Development: Shophouses in Sham Shui Po by ARCH2058

DEVELOPMENT:

SHAM SHUI PO

深水埗

ARCH2058 Modern Architecture ASSIGNMENT 3: GUIDEBOOK

| Fall 2021

Development: Shophouses in Sham Shui Po Chau Kok Shan Christie (3035821439) Chung Wing Sze Cecilia (3035742487) Kong Ling Chuen (3035795965)

SHAM SHUI PO STATION

EXIT A2

58 PEI HO STREET

LUI SENG CHUN

Living through the Ages Situated north-west of the Kowloon Peninsula, Sham Shui Po was originally a coastal fishing village (Sham Shui Po literally meaning ‘deep water pier’), before it was transformed into a British colonial trading port, as a result being leased to the British empire as part of the Second Convention of Beijing (1898). After being brought inland via various reclamation projects from the 1920’s to 1955, combined with the influx of refugees from China due to the Sino-Japanese War (19371945) and Chinese Civil War (1927-1949), Sham Shui Po gradually transitioned from being a trading port to a centre of manufacture, wholesale and retail. This combined need for commerce and housing resulted in the rise of shophousesalso known as tong lau (唐樓). Not confined to a particular aesthetic, tong laus in Hong Kong are the result of local cultures and factors such as building regulations and policies. This guidebook hopes to introduce and explore how these shophouses reflect the impact of urban development in Sham Shui Po on architecture and living.

1. 58 PEI HO STREET In the early 90s, a total of 32 tenement buildings were built along the Pei Ho street and nearby areas for shops and residents in leases. At that time, there was farmland near 58 Pei Ho Street (Dai Kam Lung Co.), and the nearby market attracted farmers to engage in trading activities, which has brought prosperity to Pei Ho Street and Guilin Street. Sham Shui Po slowly transformed from an agricultural industry into a bazaar. However, most of the nearby tenement buildings were rebuilt as the region grew, and only 58 Pei Ho Street survived. The three-story building happens to be located at the junction of Pei Ho Street and Tai Nan Street, shaping the corner house will two façade facing the street. The unique feature of 58 Pei Ho Street, apart from her nearly 100 years of age, the most worthy of attention is that she belonged to the pre-war

tenements at right angles to the corner of Hong Kong. The building belongs to the second generation of tong lau design with an international architectural style where there is harmony between China and the West. Its side elevation is built with a cantilever arc-shaped corridor, while there are also Chinese pillars on the front, with handwritten advertisement calligraphy on it. The exposed platform on the side elevation is designed to be quite subtle. Facing Tai Nan Street, the designer elegantly built a cantilevered terrace on the second floor, with a fence.

made of ornamental work of iron. It is set in a curved shape at the corner and closed at a right angle at the back. It can be seen that Lee Beng is careful and thoughtful, facing the street with rounded corners, which is pleasing to the eye. Moreover, the terrace faces the north, allowing sunlight to shine into the house.

Dai Kam Lung Co. is a typical shophouse selling dried seafood and herbal medicine on its ground floor. The store includes an outpatient room at the corner and an attic storage room that steep wooden stairs can reach. There is also a light well at the rear of the shop, which provides adequate light and ventilation for the kitchen space. To access the upper floor, people have to enter

an entrance located on the side of the building. The first floor is mainly for domestic purposes where there are two bedrooms and a living room for the So family (owner of the shop) to live in. To keep the medicine in good condition, they are kept in the storage space on the second floor, where it is dry and dark. The Dai Kam Lung Co. is very conspicuous. The carefully-chosen floor pattern, tailormade kitchen cabinets, wooden stairs and the cantilevered terrace show the architectural aesthetics of Hong Kong in the 1920s. The Dai Kam Lung Co. is very conspicuous. The carefully-chosen floor pattern, tailor-made kitchen cabinets, wooden stairs and the cantilevered terrace show the architectural aesthetics of Hong Kong in the 1920s.

On the right: G/F, 1/F, 2/F and Roof plans of 58 Pei Ho Street

DINING SPACE

TOILET

LIGHT WELL

TAI NAN STREET

DINING SPACE UPSTAIRS ENTRANCE BEDROOM

LIVING ROOM

SHOP AREA

BEDROOM TERRACE

PEI HO STREET

LIGHT WELL

BEDROOM

LIVING ROOM

BEDROOM TERRACE

2. LUI SENG CHUN Built in 1931, Lui Seng Chun marks the intersection between Lai Chi Kok Road and Tong Mei Road. Commissioned by Lui Leung (雷亮) and designed by architect W.H.Bourne, this four storied shophouse was built to house Lui Seng Chun: the Lui family’s Chinese medicine shop, and the Lui family. Lui Seng Chun is a unique case amongst shophouses of its era. While most tong lau housed many families of tenants, especially during a time where refugees fleeing the Chinese civil war had started settling in Hong Kong, resulting in a housing shortage, Lui Seng Chun was owned by, and only housed the Lui family, unlike other tong laus where residents usually consisted of multiple families of tenants. They were able to afford a whole building from Lui Leung’s successful transport and trading businesses. Since Lai Chi Kok Road was created and extended via

Kong colonial government’s development plan to turn Sham Shui Po into a trading port, Lui Seng Chun sat near the now defunct Sham Shui Po Pier, and Lui Leung’s businesses (including this medicine shop) benefitted from its access to the trading port when importing and exporting ingredients and medicines. The ground floor was reserved for the medicine shop, while the first to third floor housed the Lui family- Lui Leung, his three wives and ten children.

