Development: Shek Kip Mei Estate(s)

DEVELOPMENT:

SHEK KIP MEI

石硤 尾

ARCH2058 Modern Architecture ASSIGNMENT 3: GUIDEBOOK

| Fall 2021

Development: Public Housings in Shek Kip Mei Tam Wing Huen (3035697606) Lee Nip Man Mandy (3035664788) Pak Hei Nam (3035664776)

Shek SHEK KIP MEI ESTATE 1

BLOCK 19, 20 & Market and Cooked Food Stalls

2

Mei Wui House & Ancillary Facilities Block

3

Playground on Woh Chai Street

4

BLOCK 21-23

5

BLOCK 41 Mei Ho House (YHA Youth Hostel)

Kip 5 Block 41 Mei Ho House 4 Block 21-23

Recommended Route

Mei

Playground 3

2

Mei Wui House

1 Block 19, 20 Exit A Shek Kip Mei MTR Station

石硤尾邨

SHEK KIP MEI ESTATE To start off the tour, we cross a footbridge over Woh Chai Street, where a split image of the estate can be seen with old slabs on the left and new prefab towers on the right.

We then enter through the “back” of Block 19 through the ancillary services, tucked into a shaded corridor which then opens up to the vast open space above the Shek Kip Mei Market. Here you can see people of all ages using different parts of the park, there are recreational facilities for all ages. Palm trees rise from two atriums from which you can see the bustling market below, providing food for the people of Shek Kip Mei. You may then cross the footbridge towards the podium of Blocks 42-44, giving views of two ends of Nam Cheong Street: One towards Lion Rock and one towards the sea.

Turn right onto another footbridge towards

Mei Shing House. Interestingly, this bridge was built along with Block 44, but new aluminium coverings are used to “bridge” it to the new side. Go down the stairs on your left and follow the path forwards which will bring you to a small amphitheater on your right, decorated with a series of mosaic murals showing the evolution of the estate.

Then, turn left to cross the road towards Block 23 which once again is entered through a narrow path which opens up to a vast courtyard containing the sports facilities of the estate as well as a garden for the elderly shaded by trees older than the estate itself. Walk across the sportsground to the opposite corner to exit.

Turn right, and walk upwards along Berwick Street to reach Mei Ho House. Here you may visit the exhibition and galleries on the ground floor, enjoy afternoon tea in the nostalgic themed restaurants or relax in the rear courtyard facing the hill.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Walkway Podium Playground Market Block 20 Block 19 1

2

3

4

6

5

1 Old Shek Kip Mei Estate (Blocks 19-20) 舊石硤尾邨

Completed in 1977, Blocks 19 and 20 were the first in Shek Kip Mei Estate to consist entirely of self-contained flats with water, electricity, bathroom, and kitchen. Flats were arranged linearly along the “I” shaped slab block. Compared to the “H” shaped resettlement blocks, communal spaces were pushed out of the building onto the podium of the Shek Kip Mei Commercial Centre which opened in 1979. This large horizontal slab contained a mix of 461 commercial units.

Many of these belong to the large wet market, which has two large atriums for ventilation and light. These connect to the podium above, where a large open playground sits, surrounded by cooked food stalls, community centres, clinics and even schools.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mei Wui & Mei Leong House Walkway Playground Kindergarten 7 Primary School Courtyard Library

5 1

6

2

4

3

2 New Shek Kip Mei Estate (Blocks 19-20)

新石硤尾邨 The redevelopment project sought to provide 17,400 units to relieve the shortage of housing. The new shek kip mei estate consists of non-standard housing plans and is different from the previous types. The buildings are strategically oriented to allow for better light penetration and ventilation. Consequently they are more separate from each other, and there is almost no public space on each floor except for the circulation spaces to maximise land use. Public spaces are condensed onto a raised podium connecting the Meu Wui, Mei Leong House and the Ancillary Facilities Block. This raised pavilion contains all the recreational facilities for the two blocks and provides for raised circulation around the estates via connection to footbridges. This new design provides similar functionality to the public spaces of Blocks 19-20, but with improved shading and thermal comfort as well as higher efficiency of land use.

3 Mei Ho House 美荷樓

Mei Ho House is the only Mark I H-shaped block preserved in Hong Kong. The H-shaped plan consists of two rectangular blocks connected with a central connection.

