Urbanization: Infrastructure in Kennedy Town

URBANIZATION:

KENNEDY TOWN

堅尼 地城

ARCH2058 Modern Architecture ASSIGNMENT 3: GUIDEBOOK

| Fall 2021

Urbanization: Infrastructure in Kennedy Town Valdy Indrawan (3035742499) Yeung Ho Pak (3035796646) Sherman Lo Shui Fung (3035582966)

Urbanization In the 1950s, Kennedy Town was a backwater industrial area where unpleasant facilities and factories dominated the area. Along with the mass influx of Chinese refugees, and the urbanization that came with Hong Kong’s economic boom, the area has slowly transitioned into an urbanized area consisting mainly out of the middle-class residential area that we see today. This guide explores Kennedy Town through 4 different infrastructure and architecture in historical order, each of them representing a certain time period showing the transition in stages of urbanization in the area.

1. Kennedy Town KaiFong Welfare Association Kennedy Town Kai-Fong Welfare Association is one of the earliest established Kai-Fong welfare association.

The second floor of the building serves as an elderly centre and the office of the association is located on the ground floor. With the renewal of the NationalistCommunist Civil War in 1949, there is a sudden influx of refugees to Kennedy Town. As some of the refugees did not have any connections or resources in Hong Kong, they remained homeless and dwelled within air raid shelters and on the streets of Kennedy Town. The government officials who are incapable of taking care of the growing homeless population then facilitated the establishment of the Kai-Fong association in the 1950s, which supported the poor and homeless.

The association held campaigns to distribute essentials such as food and blankets to the public, free educations and medical consultations were also given to the public. With the industrialisation-based economic restructure, the association also provided vocational training to allow the public to adapt and seek employment. Currently, the association remains active, providing medical and elderly care to the community.

Annex B Layout Plan of Sai Wan Estate

2. Sai Wan Estate Sai Wan Estate is the third public housing estate in Hong Kong. Completed in 1958, the housing estate was located between Cadogan Street and Ka Wai Man Road. Sai Wan Estate consists of 5 buildings, each with different heights. Corridors of 4 of the buildings connects to each other, while the East Terrace stands individually.

Sai Wan Estate was built to providing housing units to keep up with the urgent public demand due to the influx of Chinese refugees at the time. The slope which the estate sits on was originally a settlement for refugees who fled from China. When the area was reclaimed by the government to develop the housing, Sai Wan Estate replaced the ad-hoc wooden houses in the area.

As one of the first public housing estate, Sai Wan Estate marks the beginning of Kennedy Town’s urbanisation.

Following Sai Wan Estate, other public housing estates and private residential buildings were constructed, such as Kwun Lung Lau (1967) and On Fat Building (1973), shaping the modern landscape of the area.

3. Smithfield Municipal Service Building Housing a marketplace, library, gymnasium, and other public facilities, the Smithfield Municipal Building was built to serve multiple key community functions within one building. In 1995, the complex replaced the Smithfield Temporary Garden (built in 1986) - the same site which previously functions as a cattle depot (Lot A) - a redevelopment in conjunction with other past developments around the area, namely the conversion of the southern part (Lot B) of the cattle depot into a public swimming pool (now the MTR Station Exit A), signifying the transition of Kennedy Town from an underdeveloped and impoverished town to a developed residential area.

The building was also an attempt to remove urban informalities and relocate them into organised infrastructures as a part of Kennedy Town’s urbanization, where the former markets and illegal hawkers around the area were relocated into the building.

4. Cadogan Street Temporary Garden Previously the Kennedy Town Wholesale Market, the site has been rebuilt into Cadogan Street Temporary Garden, serving as a green recreational space for the residents in the area.

With the urbanisation of Kennedy Town, factories around the market have been redeveloped into residential buildings, creating a demand to improve the area and provide it with recreational and green spaces, while removing the undesirable facilities, such as the incinerator next to the market, and the wholesale market itself. To provide recreational spaces for the public, the market was decommissioned and later converted to the Cadogan street Temporary Garden in 1999. Now, only one wing of the original wholesale market’s structure remains, with it partially renovated and used as a covered area for the park, leaving other parts of the structure unused and abandoned.

Public Housing: Matter of Control and Formalisation Sherman Shiu Fung, Lo

Once the biggest housing programme in the world, public housing in Hong Kong was publicised as a swift and proactive response by the colonial government,1 which provided housing for the miserable squatters and eliminated squatter settlements.2 This essay wishes to discuss the other side of this narrative, of how public housing was used as a tool by the government to formalise the Chinese way of living and control Hong Kong’s land and its developments.

Squatter Settlements before Public Housing Estates The analysis of Hong Kong public housing must start from the history of squatter settlements. In the post-war period when the colonial government has regained control of Hong Kong, pre-war residents and Chinese immigrants fleeing from Communist China arrived in Hong Kong,3 inflating the population by 4 times between 1945 to 1950.4 Migrants cramped into tenement buildings until they were five times over

its capacity, others sought refuge in air raid shelters, streets, or built squatter homes on undeveloped land using boulders and salvaged scraps such as lumber, corrugated iron and sacking to build their settlement.5 Squatter homes overcrowded the hillsides of Hong Kong and coalesced into villages.6 Though the government permitted squatters settlements in specific areas, the formation and expansion of squatter settlements were deemed problematic. To the government, these settlements were “towns without form or face, unsightly, unhygienic communities”.7 They also permanently occupied developable space,8 and were deemed unpredictable and uncontrollable, a development that “spread slowly and inexorably like a rash”.9 The ad-hoc, densely built settlements with poor ventilation created threats to public health, caused large fires in settlement areas and barred land development.10 To control and stop these informal developments, colonial officials focused on repatriation efforts,11 prompting “Chinese organisations themselves to urge their less fortunate compatriots to return to their hometown”, and offered payment to squatters who were willing to return to mainland China if they are unable to find a job.12 When mass immigration persisted, the government controlled the development

