DEVELOPMENT:
CENTRAL
中環
ARCH2058 Modern Architecture ASSIGNMENT 3: GUIDEBOOK
| Fall 2021
Development: ‘Moving’ Structures in Central Chen Yushan 3035660354 Fergal Tse Yau Wai 3035717224 Hon Ming Rou 3035659836
‘LOST’ FROM ‘MOVING’ Hong Kong’s identity has always been in constant flux. Ever since the British colonisation of Hong Kong in 1941, changes are constantly made to the city to cater to its rapid changes in political, social, cultural, and economic factors. These changes have rendered buildings obsolete and become ‘lost’ when it is removed to make way for newer buildings that better serve society. This guidebook will explore three structurally relocated buildings in Hong Kong that originated from Central, ‘lost’ from their original site context and given a new identity by the city. Through these 3 sites, we uncover the conflicts between conservation and development in the face of modernisation and discuss how these conflicts address the status quo of different stakeholders along the course of development.
“Tong Chang Da Yat” stone pillars from Tang Lou, Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei Chimneys from Old Mental Hospital Building, Sai Ying Pun Facade reassembled with stone and columns from original Murray House
Stanley
Murray House, Central 1850
Murray House, Stanley 2020
1 MURRAY HOUSE Murray House, originally built on the north shore (current Central Business District) of Hong Kong Island in 1846, is one of the oldest Victorian buildings in Hong Kong. Initially used for military purposes, the architecture turned into the office building of several government departments after World War II. The house is now relocated in Stanley. Following the constant redevelopment of the old military houses in Central since the 1970s, Murray House is dismantled in 1982 at a price of 120 million HKD to make way for the construction of the new headquarter of the Bank of China. With strong consternation from local architects, the materials were carefully disassembled piece by piece and preserved by the government for future use. Today, Murray House has been reconstructed at Stanley waterfront serving as a dining and recreational venue. Although claimed by the administration to be heritage conservation, the component of the current Murray House used collected parts of other old buildings for reconstruction. The original structure of the building was also replaced with reinforced concrete frames. Whether the relocation can be defined as a historically preserved building is still a subject of controversy in the academic field.
Canopy at Morse Park No. 4, Wong Tai Sin
Junction of Pedder’s Street and Connaught Road Central
Stanley
Blake’s Pier, Central 1920
Blake’s Pier, Stanley 2018
2 BLAKE’S PIER Initially built at the junction of Pedder Street and Connaught Road Central in 1861, Blake’s Pier’s (formerly Pedder’s Wharf) first relocation dates to 1886. It was shifted slightly to the west to follow the centreline of Pedder Street. Following the Praya Reclamation Project, it was later renovated and renamed Blake’s Pier in 1900. Upon the request of the Legislative Council, the government added a straw canopy to the open structure in 1903, which was then replaced with low-carbon steel structures in 1909 due to dilapidation, making Blake’s Pier the first steel structure in Hong Kong. Between 1900 and 1925, Blake’s Pier was used by the Governor of Hong Kong and other dignitaries when travelling to and from Hong Kong Island. It was also used for welcoming or farewell ceremonies until it was replaced by the newly completed Queen’s Pier in 1925. In 1965, Blake’s Pier was no longer in use. The upper cover was transferred to the amphitheatre in Morse Park No. 4 in Wong Tai Sin. The superstructure was later rebuilt in Stanley beside Murray House, used to connect Aberdeen, Stanley and the Po Toi Islands.
in front of City Hall, Edinburgh Place, Central
Queen’s Pier, Central 1930
Queen’s Pier, Central 2007
3 QUEEN’S PIER Built in 1925 by the Public Works Department as a Ceremonial Pier to receive the governors of Hong Kong and dignitaries during the British rule, Queen’s Pier was one of the many piers built on Connaught Road as a response to the city’s need to accommodate for the growing demand for land and the thousands of vessels entering Victoria Harbor every year through the Praya East Reclamation Scheme. However, in 1954, due to large scale reclamation in central in the 1950s post World War II, Queen’s Pier was demolished and re-built at the new harbor front next to Edinburgh Place and City Hall. The pier is built with a reinforced concrete base with round columns, lifting a flat concrete roof with the central roof pitched, with great cantilever span on the east and west sides of the building. In 2007, the pier faced demolition again to facilitate further land reclamation in central, facing fierce opposition from conservationists who campaigned to preserve the historical landmark. The pier was carefully demolished in 2008, and the retainable parts of Queen’s Pier were salvaged and stored at Kau Shat Wan Government Explosives Depot on Lantau Island for storage until a decision is made on reinstatement.