The facade features a mixing of Streamline Modern (Art Deco) with classical elements, characterized by the sweeping horizontal lines, square-shaped frame and a row of decorative balustrades in front. Verandahs that wrap around the living quarters each floor provide shade on the

pedestrian passage and ventilation for the floors above, as (electric domestic-scale) air conditioners had only just been invented (in 1931) and were not available for purchase until 1932, a year after the construction of Lui Seng Chun. Unlike its counterparts of the same era, which took a ‘pattern book’ approach of following the bare minimum of the Building Ordinance to create maximum housing capacity for the ‘average tenant’, Lui Seng Chun was designed directly according to the Lui family’s needs. The staircase that allows access to the upper floors is directly accessible from the street; the commercial and residential parts of the building were completely separated from each other, which ensured the privacy of the Lui family.

However, this clear separation and planning of function did not continue into the living quarters in the top three floors (which have an identical plan). Instead, it followed the ‘conventional tong lau style’, where there were no walls (except for the kitchen and toilet) and screen panels were used to partition interior space, a feature commonly used in tong lau. A flexible plan meant that it was cheap and easy to adapt the space according to residents’ changing requirements.

As the Lui Seng Chun (the shop) closed down in 1944 and the Lui family gradually moved out, the tong lau became deserted, only occasionally housing family friends or visiting relatives. The Lui family transferred ownership to the Hong Kong Government in 2003 following its designation as a Grade I Historic Building in 2000. It is now revitalised as the Hong Kong Baptist University’s Chinese medicine and healthcare centre, and renamed Hong Kong Baptist University School of Chinese Medicine – Lui Seng Chun.

KITCHEN

BALCONY

LIVING QUARTERS

VERANDAH

LUI SENG CHUN MEDICINE SHOP (PHARMACY)

STORAGE

LAI CHI KOK ROAD

PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE COURTYARD

LUI SENG CHUN MEDICINE SHOP RECEPTION/ WAITING ROOM

1-3/F and G/F plan of Lui Seng Chun, 1931

2 3 4 5m

OFFICE PANTRY AND ELECTRICAL CONTROLS ELEVATOR

HALL/RECEPTION

WAITING ROOM

PHARMACY STORAGE

EXHIBITION WINDOW ELEVATOR

STORAGE

PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE

HERBAL TEA SHOP

COURTYARD

LUI SENG CHUN HISTORY EXHIBITION

2 3 4 5m

1-3/F and G/F plan of Lui Seng Chun, (since 2012)

3. 14 NAM CHEONG STREET In post-WWII Hong Kong, the influx of immigrants from Mainland China had led to the expansion of manufacturing industries and the increase in housing demands. As a temporary solution before dedicated buildings could be designed, composite buildings derived from pre war Tong Laus were built to accommodate modern commercial and housing needs. Located in a triangular plot at the junction of Nam Cheong Street and Boundary Street, 14 Nam Cheong Street had once neighboured the now-demolished Sham Shui Po Pier that operates a route to Central. The area was well equipped with infrastructures such as markets, the Sham Shui Po Public Dispensary and the Kwan Tai Temple, which made the location ideal for living.

Upon its completion in 1957, the building was divided into 3 areas, where the ground floor would be rented out as a commercial space, the 2nd to 4th floor as lodges and the upper floors as monthly-rented subdivided flats. The lodges were advertised to passersby with red-painted characters on the facade, which said “Cold/hot water supply, served with gratitude” and “New design, clean and comfortable”. Dwellers on each floor would share a common kitchen and bathroom.

After witnessing two to three decades of bustle and hustle, the building fell into obsolescence in the 1990s as the Sham Shui Po Pier ceased operations in 1992, which attracted the homeless to occupy the building.

In 2015, the building was acquired by Mascotte Holdings Limited, which renovated the building into a serviced apartment with 5 units on each floor. The red characters on the facade are wiped out by black paint and bronze panels are installed at the corner, blocking out the terraces. An elevator is installed where the public kitchen used to be. The ground floor is now a cafe. Traces of the original buildings could only be seen at the ground floor stair entrance, where the tiles and marble walls still remain.