and spread of squatters mainly through expulsion, demolishment, and relocation.13 Adequate supply of public housing nor land for property development were not prioritized until pressure came from the Colonial Office in 1953, when the home government pledged to resolve the housing and squatter problems in the wake of the Shek Kip Mei fire.14 Since then, public housing has become the primary focus of Hong Kong’s development. Though the public housing system undeniably improved the quality of life of the squatters by offering affordable housing units with safer and more hygienic living spaces than squatter homes, public housing estates also allowed the colonial government to gain better control of Hong Kong’s masses and its development through the housing’s design, management, and location.15 Public housing for clearer racial segregation The creation of public housing estates may have helped the government further segregate Hong Kong into European areas and Chinese areas. While the European settlers did not explicitly discriminate against their Chinese counterparts, the impression they had of Chinese people were “irrational, insanitary, and uncivilized”.16 Since the comfort and health Europeans wanted in their neighbourhood were

different from those in Chinese neighbourhoods, an ethnic segregation of buildings and regions for the Europeans and Chinese was inevitable.17 Compared to the European neighbourhood in the midlevels where the air is cleaner and further away from Chinese dwellings,18 squatters are usually resettled to land that are more peripheral and less valuable than where they would have previously resided in.19 Sai Wan Estate as a good case in point, was home to some squatters from Tai Ping Shan and Sai Ying Pun as well as newly arrived refugees, after the land they originally dwelled in were developed into a residential area (High Street assigned exclusively to the Europeans and First, Second, and Third Street assigned to the Chinese).20 Former squatters who occupied upper Sai Ying Pun with better air quality and a more comfortable environment, either moved into tenement buildings in the streets below, or to Kennedy Town, further from the mid-levels and closer to the edgy of Victorian city.21 The foul smell from the nearby Smithfield Slaughterhouse and incinerator would be a major inconvenience for residents in Sai Wan Estate,22 as well as problems of humidity from the ocean and hygiene from the slaughterhouse and cattle depot.23 The construction of Sai Wan Estate allowed the government to redirect Chinese refugees and squatters to Kennedy Town, consequently shaping the area’s identity as a working-

class Chinese neighbourhood.

Removal of squatters for land development Public housing estate allowed the government to regain control of crown land used as squatter settlements for land development. As mentioned above, squatters occupied precious developable space24, and these settlements provided neither quality housing nor economic viability. For the government, it is possible to better utilise such spaces, but they are only possible with the resettlement and removal of squatter settlements. In A City Mismanaged: Hong Kong’s Struggle for Survival, Goodstadt argues that the colonial government was able to clear squatter areas to allow for land development, yet the “actual living standards” in public housing provided by the government used to resettle squatters were in fact “still barely adequate”.25 The vertical development, and the compact and efficient designs of public housings allowed the displacement of squatters through a compression of large amounts of people into these housing estates, freeing up much more land that squatters would have otherwise occupied.26 Referencing Sai Wan Estate, provided 638 units of 3 different unit types, catered to housing families of 5, 7 and 10, and can supply on average 3.3m² of living space per-person within its five

wings.27 The 4500 residents, if all dwelled in wooden huts of squatter settlements, would have otherwise taken up more than 1.5 hectares of land. By resettling refugees and squatters to public housing designed with efficiency in mind, land which the government aimed to increase its value could be cleared up and made available for development.

Low-cost intervention for high return economy To attract foreign capital investment, the colonial government needed not only economic stability and industrial development, but also hard-working and thriving local communities as its labour power.28 This meant that the colonial government needed a lowcost intervention to facilitate the reproduction of its labour force, the backbone of 1950s Hong Kong’s manufacture and industrial based economy. Such intervention should also be beneficial to the formation of a communities.29 As a state intervention to reproduce labour force at a low cost, the first few generations of public housing were able to provide small residential units with the minimum living standard at a relatively low cost.30 These units provided citizens with a formalized way of living, the regularity and order of public housing a sharp contrast to the organic formations and “chaos” in squatter settlements.31 In the case of Sai Wan Estate,

situated on a rocky slope, 5 wings were built over the existing terrain to avoid the expensive construction cost needed to flatten the slope,32 while the entrances, circulation cores, and estate facilities were placed at the intersections between blocks. Designed to be efficient and function, back-to-back residential units are connected through long corridors, built by employing cost-efficient construction methods. Residential units of the estate provided kitchen, bathrooms, basic air, and light ventilation, and small but sufficient living spaces. While issues of humidity and vermin persisted in the estate,33 the estate still provided hygienic and safe living conditions when compared to the squatter areas. Most of these relatively safe and healthy residents with little worry about housing would then be able to devote to working,34 seeking employment in nearby factories and becoming a part of Hong Kong’s labour force.

In addition, Sai Wan Estate, similar to many public housings built between 1950 and 1970, was deliberately designed to facilitate community engagement, making use of long corridors not simply for circulation but also for socialising.35 Specific to Sai Wan Estate due to its design and landscape which the landscape is built on, unsheltered terraces along the hillsides and intersections points of adjacent wings also act as open spaces for gathering. Spaces for kindergartens, shop

spaces, welfare associations and other facilities were also designed to allow residents to stay within the vicinity of the estates for their daily activities.36 These Public Housing Estates facilitated community engagement, through instilling a sense of community,37 and belonging in the masses, in turn creating hardworking and thriving local communities, one of the key factors that led to Hong Kong’s economic development.38 Impact of Sai Wan Estate on Kennedy Town Sai Wan Estate. While public housings such as Kwun Lung Lau and private residential buildings that replaced factories were equally crucial in Kennedy Town’s gradual transformation from industrial to residential,39 Sai Wan Estate also played a role in the neighbourhood’s development. As the first formalized public housing next to factories and facilities in Kennedy Town,40 it catalysed urban development in the area, prompting the relocation of undesirable facilities (the slaughterhouse, cattle depot and incinerator etc.) in the late 1980s.

Conclusion This paper attempted to argue that the public housing system, as a state intervention, offered the government a viable means to regain control of encroached space,

and aided efforts to separate the city into areas and districts with people of different backgrounds, to different purposes as well as to foster Hong Kong’s economic development. While the system was unable fully eliminate squatter settlements until the 1980s (an argument can be made that that the problems of squatters and Hong Kong’s poor was never resolved, merely hidden from the public by moving them into housings or residential buildings)41 public housings, as a tool of systemic control, is nevertheless a contributing factor in shaping Hong Kong to be the metropolis it is today.

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

James Fellows, The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 1945-1984. (Lingnan University, Hong Kong. 2016), 86.

Building Homes for Hong Kong’s Millions : The Story of Resettlement.

Hong Kong. (Govt. Printer, 1963), 5-6.