Artificial History of a Relocated Past: Murray House
Yushan, Chen
There is a contradictory nature between conservation and development. In any city construction process, there will inevitably be conflicts in which later buildings replace former ones. The fate of historical buildings is either demolished or preserved as architectural heritage. In Hong Kong, old buildings face different endings: after demolishing, the government retains their components and then rebuilds them in another location near or far from the original site. Relocation of architecture is a seemingly compromised approach. Despite the original condition of the building has been changed, part of the historical traces of the building is saved. However, the relocated buildings do not belong to the new location. They created “artificial history” for a place without that past. As a controversial conservation strategy, architecture relocation has been implemented in several heritage-reconstruction projects in Hong Kong.
In this article, the author will take the relocation of Murray House as an example to explore how the decision of architecture relocation in the context of urban development reflects the value of architectural heritage/history in the eyes of the government. Replaced Structure, Skin and Content Murray house as one of the first permanent structures built by the British after hong kong is designed by Major Edward Aldrich of Royal Engineers. The main structure house is constructed with locally quarried granite and a style of typical British military barracks design of the 19th century, while adapted to the local climate. The house has wide verandas with classical Doric and Ionic columns on the upper layers to shelter one from tropical sun and rain. The floor ceilings are high to allow air to circulate. The roof is constructed with double layers of tiles and a gentle slope to prevent leakage from torrential rain.1 When the relocation of the whole building to Stanley was decided, the government had to abandon parts of the building that were considered difficult to reconstruct. During the demolishment, despite the masonry are being stored
and catalogued carefully, part of them are lost or damaged.2 The reconstructed Murray House turns out to have a modern structure different from the original one.3 The facade of the new Murray House is reassembled with stone and columns collected according to the original order, however, these original masonries are no longer load-bearing. A reinforced concrete frame is added used as the new structure. According to an SCMP Interview with Kevin Yeung, an architect from the housing authority who was given full responsibility in reconstructing Murray House, the original component was stuck onto the new concrete frame to like “lego bricks”merely as a decorative skin for the building.4 Besides structural replacement, several components of the New Murray House are collected from parts of other demolished heritage buildings to fill in the missing parts. For example, the eight chimneys are in fact collected from the demolished part of the Old Mental Hospital Building at Sai Ying Pun.5 Furthermore, Structures adjacent to it are also collected and relocated from other places of Hong Kong. The Blake’s Pier sits next to Murray House was origi-
nally one of the piers in Central.6 While a pavilion with “Tong Chang Da Yat” stone pillars was from the removed Tang Lou of Shanghai Street redevelopment project in Yau Ma Tei.7 These buildings are gathered and created a historical atmosphere, although their original contexts are different, and is unreasonable to put together. As a historical building that witnessed different stages of Hong Kong, Murray House is also having a heavy history. The house was not only a British barracks but also was used as a place of execution and torture when the Imperial Japanese Army Invaded Hong Kong. Later the houses were repeatedly reported to be haunted with malignant sprits when used as government offices in the post-war era.8 The old house can be demolished to alleviate the heavy historical tragedy in the past, but it seems that the reconstructed Murray House has completely lost this history. Now the interior of Murray House has been completely removed from the trace of the history. Murray House currently is occupied by a fast-fashion chain store and a mock German bierkeller, which is completely different from the original context or function.
It is understandable to abandon the structure of the old stone pillars and remain it as a decoration for the stableness of the new structure. However, combining historical buildings of different contexts and even different styles in one area, and adding in functions completely unrelated to the original history has shown the government’s lack of consideration of the integrity or honesty of the original buildings. Its purpose is more like retaining a historical style or image than retaining the building. Decisions behind Relocation In addition to the lack of rigour in the integrity of building materials, the decision-making of government departments during the relocation process also reflects their attitude towards the value of historical buildings. Both demolition and reconstruction of Murray House are more driven by economic pressure than historical consideration. During the 1980s, Central was rapidly redeveloping under political and economical influences. Historical buildings in Central are under huge development pressure. Including Victorian-style Hong Kong Club, Edwardian style General Post Office and HSBC Building with an Art
Deco style, historical landmarks spanning different periods and styles, were demolished for redevelopment.9 In 1982, the original Murray House, which sits on the location of the current Bank of China, was also considered occupying a prime commercial site and faced the fate of being demolished. The site was sold at a price of HKD120million to make way for the construction of the new headquarter of the bank.10 The demolishment of Murray House, with its distinguished architectural feature, has received strong opposition from local conservationists. Hong Kong Heritage Society lodges an objection amendment claiming the demolition of Murray House will not only cause Central and even urban Hong Kong to lose one of the few “historical precincts”, but redevelopment of the site will also destroy the inter-relationship with other buildings.11 Under the great pressure of both development and architectural conservation. The government chose a trade-off approach: The building would still be demolished, but its components are recorded and preserved and is promised to reconstruct it in a nearby location.12 According to the news clippings of SCMP at the time, The house