SHARED KITCHEN SHARED BATHROOM

DOMESTIC SPACE

BO Y AR D ET RE ST

NAM CHEONG STREET

1-5/F construction plan of 14 Nam Cheong Street, 1957

(domestic space was subdivided but there are no image records of its layout) BATHROOM

BEDROOM

PANTRY

1-5/F plan of 14 Nam Cheong Street, 2018

BALCONY

Top: floor tiles at the entrance, preserved Bottom: non-domestic space (shop) at the ground floor

TONG LAU — ORIGINS AND RISE

Kok Shan Christie, Chau Tong lau, which directly translates to “Chinese house”, is a common building typology in Hong Kong since the beginning of colonial rule until the 1960s, where they were slowly replaced by public housing and private highrise buildings. The term tong lau had once been used to describe all buildings built with a similar construction method,1 but has now evolved into an umbrella term that refers to all buildings without an elevator.2 The development of tong laus could be split into 4 stages, where each stage would be defined by the evolution of construction methods, building ordinances, local context and influences from the international architectural community. This essay will seek to introduce

and reflect on the first 2 stages, which spanned from the cession of Hong Kong to the British Empire until modern architecture’s rise to prominence in the early 1930s. Each stage would be analysed through the era’s historical background/urban development tactics, how the design of shophouses was affected and how the living conditions have led to the transition into the next era.

The First Generation (late 19th century)

In 1841, the British arrived at Possession Point and formally took possession of Hong Kong after Qing’s defeat in the First Opium War. Upon arrival, they started to plan roads and offered land through auctions to merchants. Although originally not allowed to bid, Chinese purchasers still successfully acquired land in the Upper and Lower Bazaar, mostly because the plots were smaller and cheaper.3 The investment opportunities had divided the Chinese and

Western settlement areas unintentionally. As economical activities became increasingly concentrated in Central, the British decided to designate the whole area for European activities. This forced the relocation of the Upper Bazaar to Taipingshan District, which faced backlash from the Chinese community. However, the government did not respond to their resentment and pushed forward with the plans, which led to that area’s establishment as a prominent Chinese community. The population continued to rise in the early years, partly due to the Taiping Revolution in Qing, where a lot of people fled to Hong Kong from nearby regions. The 1st generation of tong laus was born under this historical context. While the Chinese first settled in Hong Kong, there were no laws to regulate buildings. Hence, the Chinese were free to use any construction methods/materials, which 4 resulted in primitive buildings. As the early immigrants were mostly from the nearby

Canton region, the early tong laus resembled the preceding Chinese shophouses in Guangzhou/Shanghai. Some traces of influence from walled villages in the New Territories were also evident.5 At that time, houses were mostly built with thatch or wood. They would stretch 4-6 metres in width and up to 18m in depth, depending on the size of the plot and the length of Chinese timbre poles. The buildings were built backto-back, meaning only the side facing the street would have windows. Kitchens were usually located at the rear of the building.6 Since the building typology was intended for one family, the pouring in of immigrants forced the owners to address housing shortages, where they responded by subdividing the house into cubicles and adding illegal extensions with timbre & enclosing it, hoping it would provide more living space. As timbre is highly flammable, one house at the Lower Bazaar inevitably caught on fire in 1851 and the fire spread to other houses quickly, forcing

officers to explode most buildings to put out the fire.7 In the aftermath of the incident, the government would subsequently prohibit verandahs from being enclosed8 and two decades later, require all verandahs to be built with masonry and supported by colonnades.9 Only other levels except the ground level could be extended to the edge of the plot. These rules helped establish Hong Kongstyle tong laus as they started to differ from shophouses found in other regions. It is also worth noting that European buildings built in the same era did not face the same problems, as there were fewer occupants and the houses were more well designed in terms of ventilation and lighting.10 In this era, it is evident that the development of tong laus was mostly driven by regulations only. Although the enactment of the Building Ordinance had made buildings structurally safer and less fire-vulnerable, living conditions continued to worsen in the buildings. As people continued to enter Hong Kong in the

upcoming decades, more sleeping space was created by adding beds in the corridors, making the living space more cramped.11 Recent immigrants even attempted to raise livestock in the house, leading to the spread of diseases.12 The problematic sanitary condition was an imminent problem, but the government chose to neglect it while trying to distance themselves and segregate the areas more. The catalyst for change would be the bubonic plague, which broke out in Guangzhou in 1894 and quickly spread to Hong Kong. As people were not concerned with hygiene and there was not enough rain, these factors drove the condition out of control. At that time, 16-25 people would share one floor, a small window and an atrocious sewage system.13 More than 8000 people died as a result,14 with the Chinese’s mistrust of the British also playing as a factor. It took almost 2 years to settle down the situation and the aftermath had led to the rise of the next generation of tong laus.

