'HK Landscape' ↓

If you have ever been to Hong Kong, you may still recall the city’s harbor skyline, especially after dark. Hong Kong’s harbor night view is breathtaking.

But when you see these photos, you will have to sigh.

These are the photos I took when I visited the Central harbor yesterday - only to find the harbor slipping away with a large swathe of land being reclaimed, extending all the way from the Post Office and old star ferry pier in Central. On this reclaimed land will stand the major government offices – the nexus of power. And on this reclaimed land, will stand also the military base of PLA, China’s military.

Until now, I cannot understand why the government offices and PLA base need to stand on this premium land, reclaimed from one of the most treasured assets of this city – the harbor, which has been giving breath and life to the city for over a century.

Seeing these pictures, you cannot help but wonder how much the city has lost for good. The saddening fact is that our government and many people here do not seem to care.

The flame trees are a beautiful sight in Hong Kong, in May and June. The city is a far cry from a green city, but there are beautiful trees around if you look out. 

A characteristic street named Lee Tung Street, which traditionally was filled with wedding card shops, has faded out of Hong Kong’s landscape, due to the “vision” of the Hong Kong government. This government has the “vision” to demolish Star Ferry Pier and Street Market in Central already.

This is what Lee Tung Street, in Wan Chai, also called Wedding Card Street, is like, with all the shops closed down and sealed with labels from the Urban Renewal Authority, waiting to be redeveloped.

In their place will stand four high-rise buildings and one underground carpark, and new shops that together promote the image of the street as a “Wedding City”. That means the old shops here, which are mostly small businesses and family run, have to move to somewhere else to make business, facing high rent and losing old customers.

The Government said it was considering to give priority to these shops to move back to the “Wedding City” and also waive their rent for a short period of time, given that the rent in the “Wedding City” would not be cheap. But giving a short period of rent-exemption to the shops will not be a sustainable way to keep them afloat in the redeveloped area. I wonder how many old shops will choose to move back, and how many are dying already.

No wonder a shop owner in the area is staging a hunger strike to protest the redevelopment plan. Because for people like her, that basically means the loss of her and her family’s livelihood. 

One reason the Government cited for demolition of the area is that the restoration fee will be too high. I wonder if the government ever calculated the social cost of demolishment and redevelopment.

Btw, what is this “Wedding City”? Do people prefer an artificially made Wedding City or a wedding card street that has been part of the city landscape for so many years? I would think few people will prefer the fake over the real. But the government seems to think otherwise.

Hong Kong’s oldest open air market in Graham Street and nearby lanes in Central is set to be demolished, to pave way for the redevelopment of the area. A so called “old street” will be created, in an attempt to represent the old days of the neighborhood. But don’t be fooled. The shops and buildings in the “old street” are mere replicas.

The Hong Kong government, as always, has a logic of its own: the replicas can replace the original, especially the old, which are run down and obsolete. So why not just tear down the old rather than preserve them? Conservation is time and money consuming, anyway.

And do not forget that tearing down the old is a very profitable business for the territory’s powerful quarters- the property developers. With redevelopment of the Graham Street area, a 96,000 sq ft hotel, a 400,000 sq ft commercial building, and two residential buildings accommodating 290 units will be put up here. There is no need to say who benefit most from the redevelopment. Btw, who can afford to live in these two luxury residential buildings in this very prime area of Hong Kong? The wealthy, of course. 

That is how Hong Kong’s general public is being rid of their public space and heritage in a city whose government knows only redevelopment but not conservation.

Besides Graham Street, there is Wedding Card Street in Wan Chai being torn down and re-developed. Before, not long ago, we witnessed the sad fate of Star Ferry pier in Central.

——————

Petition to save the graham street market

The management of the Hong Kong ferry company which runs the ferry route from Central to Tsim Sha Tsui, disclosed that following the demolishment of the Star Ferry pier at the Edinburg Square, Central, and moving of the pier to a more remote location, the traffic has decreased by 15%. The company said it would consider a fare hike in the near future.