was originally intended to be relocated in Victoria Barrack adjacent to the original site, to serve as a branch of the Hong Kong Museum of History. However, this plan was never implemented. Subsequent reports stated that the government’s relocation plan lacked implementation details, and it was likely that it had no intention to rebuild the building from the beginning and the previous promise may just be a way to comfort the opposing public.13 This economic driving factor is also reflected in the later reconstruction process of Murray House. In 1988, six years after the demolition of the building, the reconstruction of Murray House was brought up again because of housing development. Housing Authority suggested resurrecting Murray House at Stanley waterfront as a “stylish building of a bygone era offering modern speciality dining places and retail stores” for the developing nearby building project at Ma Hang.14 Murray House, which failed to be rebuilt in the Central area, agreed to a real-estate development project on the other side of the island. The site selection for the reconstruction of Mur-
ray House ignores the connection between the building and the site. The purpose of the reconstruction project is mainly for economic benefit, to build a new exotic tourist attraction for Stanley. In summary, it can be seen from the motivation of demolishment and reconstruction process of Murray house. The government is more concerned with the economic benefits of the building as a historical attraction rather than conservating it. Looking back at several urban renewal cases in the history of Hong Kong, many architecture conservation is a strategy of commercial development in the name of transformation of historical buildings. For example, the renewal and demolition of old Tong Laus on Lee Tung Street in Wan Chai. Another example is Queen’s pier, for reclamation purposes, the government arbitrarily claimed that the pier is no longer applicable. According to Lee Ho-yin, Hong Kong’s conservation policies are not formulated with a local perspective but are catalyzed by external factors: especially those related to economics and politics.15 Conclusion Architectural heritage includes not only mate-
rial entities but also people’s thoughts, social paradigms and systems. The recognition and protection of historical buildings mean the value orientation of the city. Thus the choice of history is the choice of the future of the city. The Case of Murray House might reflect a problematic part of the conservation of Hong Kong: Regardless of the structure, location, even weather the exterior material is correct or not, the concern of the House’s relocation remains at the stage of creating a quasi-historical image. The government cares more about an image that looks “historical” rather than a real object developed in history. The reason behind it may be that Hong Kong is more concerned about the city’s potential economic development. Relocation seems to be a compromise method for preserving the history of the city under irresistible economic forces, however, development promotes the “preservation” of buildings, despite economically driven conservation is often biased. As explained in the example of Murray House, although the demolishment firstly provides land for economic development on the original site and the recon-
struction creates a tourist destination to the new site, the original structure, materials and functions of the house were lost during the process. Fortunately, the public is now paying more attention to the preservation of historical buildings: there have been more notable incidents in the past few years, protecting architectural heritage and preventing problematic development that neglects the historical value of the buildings. “Blue House” in Wan Chai, which has been adapted as a base for social services programmes for the community, can be one of the successful examples of conservation acts.16 This shows Hong Kong citizens now are more aware of the value of the historical built environment. Recent renovation projects like Tai Kwun, PMQ, also provide exemplars of giving better development potential of different urban fabrics for the city while preserving the original history. In the future, with people’s increasing awareness of architecture protection, building conservation methods more coordinated with economic development will appear.
Notes
1. Hoyin Lee, “Hong Kong Colonial Architecture, 18411997 - Education Bureau” (A, March 23, 2015), https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/tc/curriculumdevelopment/kla/arts-edu/resources/ae-pdp-materials/ CDI020150841_1.pdf, 6-7. 2. Ed Peters. “Hauntings and Heritage: Murray House’s Colourful History.” South China Morning Post, February 1, 2021. https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travelleisure/article/3119722/colonial-era-murray-housesresurrection-hong-kong-20-years. 3. Dewolf, Christopher. “The Ghost of Murray House: Hong Kong’s Colonial Heritage.” Zolima City Magazine, January 3, 2020. https://zolimacitymag.com/hongkong-colonial-heritage-ghost-of-murray-house/. 4. Ibid. 2 5. “Murray House: Stanley Landmarks and Colonial Historical Buildings in the Southern District of Hong Kong Island.” NearSnake.com. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://www.nearsnake.com/item/murray-house/. 6. Tourism Commision Economics Develpoment and Labour Breau. “Legislative Council Panel on Economic Services Stanley Waterfront Improvement Project” April 26, 2004. 7. Ding, Hui. “Melange Stanley Langscape: Visible Language Usage.” Google Sites: Melange, 2009. https://sites.google.com/site/groupmelange/home/ stanley-langscape/langline/spoken-language/visiblelanguage-usage. 8. Ho Yin Lee, Katie Cummer, and Lynne D. DiStefano,
9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
15.