It was built as part of the government public housing scheme. A disastrous fire incident urged the government to intervene and accommodate 50,000 refugees from China.

Therefore, to relieve and accommodate the victims, the government initiated the construction of six-storey resettlement blocks.

Playground Planning in Public Housing Play Not About Playing Wing Huen, Tam

Play is a constant happening, a constant act of creation in the mind or in practice.

– Arvid Bengtsson, Environmental Planning for Children’s Play

Playgrounds emerged as a side product of public housing. In the 1950s, most Hong Kong people lived in squatters, shabby and poorly hygienic. The play equipment was often concentrated in specific areas out of squatter areas. After the Shek Kip Mei Fire in 1953, the government planned to develop a resettlement area and build public hous-

ing for the residents, known as the old Shek Kip Mei Estate, to reallocate the 58,000 residents who lost their homes in the fire. Then, the government launched the urban planning project based on social welfare, which included the plan for the playground in addition to public housing projects. The plan enabled playgrounds to penetrate the living environment widely. This article tries to look into the development of playgrounds throughout the past few decades and reflect on their transformation by comparing the existing facilities in Shek Kip Mei Estate.

Play Transformed From Public to Private Although playgorounds are commonly considered to be places where solely children are entertained and where they can socialize and exercise, they convey a certain social responsibility for the public housing community. The original purpose of planning playgrounds was to cater to the thriving juvenile delin-

quency in the 1960s when the society lacked schools or nurseries to look after the children and let them “release their excessive energy.”1 Therefore, playgrounds were taken into formal consideration to provide entertainment and non-official education and to deter them from becoming a “destructive force to the society.”2 The government located playgrounds in flat and open spaces where children could be easily seen, to fulfill this expectation. When children enter the playgrounds, they enter the surveillance and domination3 of adults.

The intention to control can be observed when looking at the podium design in Block 19 and 20 of the Shek Kip Mei Estate. The playgrounds on the podium are highly visible and accessible. Besides the two rectangular areas which are designated as playgrounds, the podium is almost empty. Therefore, everything happening on the playgrounds can be seen from Block 19 and 20, which form an “L” shape around them. The under-

ground market can also be seen from the podium through two patios right next to the playgrounds. As for accessibility, the podium plays a vital role in the whole public housing structure. Horizontally, it extends onto footbridges that connect to other podiums at the off-ground level and the sidewalks on the ground. It also acts as a transition space from the underground market to the residential buildings above, extending it vertically. In a word, the podium is almost transparent to the residents and the general public. On the one hand, this adds convenience to this playing facility; on the other hand, the all-around total transparency creates a Bentham’s Panopticon situation for the users.

When it came to the 1980s, the economic boom improved both the quality of life and social stability. The social welfare system was well-developed, and public housing type developed into a more hygienic, efficient, and condensed megastructure. Fresh markets were cut off from the living area, and more

public services were incorporated into public housing. However, the social transformation did not make playgrounds more playful.

Instead, it brought new expectations: to be safer for children, to be a part of the community landscape, and to act as an organism of all-age-friendly recreation places. The government set up safety guidelines for the selection of play modules and commissioned landscape architects to design playgrounds, coping with the problems of “view.”

Take the new Shek Kip Mei Estate as an example; the design aims to combine all open areas as a whole. Besides podiums for accessing residential areas, this millennial new type of public housing creates an extra huge void, namely “rise pavilion” between the shops (ground level) and the upper buildings by lifting the residential areas. The rise pavilion under Mei Wui House and Mei Leong House podium forms a circulation throughout the composite and connects with other blocks by footbridges. Resting places, like playgrounds,

passive public open spaces, and fitness corners for the elderly, merge with the circulation and create various possibilities for leisure along the way. Because of this, the allocation of playgrounds is shattered, and access to them becomes complicated. There are several spots with play equipment along the route.

However, playgrounds are no longer the focus of public spaces like those in Block 19 and 20. They become separate insertions into the giant megastructure, dispersed in

corners and hidden under the shades of the slab. Even the largest main playground near Shek Kip Mei Community Services Center is located at the very end of the whole building.

Again, the playground of Mei Sang House and Mei Yin House is also hidden behind the amphitheater and can hardly be seen from the park entrance. The lessened accessibility of playgrounds reflects people’s increased need for privacy and the diminished importance of playgrounds in their leisure time.