Alan Smart and Josephine Smart. Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong. (International Sociology), 2017, 4.

Ibid, 4.

Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints. Report of the Investigation on Overcrowding Relief in Public Housing. (Hong Kong: Govt. Printer. 1995), 11.

Building Homes for Hong Kong’s Millions : The Story of Resettlement.

Hong Kong, 4.

Ibid, 4.

Smart, Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong, 444.

Building Homes for Hong Kong’s Millions : The Story of Resettlement.

Hong Kong, 4.

Carl T. Smith, A Sense of History: Studies in the Social and Urban History of Hong Kong; (Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company), 1995.

Fellows, The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 19451984, 84 Smith, A Sense of History: Studies in the Social and Urban History of Hong Kong, 209-210.

Ibid, 209-210.

Alan Smart, The Shek Kip Mei Myth: Squatters, Fires and Colonial Rule in Hong Kong, 1950-1963. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP, 2006), 53-54.

Smart, Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong, 442-447.

Daniel McCoy, From Cyberpunk to Cramped Dweller: The Peculiar History of Hong Kong ‘Heterotopias’. (Northern Illinois University, 2021), 201.

Ibid, 202.

Timothy K Choy, Ecologies of Comparison : An Ethnography of Endangerment in Hong Kong. (Duke UP, 2011), 44.

Daniel McCoy, From Cyberpunk to Cramped Dweller: The Peculiar History of Hong Kong ‘Heterotopias’, 201.

Ibid, 202-203.

Ibid, 203. 謝子英, 冼昭行, 西環邨 : 風雨不動安如山, (香港: 三聯書店(香港)有限公司, 2021), 34-35.

23. “Sai Wan Memories: Stories of Hong Kong’s Second Oldest Public Housing Estate,” (iDiscover, accessed September 2021), https://i-discoverasia.com/sai-wan-estate-hong-kong 24. Smart, Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong, 444.

25. Goodstadt, Leo F. A City Mismanaged: Hong Kong’s Struggle for Survival. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP, 2018), 63.

26. Smart, Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong, 444.

27. Charlie Q. L Xue, Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015, (Singapore: Springer Singapore Pte. Limited. 2016),25-26.

28. Fellows, The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 19451984, 87.

29. Ibid, 87 30. Daniel McCoy, From Cyberpunk to Cramped Dweller: The Peculiar History of Hong Kong ‘Heterotopias’,213.

31. Fellows, The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 19451984, 18.

32. 謝子英, 冼昭行, 西環邨 : 風雨不動安如山, 95.

33. Ibid, 45.

34. Fellows, The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 19451984, 88.

35. Charlie Q. L Xue, Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015, (Singapore: Springer Singapore Pte. Limited. 2016),33.

36. Smart, Alan. The Shek Kip Mei Myth: Squatters, Fires and Colonial Rule in Hong Kong, 1950-1963, 142.

37. Fellows, The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 19451984, 87.

38. Ibid, 87.

39. “My 20 years in Kennedy Town, a Hong Kong dump turned destination,” (South China Morning Post, last modified June 2016).

40. 謝子英, 冼昭行, 西環邨 : 風雨不動安如山, 3.

41. Goodstadt, Leo F. A City Mismanaged: Hong Kong’s Struggle for Survival. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP, 2018), 112.

Smithfield Municipal Services Building: Unveiling Urbanization in Kennedy Town Valdy Indrawan

The rapid urbanization of Hong Kong in the past resulted in one of the most dynamic transformations of communities—and along with it, the interaction between them and the ever-morphing space. The history of Kennedy Town’s development from a ‘backyard’ area into an urbanized area with the relatively newly built MTR illustrates this phenomenon.

One way of tracking these shifts of the “…socio-spatial and political governance…” is by scrutinizing public buildings, presenting themselves as various forms of infrastructure which impelled and encapsulated these changes.1 From 173 selected public building projects built from 1955 to 2011, 35,2% of them were consisted out of municipal services buildings & markets,2

making it the second most common typology of public buildings built in Hong Kong after hospitals.

In light of this, Smithfield Municipal Services Building become an exemplary3 public building—which at the time generally adopted modernist approaches—to reveal the history and progression of how urbanization transformed Kennedy Town and its residents. This essay is a short investigation of how Smithfield Municipal Services Building as one of the agents of urbanization—imbued with modernist ideas—affects the community in Kennedy Town.

A Brief History: Smithfield A cattle depot and a slaughterhouse historically took place in Smithfield,4 a street now occupied by residential buildings and commercial areas (which are mostly ground-level shops), while the junction of Smithfield and Belcher’s Street was congested with shops and illegal hawkers.5 After the relocation of the abattoir to Cadogan Street in 1968 and the southern side of the cattle depot conversion into a public swimming pool (now the MTR Station Exit A), the cattle depot was closed in 1986. The site would then be developed into the Smithfield Temporary Garden, which is where the current Smithfield Municipal Services Building (1995) is situated.6 What these developments of this building’s site in Kennedy Town exemplify not only the changes in the function of the area but also the shift in

the population’s need,7 especially with the increasing number of populations coming into Kennedy Town.

More than that it also introduces new activities and facilities typical in an urbanized city such as library and sports center (along with the swimming pool beside the complex), slowly integrating them into the everyday life of the original locals in Kennedy Town.

A Typology: Municipal Services Building Aimed to accommodate multiple community functions, Smithfield Municipal Services Building is an eightstory multi-purpose building,8 resulting in the vertical amalgamation of different programs and functions. The functions of each floor starting from the basement to the seventh floor are as follows (see figure 1): loading/ unloading bay, market (ground and first floor), cooked food center, library, games room & rest lounge, and squash courts & games room occupying the last two floors.9 Although the UC Aberdeen Complex pioneered the usage of vertical zoning to resolve the complex program requirement,10 the maze-like interior space and lack of sensitivity to the context made it unsuitable as a prototype for the typology.11 It would later be the Lockhart Road Municipal Services Building in Wan Chai which was built in 1985 that provided itself as a model for the construction of future municipal services building—market on the first four floors, then the library, and on top is the indoor basketball court—

similar to the program in Smithfield Municipal Services Building with slight alterations.12 Consequently, a standard formula was made into a requirement for every building of this typology by the Urban Council, resulting in the creation of standardized architecture for public buildings.