16.
“From Crisis to Conservation: A Critical Review of the Intertwined Economic and Political Factors Driving Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong and a Possible Way Forward,” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33, no. 3 (2018): pp. 539-553, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9611-8, 543. “Heritage Trails: Old Site of the Murray House.” Central Route A - Central and Western Heritage Trail. Antiquities and Monuments Office. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/trails_central1.php?tid=7. Ibid. 2 William Meacham. “Object to Amendment (H) of Central District Outline Zoning Plan LH3/57” Hong Kong Heritage Society, March 3, 1981 “New Home for Murray House” South China Morning Post, September 7, 1982 Michael Chugani. “Hope Fades for Murray House Rebuilding Plan.” South China Morning Post, July 1, 1985 Both Murray House and later development are all planed to reconstruct the structure carefully that “blend in” the original environment in order to create a realistic exotic environment Ibid. 2 Commercial Properties Division Housing Department. “Civil Service Newsletter: Murray House Revived ,” December 3, 2000. Ibid. 8, 544 Henderson, J. C. (2008). Conserving Hong Kong’s heritage: The case of queen’s Pier. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(6), 540–554. Ibid. 8, 549
Upholding the Historical Burden: Blake’s Pier
Ming Rou, Hon
Arising from the global awareness of cultural heritage conservation after the First World War, Hong Kong did not react towards the drift until 1976 when the first Ordinance- the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance was enacted.1 Since then, the legislation prompted the establishment of the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), which began regulating and executing affairs related to historical conservation. Responsibilities such as recording and grading historical buildings were part of the initiatives.2 With the formulation of the Ordinance, many conservation policies were soon implemented.3 Though there were many controversies towards the execution of the policies under the unstable political climate Hong Kong was situated in since the 1980s, the Ordinance was deemed to set a foundation for cultural heritage conservation in the region. In the case of Murray House (complete), Blake’s Pier (partial) and Queen’s Pier (yet to), structural relocation was executed as a means of histori-
cal conservation. Though no longer classified as a Grade I building after careful considerations under the survey of the AMO, the impact from Murray House and other relocations can still be debated based on three aspects- structure and form, functionality and physical location. In response to the argument raised, the first part of this essay explores the origins of Hong Kong’s historical burden, and taking Blake’s Pier as the basis of the study, endeavour to discuss one key question in the latter part- can a fast-developing metropolis like Hong Kong uphold its unabated historical burden reflected through its architecture in relation to its past, present and future? Throughout the span of 150 years, Hong Kong’s position in the region has always been contested. As it underwent momentous political changes since the British colonisation from 1841 to 1997, many buildings in Central such as the General Post Office, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong and the Central Police Station were built to fulfil the rule of the British government. The short occupation by the Japanese from 1941 to 1945 and the handover of Hong Kong back to the Chinese
government in later 1997 further changed the fate of these buildings, where destruction, alterations and redevelopment were made. Through the distinction between the architecture built in these three main periods, Hong Kong has proven itself to serve more than just a Special Administrative Region (SAR). Its perpetual state of confrontations between the former imperial forces and the local government, and the contemporary tensions between the Central’s People Government and the localist has led to many social and political movements especially in the past decade.4 Along the course of these political changes, Hong Kong has gained a rich coalescence of different influences, reflected on its architecture such as the Victoria Prison (present-day Tai Kwun) which were subsequently damaged and refunctioned as it was passed between different imperial forces.5 As the cultural and administrative centre of Hong Kong, Central has witnessed drastic evolution within the region, where the state of the buildings and structures has achieved a substantial degree of historical complexity. Though driven by political influences from the
British and Mainland China, Hong Kong’s source of historical burden is most prominent through the lens of its expanding economic history, which can be traced back to 1841, parallel to the start of the external political domination by the British. The Convention of Cheunpi between Qing official Qishan and British rear admiral, George Elliot marks the beginning of Hong Kong Island under British cessation.6 Though records show that the agreement was never ratified, many of the terms were later included in the Treaty of Nanking signed on August 29, 1842.7 Consequently, Hong Kong officially became a lucrative base for the British’s trading community in Canton, with Anglicization that came after quickly due to economic convenience, represented through the existing place names such as Queen’s Road and Victoria Harbour.8 Following the stable influence of the regime, Hong Kong was exposed to economic freedom promoting minimal government intervention and low taxes. While the regime continues to project laissez-faire onto Hong Kong’s economy, banks and conglomerate enterprises buildings such as The Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and Jardine, Matheson and Com-