Play Unchanged within the Development Even though the houses in Shek Kip Mei Estate developed into various forms, from Mei Ho House to the latest Mei Cheong House, the playgrounds in the community look similar to each other. Jungle gym, slides, seesaws… These modules repeat in almost every playground observed in the estate.4 Not only the type but also the colors, heights, and even materials of these modules are similar and dull. Why did the design of playgrounds

not change along with the changes in design for public housing projects?

The reasons could be attributed to administrative, economic, and social aspects. First, in fact, various playgrounds emerged in the 1960s-1970s in some public housing blocks, such as Sha Kok Estate and Shek Lei Estate.

5 However, the scarce land for public housing planning and the government’s strict safety instructions limit the modules’ sizes and functions. For example, the height of the slides is limited regarding the risk for injury, and giant playscapes vanished because of the lack of space. Facilities considered dangerous or “unhygienic,” such as swings or dune playgrounds, were also erased from playgrounds during the mass renovation of the old playground equipment. The instructions stifle the innovation for playground facilities that are able to meet people’s changing needs.

The difficulty in innovation also hinders breakthroughs in playground planning that emerged in western countries, such as street

playgrounds or adventure playgrounds.

After that, the utilitarian mindset of planning encourages developers to purchase cheap and prefabricated modules imported from the US, Japan, Australia, and Europe. Mass production enables them to buy play facilities at much lower prices and less effort than designing them. The only thing they need to do is to assemble the modules and place them on the site. However, this practice directly leads to the problem of mismatching between the playground and the modules.

Because the assembled structures are not designed based on the population structure and flow, they can hardly meet the community’s actual needs.

Lastly, the inconsiderate and repetitive setup of playgrounds arouses little enthusiasm in the community for improving this situation. Residents rather use these open areas for other activities than playing. On the playgrounds of Block 19 and 20 children are

barely seen in the areas which are exposed to direct sunlight, while the elderly love to use the play modules as frames to air their quilts.

The displaced function of playgrounds shows their unappealing aspects and the decreasing utilization for playing.

Play Could Be Better in Playing Looking through the development of Shek Kip Mei Estate, the evolution of playgrounds in public housing is also revealed. Interestingly, playgrounds as public spaces were planned in a utilitarian manner that was firstly coping with a social issue. The playgrounds were never considered as much more than places for playing and entertaining. Therefore, when the child crime rate decreased, the importance of playgrounds shrunk as well. This is why playgrounds did not follow the development process of public housing. Instead, when the megastructures grew larger and tried to contain as many services as possible, the space for playgrounds was diminished by other facilities and developed in a monotonous manner that stood still for decades. The poor development of playgrounds allowed the educational and leisure goal of playing to become a mere formality. This issue reveals that neither the approach of efficiency-first, nor the function-based urban development

are the one and only ways to enhance the societies living standards. On the contrary, humanist design approaches, which consider the needs of individuals and the community, are also indispensable for happiness and satisfaction when people use public facilities.

In recent years, this issue has been noticed by groups of architects, and they tried to design characterized playgrounds distinct from those with prefabricated modules. For instance, Tuen Mun Park is the first children’s playground with the theme of playing with water and sand. It creates unique and diverse experiences for children to gain from playing in the park. Other than this, Central & Western Promenade connects Belcher Park and WE Park, which both have interactive partitions on the playgrounds and provide mutual experiences to the children. These cases are valuable examples for exploring the new possibilities in playground design. These playgrounds differentiate from each other based on the different surroundings on the site. Also, they

create unique playing memories for children respectively. Playing is not only about playing; it could be better than playing, growing together with children and the community.

Notes

1. Social Welfare Department, Aims and Policy for Social Welfare in Hong Kong, Social Welfare Department, 1965.

2. Same as above 3. Grame Gilloch, Myth & Metropolis: Walter Benjamin & the City, Cambridge Polity Press, 1996, p.86.

4. 陳汝達. 香港遊戲環境設計初探. 香港: 海國遠圖出版社, 2005.

5. 樊樂怡. 香港抽象遊戲地景. Chu Ban; 初版 ed. 香港: Brownie Publishing, 2021.

THE EVOLUTION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS UNDER MODERNIST PLANNING Nip Man Mandy, Lee Introduction

Shek Kip Mei Estate marks the beginning of the public housing program initiated by the colonial government during the 1950s. The fire incident provided an opportunity to legitimize the British colonial concern with public housing and its implications for public health and order. Thus, the resettlement estates act as an active force to manifest the dominant interests of colonial values and ideologies.