The Second Generation (1900s to 20s)

Before the plague, the Chinese usually used roofs and ground floor areas as public spaces because none of the recreational facilities was built for them.15 While the government was redeveloping the area, not only did they lower the density of buildings, but they also planned a lot of public facilities, which would be the blueprint for future Chinese communities.16 On the other side of the harbour, the New Territories was recently rented from Qing for 99 years. Sham Shui Po, which is located right north of Boundary Street, was designated to be part of the New Kowloon, for which the government decided to expand the boundary. The planning of Sham Shui Po had clear influence from the redevelopment of Taipingshan, where the government first resumed agricultural land from the indigenous people. The area was then replanned by laying down roads in a grid

layout, establishing government departments such as police stations and drawing out public areas. Indigenous residents were then invited back to the developed area in different batches and any leftover land was sold in public auctions for private development. As the government did not designate land use in the auctions, this again led to the dominance of shophouses and turned Sham Shui Po into a commercial/residential area.17 In 1903, the Public Health and Building Ordinance was enacted. It required the creation of open space at the rear of the buildings. The maximum building height will be the street width, replacing the previous standard of 1.5 times the street width.18 In this era, buildings were generally built with the same materials as the previous decades. However, a prominent change would be the arrival of reinforced concrete in Hong Kong, where it was starting to be used in the construction of verandahs.19 The identity of Hong Kong shophouses was

further defined by the changes in the exterior. More variations have been created and the buildings no longer look monotonous, as builders/architects start to introduce Western architectural elements to the buildings, such as the cantilevered terrace at 58 Pei Ho Street. In this era, it is observable that the development of tong laus was not only driven by regulations, but also by Western architectural and technological influences. The major difference in living conditions would be the disappearance of livestock in the house and the further development of commercial activities in the shophouse, extending to the upper floors. This resulted in a mix of nondomestic shops, family businesses, living and storage space in a tong lau, usually without clear boundaries. The planning of the community (markets, piers and roads) had helped the flow of goods and continued to attract more people into the city.20 As living conditions and technology improved at the same time, modern architecture’s soar

in the West would come to shape the next generations of tong laus beyond the 1930s.

Conclusion

Tong lau is a catalyst for development. At the same time, urban development is also a catalyst for the evolution of tong laus. In the first 100 years of British rule, tong laus had been a crucial bridge between the Chinese and the British. The attitude change of the British, from distancing themselves to solving problems actively, was driven by the problems sparked from the living conditions in tong laus. In turn, these changes of the government have also influenced the design of a new generation of shophouses, first through regulations only and later extended to Western influence as modernity started to take over the world. After almost a century, shophouses were finally not only concerned with construction. Instead, living conditions and the design of the facade were also starting to be considered in constructing the unique identity of tong laus.

Notes

1. The 4 generations of tong lau is defined by scholars Lee, Lai and DiStefano, as illustrated in the blog https:// gwulo.com/tong-lau-Hong-Kong-shophouse 2. See Colonial Frames, Nationalist Histories: Imperial Legacies, Architecture, and Modernity, chapter on “Between Typologies and Representation: The Tong Lau and the Discourse of the “Chinese House” in Colonial Hong Kong”, p.257 3. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p.49-50 4. See The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric, p.44 5. See The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric, p.45 6. See The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric, p.36, 44 7. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p.28 8. See Building Ordinance, 1856 9. See Building Ordinance, 1878 10. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p.62 11. See The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric, p.37 12. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p.60 13. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p.40-42 for details of the bubonic plague 14. See Weekly Reports for June 25, 1906, p.656

15. See The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric, p.39, 44 16. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p. 46 for details on the redevelopment of the Taipingshan District 17. See Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, p.90-91, 93 and p.94-95 for a timeline of the development of Shan Shui Po 18. See Public Health and Building Ordinance, 1903 19. Refer to 1 20. See A Sense of History: studies in the social and urban history of Hong Kong, p.192-195 for the integration of public areas/services in Sham Shui Po

TONG LAU — DEVELOPMENT AND FALL Wing Sze Cecilia, Chung

While the first and second generations of tong lau were more primitive and witnessed the start of urbanisation in Hong Kong, the third and fourth generations of tong lau saw Hong Kong through its years of rapid urban development, population boom, as well as war and conflict.

The Third Generation (1930’s to early 40’s)

The third generation of shop houses can be mainly characterised by their widespread use of reinforced concrete. Entering the 1930s, reinforced concrete was now used for the construction of entire buildings, including the roof and floor slabs. This allowed for the

construction of verandahs and larger balconies (recessed or cantilevered), increasing natural daylight and ventilation, which not only improved the sanitary conditions of tong lau, but also lifted living standards in compared to earlier tong laus with more flat facades, as this ventilation was the main form of cooling available for tong lau residents during the summer months in sub-tropical Hong Kong. Like the previous generations of tong lau, the third generation of shophouses were also the result of a high demand in housing, and followed a utilitarian approach in design. As Hong Kong’s population reached over 849 thousand in 19311, with some areas such as Mong Kok and Sham Shui Po reaching 2300 people per hectare, the demand for housing reached a new high. The Building Ordinance of 1903 had been successful in setting standards on building volume and curbing building designs with bad ventilation, lighting and sanitary standards, but by the 1930s this new boom in population meant