Figure 1: Cross-section of Proposed UC Smithfield Complex.

Source: Kwok, Remodelling U.C. Complex

A Communal Machine At the time, public buildings such as hospitals and municipal services buildings generally have to follow the standardized guidelines and requirements set out

by the government,13 which were usually designed with ‘modernist’ attitudes.14 Smithfield Municipal Services Building—its cubic form, accompanied by large openings on two sides of the building as the entrance and the employment of numerous large glasses as windows to provide visual connections to Smithfield Street15—exemplifies the standardized modern public buildings by virtue of its formal elements. With the coalescence of different functions in one enormous cubic volume, the Smithfield Municipal Services Building could then be perceived as a gigantic machine that keeps the community in Kennedy Town running—a trace of utilitarian and functionalist approach—while also acting as the nexus for the community within such a compact space.

However, what made this building imbued with modernist ideas did not stem from a certain ideology or mere stylistic preference, but rather stimulated by the practical demands of the ever-existing socio-spatial context of Hong Kong: land scarcity. Ng describes that in a very dense built environment, there is an increasing urgency of perceptive usage of spaces, generating unique features of public buildings in Hong Kong.16 Traits of municipal services building being “…multiuse, multi-value, and multi-level.”—in which modernist principles became the economical device through its prioritization on functional value17—was primarily

intended to optimally use the minimum space with great adaptability to the specific circumstances and transformations in Hong Kong.18 ‘Absorbing’ Urban Informalities Smithfield Municipal Services Building as one of the standardized modernist buildings does not eradicate the past local features, but rather embraces them.

Here, the permeating modernism from the west under the context of urbanization was acclimated to the local circumstances.19 With the growth of population as the result of urbanization in Kennedy Town, the informal street markets and hawkers became a public nuisance in terms of hygiene and traffic, calling for a conclusive solution. There are two methods of formalizing these urban informalities: eradication and regularization—the latter is the only suggested method (implementation of rules and regulations upon the informal sector).20 To formalize most street markets and hawkers spread around Hong Kong, the government decided to integrate them into public buildings.21 Municipal services buildings, with their flexibility as multi-purpose buildings, accommodate the various activities that had taken place along the streets of Hong Kong, including street markets and illegal hawkers.22 Smithfield Municipal Services Building evidenced this regularization, as the stalls in the market and cooked food center consisted out of the former

street markets and illegal hawkers which originally took place along the streets in Kennedy Town.23 It thus adds to this notion of municipal services building as not only acting as the center of the community, but also ‘absorbing’ the urban informalities around the localities while still allowing them to operate within the urban environment—modernizing them along the way to a certain extent.

Mutating Community as a Result of Gentrification While the Smithfield Market within the Smithfield Municipal Services Building is still operating as of now, with the constant transformation of the community in Kennedy Town, some wonder what the future might hold for them. In Cities in Asia by and for the People, a response from a Filipina housekeeper to the question of what would happen if Smithfield Market got shut down by the government could represent this concern.

She expressed that until a change of neighborhood happens, which causes the closing down of the Central Market, it would be unlikely for the Smithfield Market to be shut down, as it is needed by the low-income and middle-class families there.24 What was not realized in this interview from 2012 is that the Smithfield Municipal Services Building itself indicates the development of Kennedy Town’s urbanization, which would then lead to the construction of the Kennedy Town MTR Station in 2014 as an urban development—gentrifying the area

by attracting investors and high-income population.

Relating it back to the closing of Central Market, the old wet market was reopened recently on August 23, 2021, as a revitalization project.25 Yet, it is currently rented by high-end stores and fine dining restaurants with no remains of local markets originally residing in the building.26 Although it could not be concluded that the Smithfield Market would be replaced by new restaurants and bars, as it is still bustling with residents, the current rapid gentrification of Kennedy Town might allude to similar progression considering its proximity to the exit of the MTR station. Especially so when the market is isolated from other functions in the building.27 It thus begs the question of whether the Smithfield Municipal Services Building serves to accommodate the local community there, or rather just acts as a temporary container of the urban informality in favor of the ever-transforming demographic and urban fabric in Kennedy Town—slowly pushing away the local markets and the low middle-class residents.

Conclusion This essay unveiled the transformation of Kennedy Town and its neighborhood’s identity through investigating Smithfield Municipal Services Building as a multi-purpose communal hub to accommodate the changing need of Kennedy Town and formalize urban

informalities in the context of urbanization. With the pervasive gentrification in Kennedy Town, there is an existing risk of Smithfield being extensively overhauled, including the Smithfield Market in the municipal building with its trace of the local community. Whether this conjecture is considered as a positive or negative development requires further discussion. In either case, the Smithfield Municipal Services Building could be seen as a ‘machine’ that encapsulate, accommodate, and transition the dynamics of urbanization in Kennedy Town.

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Jean-Paul D. Addie, Michael R. Glass, and Jen Nelles, “Regionalizing the Infrastructure Turn: A Research Agenda,” Regional Studies, Regional Science 7, no. 1 (2019): pp. 10-26, https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2 019.1701543, 16.

The first few floors of most municipal services building are usually composed of markets, therefore the naming of both as one categorization.

See Charlie Q.L. Xue, Ka Chuen Hui, and Peng Zang, “Public Buildings in Hong Kong: A Short Account of Evolution since the 1960s,” Habitat International 38 (2013): pp. 57-69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.09.005, 59.

It is argued that municipal services building is more representative than hospital in this case, as hospital only has one (although primary) community function compared to the multi-purpose function of the former typology.

Ka-chun, Peter Kwok, “Remodelling U.C. Complex in Kennedy Town,” March 1995, 13, https://doi.org/10.5353/th_b3198243.

Ibid., 14.

Ibid., 12-13.

Kwok, “Remodelling U.C. Complex,” 17.

See Pan-hang Marco Chan (University of Hong Kong, 1997), 27. The municipal services building used to be referred as Urban Council Smithfield Complex as it was provided by Urban Council, thus the reference of the name as UC Complex in Peter, UC Complex.

Ibid.

Kwok, “Remodelling U.C. Complex,” 32 Chan (University of Hong Kong, 1997), 26.

Charlie Q.L. Xue, Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015: From Colonial to Global (Hong Kong: Springer, 2018), 203.

Addie, Glass, and Nelles, “Public Buildings in Hong Kong,” 59.