Shek Kip Mei Estate described as a standardized block shaped by functionalism is an understatement. The development of the modular blocks since the colonial era till now allows one to decipher the complex and contradictory interests between the state and civil society. The experiential project embarks on the political power and ideology transplanted during the colonial era.

In addition, the colonial influences constitute the backbone of the ongoing refinement of public housing policies. The colonial project integrated spatial practices as an attempt to construct a new urban identity for the locals.

The post-colonial era continues to extend and impose social control with its current socio-economic priorities. Furthermore, the transition from the colonial era to the postcolonial era stresses spatial arrangement within the estate to impose a structured living pattern.

The significant modifications of policies run in parallel with the design development of

school building prototypes which reflects the social, economic, and government interests.

The design types include: ‘rooftop’, ‘ground floor’, ‘top floor’ (the 1950s); ‘annex’, ‘matchbox’ (1960s) during the colonial era. The post-colonial era consists of: ‘standard design primary schools’ ‘semi-interlocking’ structures (the 1980s), ‘Flexi-type’ (1990); and ‘millennium’ and ‘post millennium’ (21st century). [1] The listed design types dated each era sought a solution to meet the emerging needs of society. In addition, the transition from the colonial to the post-colonial era reflects the difference in conceptualizations of education of two varying political ideologies.

The essay explores the design modification of school types through the process of changing policies and systems. As a result, the analysis attempts to decipher the means of obtaining a “new” urban identity living in the estate from two contrasting modernist ideologies.

The happenings of the 1950s Hong Kong was experiencing rapid urbanization and a large influx of immigrants after World War II. The overflowing population has put pressure upon Hong Kong’s resources and further stir the demand for land and facilities upwards.

After the Shek Kip Mei fire in 1953, the colonial government launched resettlement housing blocks to accommodate the victims.

In addition, to cope with the insufficient educational facilities, spare spaces within the estates such as the ‘rooftop’, ‘ground floor’ and ‘top floor’ were converted into schools. The utilization of such spaces contributed to the economic school type during the 1950s where the colonial government sought to provide basic education for the tenants’ children.

“We walked up from the ground floor of the east wing to the sixth floor. There were two units next to the staircase. They were the school office.”

[2] “The ends at the south and the north each had two classrooms and a small room, with a total of four rooms. Each classroom could hold twenty-four people…There is a clearing in the middle of the area and tiled with cement bricks. Both sides on the rooftop are surrounded with barbed wire.” [3] The “rooftop schools” were H-shaped, where two classrooms were placed on each end, leaving the middle area open. Due to the limited space, some units of the estates were rented for staff. The school shared public toilets with the tenants residing within the block.

“Rooftop schools in the resettlement area have taken up the major role in childhood education of Hong Kong…around 50,000 children would lose their education opportunities.” [4]

The “rooftop” type provided educational opportunities for those that fall short on educational development.

Although there were a lot of shortcomings, the organization hope to improve their social mobility through the exchange of knowledge and skills.

“Rooftop schools thus shall become a part of the life of residents of the resettlement area.”[5]

The poorly constructed “rooftop” schools had been built for poor families.

The segregation of the elite and the immigrants was visible. In addition, upon the completion of their education, the children would be sent to factories to stimulate the economy of Hong Kong.

The hidden interests of industrial development prompted the standardized estate design.

Moreover, the rise of industrialization prompted the provision of housing as an attempt to control and regulate the flow of immigrants. The correspondent education facilities are a by-product of public housing.

Thereby, ensuring the increase in the economy through a stable supply of cheap labor.

From the 1960s to the 1970s “It is foreseen that more of these schools will be built. Up till now, the government has not offered any subsidies to rooftop schools and most rooftop schools depend

on the support of charity organizations.”[6] The detached involvement of the colonial government stimulated social and political uncertainty during the 1960s. Alongside with a continued inflow of immigrants overwhelmed the proposed target of the housing program.

As social tension strains the trust between the state and the civil society, the government reassessed its role. The reassessment led to the prioritization on achieving social stability through improving the quality of living with interventionist schemes. Hence, the new reform policy attempts to reshape the residential space with a routinized network.