multiple families of tenants were crowded in the same tong lau flat, and lacked sanitary facilities to accommodate it’s residents. This led to the enactment of Building Ordinance 1935,2 which continued the requirements of its 1903 counterpart, but with more stringent regulations, such as limiting building height to three stories, unless constructed with fire resistant materials (in which case the height limit is five stories) (Clause 87(7)). This further reinforced (reinforced) concrete’s popularity as the main construction material. Another new regulation, Clause 43(3), which mandated adequate light and ventilation to be provided at every storey on every staircase, would give this generation of tong lau one of its most defining features- a naturally lit and ventilated common staircase. Examples of this include No. 190-204 Prince Edward Road West, Mong Kok; No. 130 Li Lung Street Street, Sham Shui Po and No. 119 Lai Chi Kok Road (Lui Seng Chun), Sham Shui Po.3 The use of a short, half turn internal staircase,

usually placed against the front facade of the building not only fulfilled the Building Ordinance 1935’s requirements, but were also favoured by developers as this increased useful space per floor,4 which meant that more tenants could fit in the same tong lau. In Sham Shui Po, one of Hong Kong’s main trading ports during the 1930’s after its first reclamation project and the construction of Sham Shui Po Pier, was becoming one of the most densely populated districts as a popular destination for refugees fleeing the Chinese Civil War (started 1927) and entrepreneurs alike, as a district with a trading port, as well as reclamation and development plans meant opportunities for housing, work and business. This further enhanced the tong lau/ shophouse’s popularity, and demand was constantly higher than supply. Most developers used tong lau pattern books5templates of regulation-adhering tong lau plans- and changed them according to the constraints of particular sites when designing

tong lau. However, there are a few examples, such as Lui Chun Tong (119 Lai Chi Kok Road), where the Lui family was able to own a whole tong lau, and commission an architect to design according to the client’s needs. Although the main objectives of third generation tong lau were based on regulatory and quantitative needs, aesthetically they also marked a transition from being based off traditional southern Chinese shophouses to the Art Deco, which had become the dominant architecture style worldwide. Tong lau adopted the less ornamented, international style of Art Deco- Streamline Modern, with emphasis on long horizontal lines and curving forms6, giving the impression of modernity. Interestingly, the development of tong lau in Hong Kong was very similar with functionalist aims- as tong laus were built to provide housing effectively and design was not aesthetically driven, but tong lau never adopted a fully functionalist approach. This is likely because Hong Kong was a British colony. With most

architects being trained in Britain (architectural education in Hong Kong was not available until The University of Hong Kong established their Department of Architecture in 1950),7 where functionalism was less influential, compared to eastern European countries such as Germany and Czechoslovakia.

The Fourth Generation (late 1940’s to 60’s)

As the Pacific War broke out in 1941 and Hong Kong was captured by Japanese forces, development fell into a stalemate, and Hong Kong’s population fell from 1.6 million to 0.65 million at 1945,8 when Britain had just regained control over Hong Kong. However, a population boom quickly occurred as the Chinese Communist Party took power in 1949, and an influx of refugees flooded into Hong Kong, increasing the population rose to 2.1 million,9 a population that was higher than the pre-war era. This meant that housing was in high demand again, leading

to the fourth and last generation of tong lau. By 1955, it was clear that the restrictions of Building Ordinance 1935 were detrimental towards the provision of housing, and reinforced concrete technology has matured enough that buildings’ structural integrity could be ensured, even in buildings that exceed five stories.10 Therefore, the Building Ordinance 1955, along with its subsidiary regulations were created. With the introduction of regulations on building material, foundation and structural loading, but also a relaxed control on building volume, the height of tong lau increased, and building volume was now determinable through a mathematical formula (Regulation 20),11 depending on location and purpose of the building. This allowed for extreme high density development, but most buildings (including tong lau) within Kowloon stayed under 13 stories as mandated by the Hong Kong Government, due to its proximity with the Kai Tak Airport, a regulation that

would not be lifted until the cessation of operation of Kai Tak Airport in 1998.12 In Sham Shui Po, most tong lau remained at a lower height of around 6 stories, were now tightly squeezed in blocks, and sported a flat, plain painted concrete facade, with no ornamentation- affordable housing in large quantities was of utmost importance, and ornamentation added to building cost and time. As all reclaimed land was gradually being fully occupied (no new reclamation projects were planned for Sham Shui Po), and the Building Ordinance 1955 gave way for the development of better drainage systems, as well as the implementation and regulation of new technologies such as elevators and escalators, high rise apartments became favoured over the tong lau typology. The Shek Kip Mei fire in 1953, which left 50,000 homeless, further revealed the dangers of living in high density tong lau. This urged the Hong Kong Government’s decision to building public housing (Shek Kip Mei estate

was ready of occupation in 1954), establish the Housing Authority (officially established 1973) in order to develop public subsided housing, at the same time encouraging the development of high rise private residential estates, both of which became the last nail in the coffin of tong lau’s waning popularity.13 As Hong Kong’s population continued to increase from the 1960’s, into the 21st century, an increasing amount of tong lau were demolished to create space for high rises and skyscrapers. Although the origins and development of tong lau are not necessarily innovative or ground breaking, it is a valuable reflection of Hong Kong’s history, and has been, and still is paramount in shaping how generations of Hong- Kongers live. The question now lies in whether these tong lou should be conserved or revitalised, and what place should tong lau take in the urban fabric of the future.