Ibid.

Chan (University of Hong Kong, 1997), 28.

Ng, A., “Adding value to public buildings and public places,” Post 97 public architecture in Hong Kong (2006): 12-15, referenced in Addie, Glass, and Nelles, “Public Buildings in Hong Kong,” 57-58.

See Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture a Critical History (London: Thames & Hudson, 2020). This understanding is a recurring notion in many critical writings of Modern Architecture.

Addie, Glass, and Nelles, “Public Buildings in Hong Kong,” 58.

19. Ibid, 69.

20. Alan Smart and Josephine Smart, “Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong,” International Sociology 32, no. 4 (April 2017): pp.

437-453, https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580917701603, 440.

21. Maurizio Marinelli, “From Street Hawkers to Public Markets,” Cities in Asia by and for the People, 2018, pp. 229-258, https://doi.org/10.2307/j. ctv7xbs0b.12, 232.

22. Barrie Shelton, Justyna Karakiewicz, and Thomas Kvan, The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric (Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2015), 150.

23. Ibid, 151.

24. Marinelli, “From Street Hawkers to Public Markets,” 250.

25. Candice Chau, “Hong Kong’s Central Market Comes Back to Life but Conservationist Takes Issue with ‘Gentrification’,” Hong Kong Free Press HKFP, August 27, 2021, https://hongkongfp.com/2021/08/26/hongkongs-central-market-comes-back-to-life-but-conservationist-takes-issue-with-gentrification/.

26. Ibid.

27. See Chan (University of Hong Kong, 1997), 28. Although this feature might be based on practical reason (hygiene, smells, sound, circulation), it implies the possibility of refurbishing the market without significant repercussions to the other community functions.

From Temporary to Permanent Public Spaces – the Upsidedown Process of Urbanization Ho Pak, Yeung

Introduction Starting from the late 20th century, it has become increasingly clear that cities are not designed and constructed in the same sense of permanency: the phenomenon is even apparent through viewing constructions in earlier phases of development.1 Obsolete buildings are demolished only a few decades after, to give way to a newer development plan.2 Even though the materials and structure are more enduring, the life expectancy of buildings has become shorter compared to the past. Durmisevic and Yeang (2009) have argued that buildings with a life expectancy of 70 to 100 years only have an age of around 15 years,

after then being demolished to give way for new construction.3 As such, the city is no longer bounded with time; it is a “four-dimensional city”.4 With the paradigm shift of interpretation of the design of cities, we are experiencing “liquid modernity”.5 This essay explores the transformation from temporary to permanent in the process of urbanisation – using the lens of temporary public spaces (TPS) situated in Kennedy Town – and evaluates the upside-down process of urban planning. To achieve this, an overview of temporary projects and the relationship between TPS and urbanisation are provided. Two sites of TPS are then compared, namely Cadogan Street Temporary Garden and Smithfield Temporary Garden, aiming to analyse the reason for the conversion from temporary to permanent. The subsequent discussion provides further insights into the temporary and permanent change in urban development.

Overview of TPS and Relationship between Urbanisation and TPS TPS are consciously “planned from the outset to be impermanent”.6 They are usually planned with an exit or deconstruction strategy, allowing smooth transition and redevelopment in the site.7 The temporariness of these public spaces has called for a “lighter, quicker, cheaper” approach in construction.8 These spaces fully utilise the scarce land resource in urban areas,

while settling the need of public enjoyment without the need for maintenance, resulting in cost reduction in construction and redevelopment, it was considered as “a quite successful intervention” in the eye of the capitalist.9 Since TPS are not fixed in space and function while having the capability of transforming in form and function of planned spaces,10 TPS act as a transition in the process of urbanisation. The flexibility of TPS also facilitates urban development, while meeting the social needs of the community.11 Background of Kennedy Town Kennedy Town is situated in the north-western part of Hong Kong Island. Due to its distance from major commercial cores such as Central and Admiralty, Kennedy Town is designated as the obnoxious trade area in the region,12 containing abhor facilities namely slaughterhouses, cattle depots, incinerator, silk and rope factories, dead house, fish market and vegetable market (See figure 1 and figure 2).

Figure 1. Kennedy Town Map in 1889

Figure 2. Kennedy Town Map in 1924

With the influx of Chinese refugees after the renewal of the Nationalist-Communist Civil War in 1949, the government has decided to rezone part of the district as a residential area to settle the housing problem, leading to the construction of Sai Wan Estate, Kwun Lung Lau, and other residential buildings.13 As a consequence of the increase in the urban population

in Kennedy Town, offensive trades were relocated and removed from the region in the late 1980s.14 As so, the Cattle Depot located in Smithfield Road and Vegetable Wholesale Market located in Cadogan Street are converted to temporary gardens,15 before further developing into Urban Council Market Complex (UC Complex) and residential buildings.

Comparison – the Reason for Becoming Permanent The following introduces two TPS in Kennedy Town, including Cadogan Street Temporary Garden and Smithfield Temporary Garden. By comparing both projects, the reason why temporary projects are kept temporary or made permanent can be found.

The first site that is looked into is the Smithfield Temporary Garden. Smithfield Temporary Garden was built after the closing of Cattle Depot in 1986.

Remaining the land use for government, institution, or community, the government has proposed to develop the site as UC Complex to formalise the district by concentrating markets into the building.16 As such, the temporary Garden was demolished, then further converted into UC Complex in 1994.

Another site is the Cadogan Street Temporary Garden. After the closing of the Vegetable Wholesale Market in 1990, the site was used as a temporary

car park from 1994 to 1998, then further converted into Cadogan Street Temporary Garden in 1999.17 The site has been zoned as “Residential (Group A)” since the construction of a temporary garden.18 In 2016, the Hong Kong government submitted a proposal for the redevelopment of Kennedy Town, suggesting the demolishing of Cadogan Street Temporary Garden and redeveloping it into private housings.19 After the proposal has been released, it has received strong opposition from residents.

Several petitions were launched over two years.