Rooftop schools began to demolish due to the rising safety concerns raised by the government in 1965. During the same year, the White paper announced, “the provision of six years free primary education to all Hong Kong children”.[7]

After the demolished rooftop schools and a more involved government, two types of school buildings emerged: ‘Annexe’ and ‘Matchbox’. Both ‘matchbox’ and ‘annexe’ school types were built to be attached next to the estate. As a result, this became a simultaneous construction process. The quantity-focused approach led to the simple and compact building form: a single block extruded five to six storeys in height attached nearby the public housing estate building.

The school design and curriculum paid minimum interest on tenants’ educational and comfort needs. Instead, the aim was to ensure the supply of cheap manpower to fuel the production of factories. Therefore, both types do not consider enhancing the quality of life for those who attended.

The emergence from “rooftop” schools to “annexe” schools is simply a spatial reconfiguration that neglects the potential of social development. The disintegrated and alienated community is further deprived by

the colonial conceptualization of education.

1970s Matchbox primary schools Compulsory Education

and

The final type during the colonial era is a ‘matchbox’ primary school design that consists of a standardized rectangle box structure detached from the estate. Furthermore, the enforcement of a “universal 9-year compulsory education” is introduced in 1978.

Post-Colonial Era Policies & Designs Departing from the British colonial era to the formation of the Special Administrative Region, the prioritization of the education system has received greater attention.

In addition, the ‘standard-design’ type is introduced to the public. The type is an independent building block with 24 classrooms and other facilities (covered playground, basketball court, assembly hall).

In parallel to the reconstruction of Hong Kong’s economy from secondary production to tertiary production. The conceptualization of education is revised through “Learning to Learn – The Way Forward in Curriculum Development 2001”. The report states the “vision of enabling students to attain allround development and lifelong learning” [8] with the “recommendations on strategies and actions for the short-term phase, the mediumterm phase, and the long-term phase.” [9] The ideology of the Special Administrative Region actively dwells upon the community through the curriculum and reconstruction of school designs. The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) serve as the “manual of criteria” where “the subsequent chapters deal with specific standards and guidelines”.[10] The manual draws attention to the need of increasing the quality of life through the provision of community services.

Furthermore, the manual serves as a basis to enhance

the quality of urban life. As documented within the manual, there are proposed references to facilitate the design of schools.

For example, the three standard iterations of primary school design are 30 classrooms, 24 classrooms, and 18 classrooms. Moreover, necessary supporting facilities should be accommodated to maintain the standard of the institution.

The diversification of school building designs marks a humanistic approach to cater to the needs of the stakeholders. For example, both ‘millennium’ and ‘post-millennium’ school type intends to provide students with desirable learning environments.

Furthermore, the rebranding of education institutions further eliminates the idea of “standardized” and “identical” schools.

Conclusion In conclusion, the education institutions can be seen as a by-product of the public housing

program. The departure from the rooftop school prototype to the millennium type reflects the design deficiencies of the respective era. As a result, Shek Kip Mei Estate is a compilation of various iterations of school building types.

Furthermore, the transition from the colonial and post-colonial era highlights policies that sculpt its conceptualization of education.

The colonial government focuses on maximizing the supply of labor through the mass production of housing and educational facilities. In contrast, the post-colonial aims to transform Hong Kong into a tertiary economy.

The political motivation led to the prioritization of improving the quality of education.

The shaping of a ‘new’ identity reflects on the experience on ‘how to be modern’ under the modernist approaches of rational planning in Hong Kong.

Notes

1. Chung, Chak, and Ngan, Ming Yan. “From “Rooftop” to “Millennium”: The Development of Primary Schools in Hong Kong since 1945.” New Horizons in Education No. 46. November 2002. 5-11 2. Days at Rooftop Schools (Extract) Wong Cho-chi.

Senior Secondary Unit 4: Exploring the Educational Development of Hong Kong through Rooftop Schools Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association.

3. Same as above 4. Industrial and Commercial Daily Press, 7 May 1962.

Senior Secondary Unit 4: Exploring the Educational Development of Hong Kong through Rooftop Schools Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association.