Notes

1. Sessional Papers 1931, Sessional Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hongkong 1931, pp.142152, 174-197. Hong Kong Government Reports Online (1842-1941). 2. “Buildings Ordinance,” Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, accessed December 20, 2021, https://oelawhk. lib.hku.hk/items/show/1877. 3. While Lui Seng Chun was built in 1931, before the Building Ordinance 1935, it exhibits the same building and design strategies as its same-generation counterparts built after 1935, such as its use of concrete, verandahdependant ventilation and ventilated staircase. 4. Chey, Katy. Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Cities: From 1800 to Present Day. Routledge, 2017. 5. “Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme- Lui Seng Chun.” Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage. Accessed December 20, 2021. https:// www.heritage.gov.hk/en/doc/Resource%20kit_Lui_ Seng_Chun.pdf. 6. Oudin, Bernard. Dictionnaire Des Architectes. Paris: Seghers, 1994.pretium sodales dui non vulputate. Mauris interdum 7. History. HKU Faculty of Architecture. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://www.arch.hku.hk/about/ history/. 8. “Hong Kong.” History - Hong Kong. Accessed December 20, 2021. http://www.city-data.com/worldcities/Hong-Kong-History.html. 9. See 4

10. Zou, Han, and Charlie Q. Xue. “The Impact of Building Control on Urban Planning and Building Management in Hong Kong.” Building Resilient Cities in China: The Nexus between Planning and Science, 2015, 375–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14145-9_30. 11. (Maximum) Volume= Factor (depending on purpose of building) x Width of Street x Area of Site 12. “Kai Tak Building Height Restrictions Lifted.” Daily Information Bulletin. Hong Kong (SAR) Government, July 10, 1998. https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/ general/199807/10/0710062.htm. 13. Wong, Wah Sang. “Effects of the Building Code on Construction and Design of Hong Kong Residential Buildings in the Colony.” MATEC Web of Conferences 68 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1051/ matecconf/20166813006.

CONSERVATION AN EXTENSION IN TIME AND IDENTITY Ling Chuen, Kong

Cities across Asia are starting to look increasingly the same. In an era of obsolescence, it is no doubt that there is too little regard for heritage, which urban identity is getting lost. “It is no secret, during the last two decades, Hong Kong has been undergoing somewhat of an identity crisis” – Bernard Lim, Founder HK Institute of Urban Design. Searching for a new identity, the conservation of architecture, a byproduct of history and culture, has become critical in Hong Kong. Among all

the architecture styles, tong lau has witnessed Hong Kong’s development over a century. This essay demonstrates the challenges, opportunities of conservating tong lau and tong lau conservation as a tool to establish connections between people in a community.

Challenges of Conservation

Hong Kong’s heritage conservation system is stagnant, and the grading is only maintained as a reference. One cannot prevent demolition operations, and the other cannot stop “destructive restoration works”. In many cases, tenement houses lose their due attention and reservations because of their unflattering appearance and lack of gorgeousness. Although many tong lau were graded as historical buildings, many were demolished due to the lack of commercial value and gradually disappeared in Hong Kong.1 For example, in 2015, the Tung Tak Pawn Shop was demolished despite the fact that it is a Grade III historic building. Before

the torn down, the interior of the building was reduced to subordinated housing, with a large number of unauthorised structures on the roof.2 It can be seen that Hong Kong tenement houses have always lacked systematic management. However, the historical value of tong lau should not be underestimated. “Tong lau is a product of the colonial era. It is a residential building inhabited by Chinese people that have undergone plague, political turmoil, refugees and World War II. Not to exaggerate, tong lau is a testimony to the history of Hong Kong.” Dr Lee Ho Yin, the Architectural Relics Conservation Course director at the University of Hong Kong, once commented. In addition to the internal and external characteristics of the building, its relationship with the community and its historical significance should also be counted. How to strike a balance between conservation and development has always been a worth discussing topic in urban reconstruction.

In addition to preserving the most valuable characteristic elements of the shophouses’ architectural design, it is also necessary to evaluate the structural condition and damage of the building in the conservation and renewal of historical buildings.3 This could help determine the scope and method of preservation. However, it is not always better to preserve the whole original structure. In most cases, the structure of the old tong lau complex has been seriously ageing due to the lack of proper maintenance for many years.4 Along with the ageing hardware, the livelihood and economic activities of the district have also changed with the ageing population and the district’s economic transformation. Hence, before updating the ageing hardware, the future functions of the building, and the corresponding facilities and installations that need to be coordinated accordingly, have to be publicly consulted.