pany headquarters began to occupy Central. Hong Kong’s economic history did not just originate from British influence. During the post-war period, Hong Kong faced a convoluted political crisis from Mainland China that greatly affected its economy. Appealed as the ‘rich’ region in China, there was a big influx of immigrants following the communist victory in the Chinese civil war and the start of the Cultural Revolution. Pressure on housing and employment started to reflect on Hong Kong’s architecture when there is an increase in public housing development. The complication was heightened when an embargo was imposed on all Chinese trades as China intervened in the Korean War which broke out in 1950.9 The disruption in international and regional trading purged a critical shift to the manufacturing industry where more industrial building was built in the city. Likewise, the biggest economic impact on Hong Kong’s recent history was perhaps China’s open-door policy in 1978 and the last years of British occupation before the Hong Kong Handover in 1997. The transition of China into a Socialist Market Economy puts Hong
Kong’s labour market in jeopardy, together with the time-sensitive economic opportunity for the British, Central’s financial district development escalated exponentially as Hong Kong shifted its economic focus to financial services industry.10 The saturation of historical context Hong Kong accumulated in a relatively short period of time evolved the city into a global stage. This calls for a constant evaluation of its conservation rigour. By analysing the remnants and meaning of its architecture’s form, function, structure and social fabric contained in its location, one can then fairly access the historical burden it has absorbed and upheld. With that, Blake’s Pier’s relocation is a case study one can reflect upon. Blake’s Pier’s first relocation in 1886 concerns Hong Kong’s first reclamation project- the Praya Reclamation Scheme (1868-1904). As a British maritime colony, Hong Kong Island dealt with trades from merchants mostly from India, the United Kingdom and the locals since the British occupation in 1841. Before the government impose regulations on the water frontage along
the shoreline of Victoria Harbour, the land lots chosen by the merchants for private trades were expanded and reclaimed without government mediation, causing the shoreline to be irregular.11 This was when Pedder’s Wharf, the former Blake’s Pier was built. It was used to “serve as the official wharf of the colonial establishment”.12 As the population expanded, the Praya Reclamation Scheme was suggested to solve the housing and hygiene issues that came with it.13 Though there were funding shortages and disputes with the existing lot holders and unsettled negotiations over land rights along the Praya in Central, the plans finally materialised the second phase of the reclamation by the taipans of the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Co., Paul Charter. Pedder’s Wharf was consequently landlocked due to the reclamation, forcing it to relocate. The first relocation of Blake’s Pier reveals the earliest land reclamation in Hong Kong, witnessing and recording it as precedence to subsequent land reclamations where it is still today, a crucial part of Hong Kong’s land development dealing with population density affairs. The relocation also displayed the complications of land
reclamation on the waterfront, as this radical intervention often poses sacrifice to many existing structures and architectural commodities. In 1965, the upper cover of Blake’s Pier was chosen to partially relocate to Morse Park No. 4 in Wong Tai Sin as the canopy of the amphitheatre due to its material and aesthetics. In fact, the original Blake’s Pier did not have a canopy. Upon the request of the Legislative Council, the government added a straw canopy to the open structure in 1903, which dilapidated in a few years under the harsh rain and sun. It was then that the government introduced the steel roofs to the pier in 1909. During that period, the global steel structure engineering technology was still in its infancy.14 As many architects and engineers in the United Kingdom were still experimenting with the new material, the design, production and installation of the steel structure for the canopy were imported from the United Kingdom. It was the first structure in Hong Kong to adopt low-carbon steel (Mild Steel) in construction. The second relocation of Blake’s Pier speaks directly to conservation in terms of
a structure’s materiality. It uncovers the dilemma between development and conservation by questioning the importance of retaining a ‘historical’ structure’s physicality in the face of obsolescence. The significance of this relocation lies in the idea of conserving ‘the first’ and whether ‘the first’ should always be treated as an empty shell for historical education and memorial continues to remain debated. Here, the fine line between obsolescence and antiquity is challenged. The most notable relocation of Blake’s Pier is undeniable to Stanley in 2006, after its demolition in 1965. Following the Stanley Waterfront Improvement Project, the government revived the pier by integrating it with the redevelopment plan, placing it near Murray House, another relocation project at the furthest end of the shore. Blake’s Pier was reinstated to its original purpose for public use.15 The restoration proved that conservation serves more than mere preserving its original. Conversely, new functions in the new location can create new relationships between the historical building and its new context. The dialogue between the existing and the
new is part of creating history and reverence. Through the studying of Blake’s Pier, one can conclude that relocation as a conservation strategy stirs different discussions and meanings. Like any other historical building conservation, it has received praise, debates and criticisms over the years. Historical conservation is a commitment that can take many forms, and structural relocation has proved itself to be one that is expensive, laborious and difficult. It is within limits for one to comment that the Hong Kong government still put development as its uppermost in the city’s urban planning, and to satisfy different stakeholders, relocation is merely an excuse for further development in both locations. However, regardless of the motive behind development and conservation projects, it is important to understand the burden of a fast-developing metropolis like Hong Kong, as it continues to uphold the enormous weight of history while serving its purpose along the course of modernisation and development. The burden the city carries is what makes it diverse and controversial.