5. Same as above 6. Same as above 7. White Paper. 1965 8. Education Bureau. Summary. Learning to Learn – The Way Forward in Curriculum Development. 2001 9. Same as above 10. Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. Ch3 Community Facilities. Planning Department The overnment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

2021

CANTOPOP

AS A MEANS OF EXAMINING THE CHANGING PERCEPTION OF HONG KONG’S ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE Hei Nam, Pak In October 2013 the YHA Mei Ho House Youth Hostel opened as part of the Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme by the Hong Kong Government. A museum rests in a portion of the ground floor, where visitors “feel as if they were living in an old community through a highly immersive design.”1 This is tangible evidence of Hong Kong’s shift in mentality towards the ageing housing blocks planned for demolishment, also evident in the increasing attention given by the media as well as online platforms, where photographs and sometimes interviews “rediscover” older parts of Hong Kong, often under a nostalgic lens. How has

a city known for rapid development, subsequently demolition and replacement of old buildings for better profit, suddenly become invested in preserving its historic buildings?

This short essay discusses the changing societal perceptions and mentality towards Hong Kong’s older public estates from the late 20th century to the 2010s, through the lyrics of Cantonese pop songs from different eras, in order to better understand the city’s growing enthusiasm to preserve some of the older buildings in Hong Kong.

After the tragic fire that destroyed the squatter settlements on the hillsides of Shek Kip Mei, the Hong Kong Housing Authority and Shek Kip Mei Estate began with the hastily built seven-storey blocks in an H configuration. These blocks of reinforced concrete were completed in sixteen weeks and housed an average of 2300 residents each.2 There was no electricity, no water, no kitchens, and the bathroom was a communal one in the centre of the “H”.3 “They were by today’s

standards, crude and uncomfortable. To the homeless they were a haven.”4 Living conditions were not ideal for the new residents, but neither was that for most of the “common folk” in 1950s Hong Kong. Many lived in tenement houses of wood and or concrete, also known as Tong Laus (唐樓). These were usually 4-stories and around 4.5 metres in width and were often divided into smaller “cubicles and bed spaces of 40 or 50 sq. ft each,”3 commonly without any exposure to sunlight or proper ventilation. Others lived in different kinds of informal accommodation, such as boats, rooftops basements and staircases.

During the 1950s and 1960s, life was difficult for locals and immigrants alike. Downwards social mobility was an experience shared amongst many, as “Hong Kong was still in the early stage of its export-oriented industrialisation,” the economy was built on low wage labour by the lower class.5 People consumed media through newspaper and other printed material as the first radi-

os and television could only be afforded by the wealthy. During the 1950s, the concept of Cantonese popular songs has yet to materialise. Cantonese music was imported from Malaysia and Singapore, whilst local productions were closer to traditional Cantonese opera. It was the 1964 visit by The Beatles that triggered the first rock wave, spurred on by the popularisation of radios as well as Singaporean singer Seong Koon Low-Won’s Cantonese covers of popular Beatles songs.6 Impacts of post-war industrialisation began to materialise in economic development in the 1970s, as Hong Kong transitioned towards the international finance centre we recognise today.7 Radios and television were much more commonplace. Despite many still working in labour intensive factory work, there seemed to be hope for upwards mobility. The Housing Authority was established in 1973, along with a 10-year plan aiming to provide everyone in Hong Kong with permanent housing.8 The built blocks have mostly evolved into newer self-contained flats, at one point housed

half the city’s population. These buildings were designed as self contained neighbourhoods. Blocks 19 and 20 are an example of this, composed of a large slab on the ground level for commercial use and a post office, resulting in a large raised platform which included recreational facilities, restaurants, community centres, clinics and even schools.

At this time, public housing estates are a very recognisable urban form, cementing itself in the societal image of Hong Kong, representing government organisation and the starting place for an upwards mobile population.

As living conditions improved, people started to look back on working-class life in the past decades, evident in more of Samuel Hui’s songs. The “Water Rationing Song” (《制水 歌》) humorously describes life under Hong Kong’s water rationing policy which ran up until 1964. “Water rationing again sucks. Water rationing again doesn’t really matter. Water rationing again, how will I shower tonight.

How sad it is to be dry all night”9. Though

it was also evidence of a change in lifestyle in the lines “Water rationing again, there’s no point going out tonight. Water rationing again, even going on dates is no longer fun.

Water rationing again, girls will be scared of my stench. How sad it is to be dry all night”.