After two years of fighting, the Town Planning Board had rejected the proposal from the government.20 The Town Planning has also rezoned the site of Cadogan Street Temporary Garden as “Open Space”, serving as recreational space in the community.21 Scrutinizing the transformation of Cadogan Street Temporary Garden from temporary to permanent, the success of transition can be attributed to the insufficient open space for the public. Tracing back to 2016, there are no open spaces in Kennedy Town. Belcher Bay Park (2019) and Ka Wai Man Road Garden (2018) are only constructed in recent years and there are only 0.77 m2 of public spaces per resident in Kennedy Town, which is much lower than the suggested area of 2m2 per person by the government.22 To exacerbate things, the construction of residential buildings will further congest

the limited open spaces. Therefore, the proposal of redeveloping Cadogan Street Temporary Garden has created strong opposition among residents.

However, the abovementioned cannot account for the difference between the two cases. Another cause for the different destinations as TPS may be the compensation to the public. Both cases are the redevelopment of TPS, however, both cases have different land use, causing different inclusiveness to surrounding residents. Redevelopment in Smithfield has directly compensated the use of land to the public.

UC Complex is planned for the public, containing markets, a gymnasium, and a library.23 Other than providing public services, it also formalises the informalities in the community. For instance, the cattle depot along Forbes Street are relocated into UC Complex.24 Oppositely, the redevelopment in Cadogan Street is a form of “privatisation of public space”, leading to the “lack of connection to the reality and diversity of the local environment.”25 Although both cases are situated at different times, under two systems of governance, different cultures of political participation, while having different existing times, I am suggesting an explanation to the different destinations of temporary spaces on a macroscale.

More fieldwork can be done to have a deeper analysis

of the topic.

Evaluate the Upside-down Process of Urbanisation The process of transforming temporary projects into permanent ones is a reversed and controversial way of planning.26 The traditional way of planning is often “planned urbanisation” – urbanisation with an advanced plan.27 Planned urbanisation contributes to the creating of value, sustainable growth, productivity, and economies of scale, creating prosperity for the urban population.28 Someone has argued that unplanned urbanisation will result in a congested, informal, inefficient, violent, and segregated living environment.29 However, I contend that this upside-down process of urban development has its own benefit. Exploring the methodology of planned urbanisation, someone has argued that the utopian view of modernism may cause failure with the mindset of planned urbanisation.30 A typical example to illustrate this is Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh. The project of Chandigarh has received several criticisms regarding the impractical relation of spaces.31 At the level of daily life, these critics argue that such “sacred planning concepts as zoning and singleuse of neighbourhoods produce buildings and living spaces which are profoundly alienating.”32 The spaces are clearly defined yet the “from-above” planning from Le Corbusier has appeared to be unsuccessful

in predicting the complexity of human’s behaviour.

Opposingly, through the mean of this upside-down process of planning, we are focusing on the people and the actual users of the space.33 This strategy of urbanisation allows the occurrence of temporary appropriation – “the temporary act in which people use public spaces to carry out individual or collective activities other than the purpose that the space was originally designed for.”34 Instead of viewing urbanisation with predictions and judgements, we are seeing the needs and behavioural patterns of the actual users.35 The space will outline the guidelines for the structure of buildings and planning.36 In this sense, spaces are “created proactively, not by means of infill development”.37 As a result, by the process of humanisation of space, we are transforming spaces from a temporary state to a permanent state.38 In light of this, the temporariness of TPS has come into significance. TPS may act as the testing ground of urbanisation, facilitating the “mood of unfolding experimentation, learning, and play often absent from formal projects”.39 The amorphous and transient nature of temporary projects could also be a useful tool for fighting hegemonic logics that co-opt more permanent movements.

Conclusion I have opened the paper with an overview of TPS and analysed the relationship between urbanisation and TPS. In contributing to the analysis, the comparison between Cadogan Street Temporary Garden and Smithfield Temporary Garden suggests the different destinations of two TPS can be accounted for by the compensation to the public. Then, the transition of longevity has been pushed forward, and the upsidedown process of urbanisation has been evaluated. After analysing the planned urbanisation - the opposing urban development strategy, I have contended that this mindset of urbanisation can bring the focus to actual users and the practicality of space. In this sense, TPS can act as the testing ground of urbanisation, rethinking the planning of the cities.

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Philip Crowther, “Temporary Public Spaces: A Technological Paradigm,” The Journal of Public Space 1, no. 1 (2016): pp. 63-74, https://doi. org/10.5204/jps.v1i1.11, 64.

Ibid.

Elma Durmisevic and Ken Yeang, “Designing for Disassembly (DFD),” Architectural Design 79, no. 6 (2009): pp. 134-137, https://doi. org/10.1002/ad.994, 134.

Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams, The Temporary City (London: Routledge, 2012), 19.

Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012), 14.

Suzanne Vallance et al., “Temporary Use and the onto-Politics of ‘Public’ Space,” Cities 70 (2017): pp. 83-90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.023.

Ibid.

Philip Crowther, “Temporary Public Spaces: A Technological Paradigm,” The Journal of Public Space 1, no. 1 (2016): pp. 63-74, https://doi. org/10.5204/jps.v1i1.11, 63.

Ibid.

Christine Mady, “Diversity in Conviviality: Beirut’s Temporary Public Spaces,” Open House International 37, no. 2 (January 2012): pp. 63-71, https://doi.org/10.1108/ohi-02-2012-b0008.

Aurelie de Smet, “The Role of Temporary Use in Urban (Re)Development: Examples from Brussels,” Brussels Studies, December 2013, https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.1196.

Wanxin Shao et al., Jian Ren Jian Zhi: Jiannidicheng She Qu Li Shi Hui Yi = Every Kennedian to His Taste: Community Histories and Memories of Kennedy Town (Xianggang: Changchun she wen hua gu ji zi yuan zhong xin, 2018), 122.

Ibid., 38.

Hong Kong Government, “DRAFT KENNEDY TOWN & MOUNT DAVIS OUTLINE ZONING PLAN NO. S/H1/20 CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATIONS NO. TPB/R/S/H1/20-1 TO 7614 AND COMMENTS NO. TPB/R/S/H1/20-C1 TO C306,” S/H1/2o Main Paper (Eng), 2017, https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/whats_new/H1_20/S%20H1%2020%20 Annex%20XIV%20(Eng%20only).pdf, 32.

Ka Chun Peter Kwok, “Remodelling U.C. Complex in Kennedy Town,” March 15, 1995, https://doi.org/10.5353/th_b3198243, 13.