Notes
1. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “The World Heritage Convention,” UNESCO World Heritage Centre, accessed December 20, 2021, http://whc.unesco.org/en/ convention/. 2. “About Us - Introduction,” Introduction - Antiquities and Monuments Office, accessed December 20, 2021, https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/about.php. 3. Lee, Ho Yin, Katie Cummer, and Lynne D DiStefano. “From Crisis to Conservation: A Critical Review of the Intertwined Economic and Political Factors Driving Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong and a Possible Way Forward.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33, no. 3 (2018): 541. 4. Seng, Eunice. Resistant City: Histories, Maps and the Architecture of Development. Singapore: World Scientific, 2020, 57. 5. Lee, Ho Yin, Katie Cummer, and Lynne D DiStefano. “From Crisis to Conservation: A Critical Review of the Intertwined Economic and Political Factors Driving Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong and a Possible Way Forward.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33, no. 3 (2018): 542. 6. Seng, Eunice. Resistant City: Histories, Maps and the Architecture of Development. Singapore: World Scientific, 2020, 35. 7. Ibid., 36. 8. Ibid., 36. 9. Lau, Chi-pang. “The Embargo and Industrialisation.” Part1 Chapter 6.1 - the embargo and Industrialisation.
10.
11.
12. 13. 14.
15.
Accessed December 21, 2021. https://www.mardep. gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html. Lee, Ho Yin, Katie Cummer, and Lynne D DiStefano. “From Crisis to Conservation: A Critical Review of the Intertwined Economic and Political Factors Driving Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong and a Possible Way Forward.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33, no. 3 (2018): 542. “A Historical and Architectural Appraisal of Queen’s Pier, Central (Annexe B3) Archived 27 September 2007, Antiquities and Monuments Office, Government of Hong Kong SAR, 1. Ibid, 1. Ibid, 1. The famous steel mill Dorman Long in the United Kingdom started producing low-carbon steel in 1885, and it was compiled into a manual in 1887. The structural analysis theory was only relatively mature around 1915, so the use of low-carbon steel structure was popularized since then. “Architectural Services Department - Exhibition.” archsd.gov.hk, December 29, 2020. https://www.archsd. gov.hk/en/exhibition/stanley-waterfront-improvement-project.html.
Intersections between Dismantlement and Relocation: Queen’s Pier Fergal Yau Wai, Tse Since the beginning of British rule in 1841, Hong Kong has always exemplified the tension between economic development and cultural conservation. The endless demand for more land and space to alleviate the ever-growing population density in Hong Kong has led to the rapid obsolesce of buildings and resulted in strategies such as demolishing buildings or reclaiming land to create more space. However, when these strategies are used, buildings with historical value are often overlooked and demolished without much consideration to make way for more space-efficient buildings. Large scale structural relocation, the process of moving a building from one location to another through disassembling and reassembling, has rarely been seen as a conservation strategy in Hong Kong, but Queen’s Pier, a building historically used as a ceremo-
nial pier to receive the governors of Hong Kong and dignitaries during the British rule located at the heart of Victoria Harbor and within close proximity of City Hall and Edinburgh Place, was demolished in 2008 for further land reclamation in Central is currently in the process of structural relocation, awaiting the government to identify a new location for the building to be reinstated.1 Buildings such as Murray House and Blake’s Pier have also undergone structural relocation from central to Stanley in 1998 and 2007 respectively, where they no longer serve their original function. To what extent can structural relocation be used as a conservation strategy to preserve a building’s heritage and prolong its obsolescence? This essay will analyze Queen’s Pier’s identity and function as it faces conflicts between development and conservation over time and speculate into the feasibility of adopting structural relocation as a conservation strategy to preserve its building heritage.