For the first time, the people of Hong Kong started to have a night life, and had disposable income and time to think about things other than work and family. “Wooden Houses” (《木屋區》), a Cantonese cover of Elvis Presley’s “In the Ghetto” shows a tragic story of a boy growing up in the old squatter settlements. “Under a stormy sky, in a corner in the poor slums, a baby was born”10. These looks back into the past is different from that in the present. Here, looking back into the impoverished past is interesting as it stands in contrast with the 1970s and 1980s, a time that is more developed and superior in every way. During this time, Hong Kong’s “working class origins” were less celebrated, but serve as evidence to show how society has progressed and left the past behind. In times of rapid development

and upwards mobility, nobody took issue with the tearing down of the outdated and obsolete. In 1983, in a visit by Margaret Thatcher to China, it was decided that authority over Hong Kong would be handed back to China in 1997. This triggered the second mass migration wave driven by fear of an uncertain future under the Chinese Communist Party.

Jenny Tseng’s “Pearl of the East” (《東方之 珠》) is evidence of doubts about the present and future, and tries to hold on to an image of the safer past. “Though this island looks glorious on the outside, it is sad that some still live in the alleys”… “Pearl of the East my lover, are you still as romantic as before”11 This time, Samuel Hui’s work tries to restore a sense of stability and community spirit. In “Bauhinia” released in the same year (《洋紫 荊》), Hui sings “Neon lights, shopping heaven, free city, prosperity for all”… “A fishing island weathering the storm in a corner of the earth”… “In the East, a pearl shines brightly”12 The song creates a prosperous and romanticised image of Hong Kong, once again

referencing its “uncanny origins”,to bring back the spirit of the hardworking lower class.

“In the Same Boat” (《同舟共濟》)released in 1990 shares similar sentiments, as it tells people to “Hold on to your faith, strengthen your foundations”… “If I do my part to the best, darkness will be defeated.”13 Ironically, provoking images of the past seemed to only further affirm the competency of the colonial government, whose housing housing projects allowed so many to establish a life for themselves. Such music, in addition to uncertainty and political change further prompted historical contemplation and the construction of a “sanitised and altered” image of the past, planting seeds for public sentiments in favour of preserving historic buildings.

The irony of heritage buildings however, is that they cannot show in entirety its value until they are completely left in the past. Only by expecting the demolition of Shek Kip Mei Estate, can it be “rediscovered” as a heritage site. The demolition of the last H-shaped

blocks was completed in 2007, prompting a new wave of interest in historic buildings after the SARS pandemic and economic recessions. Kay Tse’s《囍帖街》alludes to a broken marriage, through the demolition of Li Tung Street, where wedding decorations are often printed. “We should learn to accept that, all is built, will eventually fall…”14 The disappearance of the prints along with the street shows the lost of something more than the street, but the loss of symbols of happiness and prosperity. Shek Kip Mei Estate is by no means an architectural feat of the highest level by any conventional means. What people wish to preserve is the meaning and image constructed around it over the years by both officials and popular media. This aesthetisation of the past is reflected in the latest blocks of Shek Kip Mei Estate, which have little to no architectural semblance or references to the original, yet has a giant abstracted image of is past printed on one of its facades facing the main road. It seems that in the process of reinterpreting the historic

origins and architecture of the city, the actual spaces and people themselves have been abstracted, hidden behind a myth created by and for later generations discontent with the present, and growing increasingly disconnected from the constantly changing environment going through mass demolition and rebuilding sought to “hold on in uncertain times to the illusory image of a safer past”

Notes

1. ”Heritage of Mei Ho House - YHA – Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association.” Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association. November 2021 2. Hong Kong Heritage Museum “Memories of Home - 50 Years of Public Housing in Hong Kong” (2004) 3. Firth, J. R. “THE WORK OF THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY.”. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 113 (February 1965): 176 4. “Kevin Sinclair’s Hong Kong” South China Morning Post, September 23, 2004 5. Lui, Tai-Lok “Rearguard Politics: Hong Kongs Middle Class.” The Developing Economies 41, no. 2 (2003): 163 6. Chu, Yiu-Wai. Hong Kong Cantopop A Concise History.

Baltimore, MD: Project Muse, 2017: 200 7. Lui, Tai-Lok “Rearguard Politics: Hong Kongs Middle Class.” The Developing Economies 41, no. 2 (2003): 165 8. Hung, Edward (26 June 1977). “’New’ Housing Authority in for bigger responsibility” (PDF). The Standard. Hong Kong.