16. Ibid.

17. Civil Engineering and Development Department, “Ground Decontamination Works at the Site of Ex-Kenned y Town Incineration Plant/ Abattoir and Adjoining Area,” 20160229_Ground Decontamination_ HK Task Force_V2, 2016, https://www.hfc.org.hk/filemanager/files/ TFHK_20160229_ppt_item7.pdf, 3.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., 36.

20. Ellie Ng, “Kennedy Town Park to Be Saved from Bulldozer as Gov’t Board Rejects Plan for Luxury Flats,” Hong Kong Free Press HKFP, May 12, 2017, https://hongkongfp.com/2017/05/12/kennedy-town-park-tobe-saved-from-bulldozer-as-govt-board-rejects-plan-for-luxury-flats/.

21. Ibid., 40.

22. 明匯智庫, “思匯政策研究所 ：研究報告 不公空間：香港公共空間應有 的合理規劃-明匯智庫,” 思匯政策研究所 ：研究報告 不公空間：香港 公共空間應有的合理規劃, September 19, 2018, https://www.mhtt. com.hk/set_session/?param=jYVuAUSur3LSmycyruQV4PH7ua8BDzXVGXuDLt6SATHJ1JStOAxwfAtsxE1IalVXMxQ9U14CQ-y5Awn_ l0cwrPTtTt1xR6Sc1FR7Ri2gInkoJLtGflZXKdiIPIrTLM70Gb445RUlPKQOWaIcbavqA5Wh1uY0ElCh364n8cifHkU. 23. Ka Chun Peter Kwok, “Remodelling U.C. Complex in Kennedy Town,” March 15, 1995, https://doi.org/10.5353/th_b3198243, 36.

24. Ibid., 27.

25. Anna Minton, “The Privatisation of Public Space Corporate Professional Local,” in The Privatisation of Public Space: What Kind of World Are We Building? (London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 2006), pp.

1-34, 4.

26. Elizelle Juanee Cilliers et al., “Green Place-Making in Practice: From Temporary Spaces to Permanent Places,” Journal of Urban Design 20, no. 3 (2015): pp. 349-366, https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.10 31213.

27. United Nation, “Fundamentals of Planned Urbanization: Training Companion,” 0._final_fundamentals_of_urbanization_training_companion_publication_2019, 2017, https://unhabitat.org/fundamentals-of-planned-urbanization-training-companion, 5.

28. Ibid.

29. Joan Clos, “Principles of Planned Urbanization,” Principles of planned urbanization - dr. Joan Clos, executive director UN-Habitat, 2016, https:// unhabitat.org/principles-of-planned-urbanization-dr-joan-clos-executive-director-un-habitat-2.

30. Peter Fitting, “Urban Planning/Utopian Dreaming: Le Corbusier’s Chan-

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

digarh Today,” Urban Planning/Utopian Dreaming: Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh Today 13 (2002): pp. 69-93, https://doi.org/http://www.jstor.org/ stable/20718410, 70.

Peter Blake et al., Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’t Worked (Firenze: Alinea, 1983), 32.

Ibid.

Elizelle Juanee Cilliers et al., “Green Place-Making in Practice: From Temporary Spaces to Permanent Places,” Journal of Urban Design 20, no. 3 (2015): pp. 349-366, https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.10 31213.

Jose Antonio Lara-Hernandez and Alessandro Melis, “Understanding Temporary Appropriation and Social Sustainability,” Temporary Appropriation in Cities, 2019, pp. 11-26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03032120-8_2.

Elizelle Juanee Cilliers et al., “Green Place-Making in Practice: From Temporary Spaces to Permanent Places,” Journal of Urban Design 20, no. 3 (2015): pp. 349-366, https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.10 31213.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Suzanne Vallance et al., “Temporary Use and the onto-Politics of ‘Public’ Space,” Cities 70 (2017): pp. 83-90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.023.

Bibliography 1.

Addie, Jean-Paul D., Michael R. Glass, and Jen Nelles. “Regionalizing the Infrastructure Turn: A Research Agenda.” Regional Studies, Regional Science 7, no. 1 (2019): 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.201 9.1701543.

2. Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012.

3. Bishop, Peter, and Lesley Williams. The Temporary City. London: Routledge, 2012.

4. Blake, Peter, Giorgio Villa, Maurizio Giachetti, and Katherine Asburg.

Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’t Worked. Firenze: Alinea, 1983.

5. Building Homes for Hong Kong’s Millions : The Story of Resettlement.

Hong Kong. Govt. Printer, 1963. Print.

6. Chan, Pan-hang Marco. Thesis. Redevelopment of Macpherson Playground and Queen Elizabeth II Youth Centre. Thesis, University of Hong Kong, 1997.

7. Chau, Candice. “Hong Kong’s Central Market Comes Back to Life but Conservationist Takes Issue with ‘Gentrification’.” Hong Kong Free Press HKFP, August 27, 2021. https://hongkongfp.com/2021/08/26/hongkongs-central-market-comes-back-to-life-but-conservationist-takesissue-with-gentrification/.

8. Choy, Timothy K. Ecologies of Comparison : An Ethnography of Endangerment in Hong Kong. Duke UP, 2011.

9. Cilliers, Elizelle Juanee, Wim Timmermans, Frans Van den Goorbergh, and Jimmie Slijkhuis. “Green Place-Making in Practice: From Temporary Spaces to Permanent Places.” Journal of Urban Design 20, no. 3 (2015): 349–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1031213.

10. Civil Engineering and Development Department. “Ground Decontamination Works at the Site of Ex-Kenned y Town Incineration Plant/Abattoir and Adjoining Area.” 20160229_Ground Decontamination_HK Task Force_V2, 2016. https://www.hfc.org.hk/ filemanager/files/TFHK_20160229_ppt_item7.pdf.

11. Clos, Joan. “Principles of Planned Urbanization.” Principles of planned urbanization - dr. Joan Clos, executive director UN-Habitat, 2016. https://unhabitat.org/principles-of-planned-urbanization-dr-joan-closexecutive-director-un-habitat-2.

12. Crowther, Philip. “Temporary Public Spaces: A Technological Paradigm.”

The Journal of Public Space 1, no. 1 (2016): 63–74. https://doi. org/10.5204/jps.v1i1.11.

13. De Smet, Aurelie. “The Role of Temporary Use in Urban (Re) Development: Examples from Brussels.” Brussels Studies, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.1196.