Importance of Conservation

In terms of the social aspect of revitalising a tong lau, it is necessary to preserve the historical traditions, culture and regional characteristics of the site it is located.5 Not to mention, the needs of residents and the community’s future development have to be considered as well. When these characteristics are integrated into the revitalised building, the updated project can re-establish the relationship with the community. Hence, the revitalisation could achieve “integrating the old and the new “, allowing the community’s sustainable development. This way, old buildings can be transformed into new urban resources and maximize social benefits. To let people cherish the relics of architecture and history, the most important thing is to let them experience it in person.6 Take the “Dr Sun Yat-Sen Historical Trail” in the Central and Western District as an example, many socalled “landmarks” only have an explanatory

sign, without any physical structures to look at or experience. The preservation of shophouses, or architecture in general, can make history concretely come to life and let visitors understand life in that time. Architecture is a reflection of society at that time. For example, pre-war arcades like Lui Seng Chun often had huge terraces, and no windows were installed in the initial stage.7 This is probably unbelievable for today’s noise and air pollution. On the one hand, the simple toilets and long steps make people thankful for today’s convenience. Some of them are worthy of appreciation, while others must be reflected. There are many other options for developing and constructing high-rise buildings in Hong Kong. Therefore, it is not reasonable to eradicate historical buildings time and time again. In addition to being revitalised for other purposes, it should also be used for display and education activities to preserve history and achieve the effect of cultural heritage.

Possible Methods of Conservation

The following three cases, the Blue House Cluster, Lei Seng Chun, and Tung Tak Pawn Shop, could bring out the three possible conservation methods - retention, rebirth, and replacement. Retention is a kind of continuation, which refers to meeting the needs of the current society and the community with the slightest architectural changes; Rebirth is a kind of development, which refers to the excavation and development of the values contained in the current society and communities that need to be promoted; Replacement is an innovation, which refers to the replacement of the original function of the building when it is no longer necessary in the community to revitalise the community.

The Blue House Cluster — Living Preservation

In the conservation of the Blue House Cluster,

the Urban Renewal Authority invited the residents of the Blue House, the residents of the Stone Nullah Lane neighbourhoods and shop owners to discuss plans for the continuation of the Blue House.8 As the Hong Kong government’s first project to carry out the ‘living preservation’ conservation method, Blue House not only allows the architecture and residents to continue their life there but, more importantly, it enhances the cohesion of the community. After conservation and activation, the Blue House provides space for private residences and contains space that connects the community. Materially, it is a place for residents to gather; spiritually, it refers to the Wan Chai and the Blue House culture. They come together to form a sense of community identity and belonging. The regional characteristics of this place could be a scenic spot that attracts tourists. Still, it avoids the excessive commercialisation of tourist attractions and strikes a balance between neighbourhoods and tourists as a community.

Lui Seng Chun — Building-Revitalization and Rebirth

The original intention of the Baptist University’s revitalisation plan for Lui Seng Chun is that the district is facing the problem of population ageing, and there is a great demand for Chinese medicine health care treatment.9 After the activation, the function of the Lui Seng Chun medical hall was reborn, and the building established a connection with the community. It provided Chinese medicine consultation services and opened a pharmacy to meet the needs of community residents. At the same time, patients were allowed to go to other pharmacies to dispense medicine.10 It has stimulated the business in the vicinity and the Chinese medicine industry. More Chinese medicine museums have been opened nearby, revitalising the entire community.

Tung Tak Pawn Shop — Implanting New Elements

The landmark of Hennessy Road, the Tung Tak Pawn Shop, a Grade III historical building, was approved to be converted into a 23-story commercial building and was demolished in 2015.11 If the government intends to retain the Tung Tak Pawn Shop, there are many ways to do it. The most straightforward method is to renowned the building in accordance with the current laws, then imitate the preservation method of Macau’s Tak Seng On that transforms the shophouse into a heritage exhibition of a traditional pawnshop business.12 The conversion into a museum can serve both educational and conservation functions. Even from an economic perspective, retaining historic buildings can increase Hong Kong’s tourism characteristics and indirectly benefit tourism. Suppose the redevelopment plan remains unchanged in the end. In that case, the government can still require developers

to follow the old Wan Chai market’s redevelopment model that retains the shell and bottom pillars during the redevelopment. Although this method will increase construction costs, its unique architectural features may also increase the rental value of new commercial buildings after completion. 13 This is another compromise method for preserving the Tung Tak Pawn Shop. The goal of conservation is to establish connections between people by preserving historic buildings and revitalising the neighbourhood. Among the cases mentioned above, the essential conservation factors are “people-oriented”, manifested explicitly in creating “partnership” relationships and increasing public participation.14 1. Create a “partnership” relationship. The protection of historical buildings does not depend on the government or large consortia but adopts a fair public-private partnership, with market mechanisms as the prerequisite and mutual influence.