9. Samuel Hui. “制水歌” Recorded in 1974 (「又制水真正受氣。又制水的確係無謂。又制水今晚點沖 涼。成晚要乾煎真撞鬼」) (「又制水，夜街你都無謂去。又制水，拍拖都冇離味。又制 水，妹佢怕我週身一陣除。成晚要乾煎真正悲。」) 10. Samuel Hui. “木屋區” Recorded in 1983 11. Jenny Tseng, “東方之珠” Recorded in 1981

12. Samuel Hui. “洋紫荊” Recorded in 1983 「霓虹橙光 購物天堂 自由都市 百業繁旺」 「 捕魚小島 遍歷風浪 在地球一小角 卻負名望」 「 在東方 有粒珍珠閃閃發光 」 13. Samuel Hui. “同舟共濟” Recorded in 1983 「必須抱著信心 把基礎打穩」 「盡力地做我本份 定能突破戰勝黑暗」 14. Kay Tse. “囍帖街” Recorded in 2008 「築得起 人應該接受 都有日倒下」 15. RubberBand. “豬籠墟事變 “ recorded in 2012 「濺起街邊一灘水氹在我對貴價靴」 「幾分鐘西裝黐滿鱗更有咸蝦味」； 「誰人在高聲叫賣烏哩單刀」 「誰人話高聲叫賣烏哩單刀」

Bibliography

1. Chu, Cecilia.

“Heritage of Disappearance?

Shekkipmei and Collective Memory(s) in 2. Post-Handover Hong Kong.” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 18, no. 1 (1007): 43-55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41758327.

3. Chu, Yiu-Wai. Hong Kong Cantopop: A Concise History. Baltimore, MD: Project Muse, 2017.

4. Firth, J. R. “THE WORK OF THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 113 (February 1965): 17595. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41367762 5. Lui, Tai-Lok. “Rearguard Politics: Hong Kong’s Middle Class.” The Developing Economies 41, no. 2 (2003): 161-83. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1049.2003.tb00936.x.

6. 黃洪, 葉保強. “香港精神的演變 詮譯與反思.” 回歸20 年— 香港精神的變易, 2017, 4-24.

7. Chung, Chak, and Ngan, Ming Yan. “From “Rooftop” to “Millennium”: The Development of Primary Schools in Hong Kong since 1945.” New Horizons in Education No. 46. November 2002.

8. Hong Kong Institute of Education. From Rooftop Schools to Post-Millennium Schools: The Post-war Evolution of School Buildings in Hong Kong (Exhibition Pamphlet).

Hong Kong Museum of Education (Organizer). 2011.

9. Ku, Agnes S. M., and Ngai Pun. Remaking Citizenship in Hong Kong : Community, Nation, and the Global City. RoutledgeCurzon Studies in Asia’s Transformations. London ; New York: Routledge, 2004.

10. Iam Chong Ip. The Rise of a Sanitary City: The Colonial

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Formation of Hong Kong’s Early Public Housing.

Hong Kong Cultural and Social Studies 1. 2002 Smart, Alan. Shek Kip Mei Myth, The. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006.

Goh, 郭彥弘., Goh, Lily, and 郭彥弘. The Shek Kip Mei Syndrome : Economic Development and Public Housing in Hong Kong and Singapore. Studies in Society and Space ; 4. London: Pion, 1990.

Sun, York Sui. The Evolution of Public Housing in Hong Kong.

1993.

Education Bureau. Learning to Learn – The Way Forward in Curriculum Development. 2001 Chung, Chak. Ngan, Ming-yan. From “Rooftop” to “Millennium”: the Development of Primary Schools in Hong Kong since 1945. Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Chui Wing Kin. A “Constitutional Experiment” Before and After the Shek Kip Mei Fire: The Vesting of Public Housing Responsibilities in the Urban council, 1948-1954. Hong Kong Studies Vol.2, No.2. 2019 The Board of Education (1997). Report on Review of 9 -year Compulsory Education.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Days at Rooftop Schools (Extract) Wong Cho-chi.

Senior Secondary Unit 4: Exploring the Educational Development of Hong Kong through Rooftop Schools Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association.

Industrial and Commercial Daily Press, 7 May 1962.

Senior Secondary Unit 4: Exploring the Educational Development of Hong Kong through Rooftop Schools Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association.

Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. Ch3 Community Facilities. Planning

Department

The

overnment

of

Kong Special Administrative Region. 2021

the

Hong

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