It is a vivid demonstration of how wrong the HK government has been in ruthlessly demolishing such a historic and familiar place to HK people. The demolishment has not only destroyed a HK legacy and heritage, but also taken away a transport means for the public who now because of the remote location of the pier, have to forfeit its use.

The ferry ride has been an enjoyable ride for me, taking in the harbor view and landscape at both sides of the harbor. Now, physically, I don’t want to walk that long distance to take the ferry; psychologically, I don’t want to use the new pier either – in silent protest against the ugly development of this city and the indifference of its government.

The old Hong Kong Star Ferry Pier in Central was demolished, after the authoritarian HK Government frowned on public protest and anger and went ahead as planned.

I used the new Star Ferry Pier last week, carrying my 3-year-old niece with me. It was a hell. The way from the bus station on the main road of Central to the pier is SO LONG.. With the baby in my arms, it was an uphill battle to walk the minimum 15-min passage to the pier. Anger fired up inside me. What the hell is this demolition for? Not to mention keeping history and collective memory, the simple fact is, the demolition is not in the interest of the residents of the city. The new pier in Central is so hard to reach.

With a nice location, historic value and collective memory, the old pier just disappeared like that, and a fake-Victoria style building as the new pier, stands somewhere, out of touch with people. Just like the government of this city.

Hong Kong Star Ferry along with its clocktower was dismantled eventually, despite the last-ditch efforts and protests of civil groups.

It was heart wrenching to see the clock tower perched atop the pier being torn down.

When I was a high school student, the Hong Kong City Hall, which is situated next to the pier, was the cultural hub and housed the largest public library then in Hong Kong. I passed by the pier a lot, as a result, on the way to the library or to see arts performance.

As time goes by, Cultural Centre at Tsim Sha Tsui becomes the cultural hub, along with the Arts Museum, Space Museum there. I used to take the star ferry from Central to arrive at the Cultural Centre and the Tsim Sha Tsui area.

The star ferry at Central was part of my fond memories of my growing up and living in Hong Kong in general.

Now the pier is gone. Many things surrounding its being torn down make me fume.

First of all, the star ferry company said that the clocktower at the ferry must be demolished because it could not find a company able to replace its parts. A big lie.

According to a report from South China Morning Post, Melvyn Lee, a director of Thwaites and Reed, the clock-making company that maintains London’s Big Ben, admits that he can help. The British company restores clocks all over the world - in Australia, the United States, India and former British colonies that have English clocks. And Mr Lee even promised to visit Hong Kong and help save the clock.

Second, shouldn’t those decision makers in the Hong Kong Office of Antiquities and Monuments be held accountable for the demolition of the pier? They are the ones being put in charge of protecting Hong Kong’s monuments. The irony is that these people only started to voice out their opinion when the demolition work was already underway. What is their brilliant opinion? The government should try to move part of demolished bricks and walls to another site to recover the clocktower.

If the policy-decision makers in the Office of Antiquities and Monuments can come up with this brilliant idea, what hope can I still hold out for the preservation of Hong Kong’s past and history? Their ideas echo those of the government who said that it will recruit a consultancy firm (yes, when there is problem, the Hong Kong government always has one way to deal with it - pay a huge sum of money to recruit a consultancy firm to conduct research) and see how the look of the old pier can be incorporated into the new pier. And may I mind you that the government said this when it was faced with mounting pressures to stop demolition, so you can regard this as kind of concession from the government.

I reckon that it is not difficult to come to grasps with the idea that when a monument or historic spot be demolished or removed, it is doomed, completely. The replica of it at somewhere else, or in a museum, is a sign of history, but not history itself, because it is no longer part of people’s life, their collective memory and history. The replica will attract tourists, but not the people living in this territory.

The idea is easy to grasp, but it seems that those decision makers fail to see it.