2. Increase public participation. During the project’s operation, increasing public participation could let citizens decide their community needs. The project progresses gradually in communication, and all parties coordinate to determine the best plan, which could help maximise the effect of revitalisation, both in the architecture itself and the community. In the three cases, the design techniques adopted in the conservation and activation process were different, while the intervention made to the buildings also varies from case to case. Still, they were all designed according to residents’ needs and the community’s development in this era. The beauty of the place is actually due to the charm of the people who live on this land. Understanding the people’s thoughts and then looking at the place, the more profound the attraction of the place will be felt.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

See the hong kong shophouse. See 同德大押歷史研究報告 (pp. 1). See the hong kong shophouse. See the hong kong shophouse. See 轉角唐樓舊歡如夢. See the hong kong shophouse. See 限量版雷生春紀念特刊 (pp.67). See Viva Blue House – Blue House Cluster Revitalization Scheme (pp. 35–45) See 限量版雷生春紀念特刊 (pp.68). See 限量版雷生春紀念特刊 (pp.68). See 同德大押歷史研究報告 (pp. 2-3). See 同德大押歷史研究報告 (pp. 3). See 同德大押歷史研究報告 (pp. 4). See 基于“活化历史建筑伙伴计划”的香港唐楼建筑保育活化研究.

Bibliography

1. Association of Schools of Public Health. Weekly Reports for June 15, 1906. Public Health Reports, n.d. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2081002/?page=16. 2. “Buildings Ordinance,” Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, accessed December 21, 2021, https:// oelawhk.lib.hku.hk/items/show/1877. 3. Chey, Katy. Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Cities: From 1800 to Present Day. Routledge, 2017. 4. Desai, Madhuri, and Cecilia Chu. “Between Typologies and Representation: The Tong Lau and the Discourse of the ‘Chinese House’ in Colonial Hong Kong.” Essay. In Colonial Frames, Nationalist Histories: Imperial Legacies, Architecture and Modernity, 253–83. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. 5. History. HKU Faculty of Architecture. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://www.arch.hku.hk/about/ history/. 6. Ho, Pui Yin. Making Hong Kong: A History of Its Urban Development, 26–95. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018. 7. “Hong Kong.” History - Hong Kong. Accessed December 20, 2021. http://www.city-data.com/worldcities/Hong-Kong-History.html. 8. “Kai Tak Building Height Restrictions Lifted.” Daily Information Bulletin. Hong Kong (SAR) Government, July 10, 1998. https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/ general/199807/10/0710062.htm. 9. Lee Ho Yin, & Lynne DiStefano. (2016). Tong Lau / 唐

10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16.

17.

樓, the hong kong shophouse. Division of Architectural Conservation Programmes (ACP) Faculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong. Retrieved December 21, 2021, from https://gwulo.com/tong-lau-Hong-Kongshophouse LWK Conservation Ltd. (2011). (rep.). Conservation Management Plan for Viva Blue House – Blue House Cluster Revitalization Scheme (pp. 35–45). Oudin, Bernard. Dictionnaire Des Architectes. Paris: Seghers, 1994. “Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme- Lui Seng Chun.” Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/doc/Resource%20kit_ Lui_Seng_Chun.pdf. Sessional Papers 1931, Sessional Papers laid before the Legislative Council of Hongkong 1931, pp.142-152, 174-197. Hong Kong Government Reports Online (1842-1941). Shelton, Barrie, Justyna Karakiewicz, and Thomas Kvan. The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric, 36–59. London: Routledge, 2010. Smith, Carl T. A Sense of History: Studies in the Social and Urban History of Hong Kong. North Point, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Pub. Co., 1995. Wong, Wah Sang. “Effects of the Building Code on Construction and Design of Hong Kong Residential Buildings in the Colony.” MATEC Web of Conferences 68 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1051/ matecconf/20166813006. Wu, Cifang, Hon Wan Edwin Chan, Hiu Kwan Yung, and Wong Wah Seng. “The Evolution of Building Regulations

18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

in Hong Kong.” Essay. In Proceedings of CRIOCM 2005 International Research Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, 56–65. Hong Kong: Chinese Research Institute of Construction Management, 2005. Zou, Han, and Charlie Q. Xue. “The Impact of Building Control on Urban Planning and Building Management in Hong Kong.” Building Resilient Cities in China: The Nexus between Planning and Science, 2015, 375–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14145-9_30. 陈芷筠. “基于“活化历史建筑伙伴计划”的香港唐楼建筑保育活化研究.” 广东科技 25.10 (2016): 43-46. Web. 林蔓莉., 王新源., and 王新源. 香港騎樓. Chu Ban.; 初版. ed. 香港: 中華書局(香港)有限公司, 2015. Print. 吳韻怡. (2015). (rep.). 同德大押歷史研究報告 (pp. 1–4). 周耀恩 and 徐子豪 “【轉角唐樓舊歡如夢】轉角唐樓拆或留由業主話事.” 明周文化. 明周文化, May 18, 2021. https://www.mpweekly.com/ culture/%e5%94%90%e6%a8%93-%e6%88%b0%e5%8 9%8d%e5%94%90%e6%a8%93-%e4%bf%9d%e8%82 %b2%e5%94%90%e6%a8%93-180149. 香港浸會大學. 限量版雷生春紀念特刊 (pp.67-68) “深水埗弧形街角樓易手.” Apple Daily 蘋果日報. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://web.archive.org/ web/20190411172608/https://hk.finance.appledaily. com/finance/daily/article/20151222/19421526.

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.