Hong Kong’s transformation from an agricultural and aquacultural town into a global trading center in Asia began when the city came into British procession in 1841. The British identified Hong Kong as a valuable base for the British trading activity in China due to its natural harbor located between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, and its strategic location on the South China Sea. The colonizers took advantage of the harbor’s geographical advantage and sold land lots adjacent to Victoria Harbor on the island to private import and export merchants who would use their water frontage and build piers and expand their land by reclaiming the sea without restriction from the government. The Praya Reclamation Scheme was a response to the city’s housing and hygiene problems caused by rapid population increase in the 1880s. The Scheme included large-scale reclamation in the western and central districts, extending the shoreline from Des Voux Road
to Connaught Road. After it’s completion in 1903, Connaught Road became a promenade with strong colonial influence, acting as not only a commercial hub, with the Queen’s Building, Post Office, and Hong Kong Club, but also a transportation hub, lined with piers built in the following 20 years for stakeholders entering and leaving the island. The Queen’s Pier on Connaught Road was designed by the Public Works Department in 1921 and built from 1921-1925 by Sang Lee & Co., using reinforced concrete, a structural steel roof with round pillars and arches at the entrance of the pier to welcome governors and dignitaries to Hong Kong.2 At its peak, Connaught Road and Victoria Harbor became the prosperity and identity of Hong Kong and its loyalty to the British Colonialists.3 However, while the government’s Praya Reclamation Scheme was based on the good intentions to relieve the high population density in the city, most reclaimed land was used for
government or commercial purposes, contradicting their original intent of reclaiming land. This may lead to speculation that the government places a heavier emphasis on economic development outweighed cultural heritage. Connaught Road’s prosperity didn’t last after the Second World War. The endless demand for more land and space to alleviate the ever-growing population density in 1950s-1960s Hong Kong has led to another round of largescale land reclamation extending the shoreline from Connaught Road to today’s Lung Wo Road, demolishing all existing piers, such as Queen’s Pier, Murray Pier, Star Ferry Pier, and Blake Pier along Connaught Road at the time. Queen’s Pier was rebuilt at the new shoreline in 1954, and subsequently creating a visual axis with Edinburgh Place and City Hall built in 1962. Compared to the construction methods used in the prior pier, the 1954 Pier was constructed with a reinforced concrete base with round columns, lifting a flat concrete roof
with the central roof pitched. Two kiosks, built with structural walls were placed on the east and west sides of the pier, serving as a food kiosk and storeroom respectively. The additional structural walls supported the great cantilever span on the east and west sides of the building, creating additional covered space for the public when the building is not used for ceremonial purposes to gather and as circulation space when boats dock and undock. The Pier faced demolishment again in 2007, where the government had intentions of carrying out the Central Reclamation Phase III, which included reclamation of 18 hectares of open space, Central to Wan Chai Bypass tunnel, and the construction of Pier 7 to Pier 10.4 This decision faced backlash by citizens, conservationists, and environmentalists, who opposed the demolishment due to the historical significance the pier held during the British Rule, and the value of the space, serving as a collective memory for citizens who would use the space for social gather-
ings, fishing, and for civic and political functions. Furthermore, the protests were also fueled by the lack of cultural conservation awareness from the government, as seen with the rapid demolishment of other buildings such as the Edinburgh Place ‘Star’ Ferry Pier in 2006, suggesting that economic development outweighed historical heritage.5 Queen’s Pier was carefully disassembled in 2008 to preserve the original materials used, and the retainable parts of Queen’s Pier were salvaged and stored at Kau Shat Wan Government Explosives Depot on Lantau Island for storage until a decision is made on reinstatement through structural relocation.6 The Queen’s Pier was a piece of modern architecture that symbolises the British Rule in Hong Kong. The design of the pier was heavily dependent on surrounding site conditions, creating a visual axis between city hall and Edinburgh place as governors landed onto pier for ceremonial purposes, and
its location with respect to Victoria Harbour creates a view that cannot be recreated anywhere else on the harbour. The pier has also become a public amenity, as it’s functionality as expanded from docking and undocking to a social space for citizens to convene during gatherings or civil/political events. Under the proposed structural relocation strategy for Queen’s Pier, can the rich historical heritage and cultural value be preserved when the building is ‘moved’ out of its context? Historical precedence within Hong Kong, such as Murray House and Blake‘s Pier, has been moved in Stanley, where the once government buildings with rich historical value have turned into commercial hubs with stores for visitors to visit the historical heritage and spend money, boosting economic development to Stanley and it’s nearby areas, neglecting and losing the building’s original design intent.7 Furthermore, a notable example of structural relocation as a method of conservation was London Bridge, which spanned River Thames
from 1831 to 1967 was sold and structurally transferred to Lake Havasu City in Arizona, USA.8 While the intent of structural transfer was not primarily for conservation but to make a profit, the building has lost its historical value and is only used for functional purposes. Through the analysis of Queen’s Pier development in relation to land reclamation, and the feasibility of using structural relocation as a conservation method, it can be concluded there are merits and demerits behind such decision. Moving the structure to locations less prone to obsolescence due to development will ensure that the historical value is preserved, but the extent of the preservation will be determined by the building’s new function, the elements that are carried over from the demolished building, and the displaced building’s proximity to the originally intended location.9 At the same time, the government should understand that the cultural landscape of central waterfront that we see today is formed from a constant
clash and fusion of cultures from different stakeholders, and the true understanding of different cultural groups is essential to balance and integrate urban development and preserving historical value into the city.
