Hong Kong has done much to build its reputation as a modern, cosmopolitan city, but it has not put m

0
0



The campaign to preserve the Star Ferry clock tower and Queen’s Pier in 2006 and 2007 unleashed a new wave of protests against demolishing historic sites in the city. While Hong Kong has allocated many resources and manpower to build its reputation as a modern and cosmopolitan city, it makes little headway in preserving its historic sites. There are both pros and cons of keeping Hong Kong’s past. But which side weighs more? It really depends on the identity of the one who views this issue.

Economically speaking, there are two main reasons that the government has put insufficient effort in this issue. Firstly, some historic sites may not be worth preserving because repairing and maintaining them unavoidably need a large sum of investment. They need regular check in order to keep in good repair. To the government, this is a long-term investment with few obvious money rewards. Secondly, it will lose a huge amount of income if it chooses to preserve the old sites instead of demolishing and selling the land. In the eyes of the government, the cost of preserving Hong Kong’s past may outweigh the benefits of it.

Despite the government citing their lack of land use as one of the reasons for their demolition, local people believe the landmarks are an important part of their collective memory and should be preserved. This kind of collective memory seems like a vague concept, an empty excuse to preserve Hong Kong’s past. If the government really thinks in this way, it is so wrong. Collective memory includes the buildings the local people used to see, the childhood and neighborhood they used to have and the sites they used to meet friends. This memory is the foundation of developing a sense of belonging to the city. Without it, the citizens may not have a strong motivation to develop their own city together. This will invariably have negative impacts on the city itself.

Furthermore, although repairing the old sites needs money, the government can in fact activate the traditional buildings or restructure them into other uses to attract tourists. For example, the government has decided to spend as much as five billion to beautify the Central Market in order to turn it into one of the landmarks in Hong Kong. This kind of buildings can show the unique features of Hong Kong, which is a mixture of Western and Chinese culture. With suitable promotion, the activated sites can indeed act as tourist spots and bring more foreigners to Hong Kong.

As a citizen, I support the idea of preserving some valuable historic sites. In order to bolster Hong Kong’s position, we not only need to keep modernizing our city, but also have to restore the buildings having high historical value and to treasure our city’s uniqueness. Sky-high buildings exist in many developed countries. We can keep building masterpieces with our ever-improving technology in the future. Nevertheless, once we demolish the old ones, we may not be able to rebuild the exact same memorable Star Ferry clock tower and Queen’s Pier again.