14. Durmisevic, Elma, and Ken Yeang. “Designing for Disassembly (DFD).”

Architectural Design 79, no. 6 (2009): 134–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ad.994.

15. Fellows, J. The rhetoric of trade and decolonisation in Hong Kong, 1945-1984. Lingnan University, Hong Kong. 2016.

16. Fitting, Peter. “Urban Planning/Utopian Dreaming: Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh Today.” Utopian Studies 13, no. 1 (2002): 69–93. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/20718410.

17. Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture a Critical History. London: Thames & Hudson, 2020.

18. Goodstadt, Leo F. A City Mismanaged : Hong Kong’s Struggle for Survival. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP, 2018.

19. Hong Kong Government. “DRAFT KENNEDY TOWN & MOUNT DAVIS OUTLINE ZONING PLAN NO. S/H1/20 CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATIONS NO. TPB/R/S/H1/20-1 TO 7614 AND COMMENTS NO. TPB/R/S/H1/20-C1 TO C306.” S/H1/2o Main Paper (Eng), 2017. https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/whats_new/H1_20/S%20H1%2020%20 Annex%20XIV%20(Eng%20only).pdf.

20. Hong Kong Housing Authority. An Illustrated Summary of 40 Years of Public Housing Development in Hong Kong: 1953 to 1993 : A Story worth Telling. Hong Kong Housing Authority, 1993.

21. Kwok, Ka-chun Peter. “Remodelling U.C. Complex in Kennedy Town.”

Thesis, University of Hong Kong, 1995, https://doi.org/10.5353/th_ b3198243.

22. Lara-Hernandez, Jose Antonio, and Alessandro Melis. “Understanding Temporary Appropriation and Social Sustainability.” Temporary Appropriation in Cities, 2019, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-32120-8_2.

23. Mady, Christine. “Diversity in Conviviality: Beirut’s Temporary Public Spaces.” Open House International 37, no. 2 (2012): 63–71. https://doi. org/10.1108/ohi-02-2012-b0008.

24. Marinelli, Maurizio. “From Street Hawkers to Public Markets.” Cities in Asia by and for the People, 2018, 229–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/j. ctv7xbs0b.12.

25. McCoy, Daniel. From Cyberpunk to Cramped Dweller: The Peculiar History of Hong Kong ‘Heterotopias’. Northern Illinois University, 2021.

26. McHugh, Fionnuala. “My 20 years in Kennedy Town, a Hong Kong dump turned destination,” South China Morning Post, last modified June 2016,

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1962420/my20-years-kennedy-town-hong-kong-dump-turned-destination Minton, Anna. “The Privatisation of Public Space Corporate Professional Local.” Essay. In The Privatisation of Public Space: What Kind of World Are We Building?, 1–34. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 2006.

Ng, Ellie. “Kennedy Town Park to Be Saved from Bulldozer as Gov’t Board Rejects Plan for Luxury Flats.” Hong Kong Free Press HKFP, May 12, 2017. https://hongkongfp.com/2017/05/12/kennedy-town-park-tobe-saved-from-bulldozer-as-govt-board-rejects-plan-for-luxury-flats/.

Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints. Report of the Investigation on Overcrowding Relief in Public Housing. Hong Kong: Govt. Printer. 1995.

“Sai Wan Memories: Stories of Hong Kong’s Second Oldest Public Housing Estate,” iDiscover, accessed September 2021, https://idiscoverasia.com/sai-wan-estate-hong-kong Shelton, Barrie, Justyna Karakiewicz, and Thomas Kvan. The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2015.

Shao, Wanxin, Guowei Liu, Dihua Chen, and Junqiao Li. Jian Ren Jian Zhi: Jiannidicheng She Qu Li Shi Hui Yi = Every Kennedian to His Taste: Community Histories and Memories of Kennedy Town. Xianggang: Changchun she wen hua gu ji zi yuan zhong xin, 2018.

Smart, Alan, and Josephine Smart. “Formalization as Confinement in Colonial Hong Kong.” International Sociology 32, no. 4 (2017): 437–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580917701603.

Smart, Alan. The Shek Kip Mei Myth: Squatters, Fires and Colonial Rule in Hong Kong, 1950-1963. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP, 2006. Web. Smith, C.T. A Sense of History: Studies in the Social and Urban History of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company. 1995.

United Nation. “Fundamentals of Planned Urbanization: Training Companion.”

0._final_fundamentals_of_urbanization_training_ companion_publication_2019, 2017. https://unhabitat.org/ fundamentals-of-planned-urbanization-training-companion.

Vallance, Suzanne, Ann Dupuis, David Thorns, and Sarah Edwards.

“Temporary Use and the onto-Politics of ‘Public’ Space.” Cities 70 (2017): 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.023.

Xue, Charlie Q.L. Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015: From Colonial to Global. Hong Kong: Springer, 2018.

Xue, Charlie Q.L., Ka Chuen Hui, and Peng Zang. “Public Buildings in Hong Kong: A Short Account of Evolution since the 1960s.”

40.

41.

Habitat International 38 (2013): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2012.09.005. 謝子英, 冼昭行. 西環邨 : 風雨不動安如山. 香港: 三聯書店(香港)有限公司, 2021. 明匯智庫. “思匯政策研究所 ：研究報告 不公空間：香港公共空間應有 的合理規劃-明匯智庫.” 思匯政策研究所 ：研究報告 不公空間：香港 公共空間應有的合理規劃, September 19, 2018. https://www.mhtt. com.hk/set_session/?param=jYVuAUSur3LSmycyruQV4PH7ua8BD zXVGXuDLt6SATHJ1JStOAxwfAtsxE1IalVXMxQ9U14CQ-y5Awn_

The Modern Architecture Guidebook Hong Kong’s built environment represents a unique site of inquiry in the global history of the Modern Movement. The Modern Architecture guidebook series draw from an inter-disciplinary toolkit of knowledge, references, and field studies to understand the processes at work in the built environment. Each walking tour in the series begins with one of the 98 MTR stations in Hong Kong as the meeting point.

First opened in 1979, this modernist infrastructure has produced a city rationalized around transportoriented development. Organized around key themes (industrialization, colonization, environment, internationalization, migration, decolonization, counterculture, and globalization), the guidebooks present a critical yet open perspective towards the implications of large-scale modernist schemes on the environment and community.

© ARCH2058 Eunice Seng 2021