed this long history. And this is a new city, as many buildings often appear based on the disappearance of some buildings.
Ritz Carlton Hotel was torn down and turned into an office building. Repulse Bay Hotel was also torn down to make way for the building of luxury apartment blocks. It seems that the buildings or we, the people, the decision-makers, often compromise to money. But I think that we should or we have to at least keep something, for us or for future generations, as many buildings are not simply physical objects, they have represented cultural inheritance. Buildings are not inanimate or static. They are “alive” and dynamic.
Also, I realize that one aspect of the dynamism is something mentioned by Bruno— time. Time is running, flowing, while the buildings which can hold time are still there.
2)The tutor has talked about “the Mills”, the heritage of the textile industry of Hong Kong in the 1980s. In the early years, it was incorporated into the preservation project by the government to renovate the interior. Through the exhibition and joint learning program, the public can understand the historical changes of the textile industry in Hong Kong.
I think this is a good example of “preservation”: the government use some money to activate and stimulate this textile factory by renovation instead of destroying. As there are some handmade projects and exports in the Mills, it can generate business or money while the textile culture can be spread.
Jing Yan, 3035759208
Appreciate the attempt to relate both texts. The urban dynamics might as well be represented by what Bruno points out as “daily urban rhythm” (Bruno 2004, p.86). With regards to the market-based development, one of Abbas’ opening statements well summarises it: “[S]uch a skyline not only underlines the domination of the marketplace, … also takes to an extreme Sharon Zukin’s argument that “market” erodes “place” (p.63). Ackbar Abbas situates Hong Kong in a context of the (post-) colonialism history in Hong Kong (see p.65). He elaborates not only on how the city has been built and rebuilt through time but also on how this appearance/disappearance reflected the politics and power-play in Hong Kong. It is worthwhile to also consider this bigger picture when reflecting upon the preservation projects in Hong Kong. What role would architectural preservation plays in the politics of disappearance?