Notes
1. Cheung, Tony. “Hong Kong’s Queen’s Pier May Be Relocated Away from Original Central Area.” South China Morning Post, January 1, 2021. https://www.scmp. com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3116139/hongkongs-queens-pier-may-be-resurrected-away-original. 2. Chatam, William. “Report of the Director of Public Works for the Year 1921.” Public Works Department, 1921: 116. 3. Yu, Chen. “Transformation of waterfront space in Asian cities: Macau, Hong Kong, Shanghai. The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU), Delft, Amsterdam, 2019: 5. 4. “Central Reclamation Phase III – Engineering Works.” Major projects - central reclamation phase III – engineering works. Civil Engineering and Development Department, January 9, 2019. https://www.cedd.gov. hk/eng/our-projects/major-projects/index-id-1.html. 5. “Understanding The Values Of Different Cultural Groups Through The Demolition Of The Queen’s Pier.” Geography Resource Management. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, n.d. https://www.chinaculturalgeog.com/article_info.php?aid=186&id=56&main=56. 6. “History of Queen’s Pier.” Reassembly of queen’s pier. Accessed December 22, 2021. http:// w w w. q u e e n s p i e r. h k / e n g / Q P % 2 0 H i s t o r y. h t m l . 7. Yu, Chen. “Transformation of waterfront space in Asian cities: Macau, Hong Kong, Shanghai. The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU), Delft, Amsterdam, 2019: 63. 8. Elborough, Travis. London Bridge in Amer-
ica: The Tall Story of a Transatlantic Crossing. London: Vintage Books, 2014. 211. 9. “Understanding The Values Of Different Cultural Groups Through The Demolition Of The Queen’s Pier.” Geography Resource Management. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, n.d. https://www.chinaculturalgeog.com/article_info.php?aid=186&id=56&main=56.
Bibliography 1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7. 8.
9.
“About Us - Introduction.” Introduction - Antiquities and Monuments Office. Accessed December 20, 2021. https:// www.amo.gov.hk/en/about.php. Alastair A Jackson, and Alistair A Jackson. “The Development of Steel Framed Buildings in Britain 1880- 1905.” Construction History : Journal of the Construction History Group 14 (1998): 21-40. “Architectural Services Department - Exhibition.” archsd. gov.hk, December 29, 2020. https://www.archsd.gov.hk/ en/exhibition/stanley-waterfront-improvement-project. html. Bard, Solomon. Voices from the past : Hong Kong, 18421918. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2002. Centre, UNESCO World Heritage. “The World Heritage Convention.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed December 20, 2021. http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/. Chan, Ming K. “The Legacy of the British Administration of Hong Kong: A View from Hong Kong.” The China Quarterly, no. 151 (1997): 567–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/655254. Chu, Cecilia., Kylie. Uebegang, and Civic Exchange. Saving Hong Kong’s Cultural Heritage. Hong Kong: Civic Exchange, 2002. David Lung, “Built heritage in transition: a critique on Hong Kong’s conservation Movement and the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance”Hong Kong Law Journal v. 42 n. 1, p. 121-14. (2012) Ed Peters. “Hauntings and Heritage: Murray House’s Colourful History.” South China Morning Post, February
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. 16.
1, 2021. https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/ article/3119722/colonial-era-murray-houses-resurrection-hong-kong-20-years. Ho Yin Lee, Katie Cummer, and Lynne D. DiStefano, “From Crisis to Conservation: A Critical Review of the Intertwined Economic and Political Factors Driving Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong and a Possible Way Forward,” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33, no. 3 (2018): pp. 539-553, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901018-9611-8, 543. Lau , Chi-pang. “The Embargo and Industrialisation.” Part1 Chpater 6.1 - the embargo and Industrialisation. Accessed December 21, 2021. https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/ port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html. Lee, Ho Yin, Katie Cummer, and Lynne D DiStefano. “From Crisis to Conservation: A Critical Review of the Intertwined Economic and Political Factors Driving Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong and a Possible Way Forward.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33, no. 3 (2018): 539-53. Ng, Naomi. “How a Fire in 1851 Triggered Hong Kong’s First Reclamation Project.” South China Morning Post, December 10, 2018. https://www.scmp.com/news/hongkong/society/article/2177107/how-hong-kongs-first-landreclamation-project-sprang. Peters, Ed, ed. “Hauntings and Heritage: Murray House’s Colourful History.” South China Morning Post, February 1, 2021. https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/ article/3119722/colonial-era-murray-houses-resurrection-hong-kong-20-years. Seng, Eunice. Resistant City : Histories, Maps and the Architecture of Development. Singapore: World Scientific, 2020. Yanne, Andrew, and Gillis Heller. Signs of a Colonial Era. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009.
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