Blooms are seen on display at Mong Kok flower market on March 15. Photo: Jonathan Wong
Opinion
Mike Rowse
Mike Rowse
Don’t be so quick to ‘renew’ Hong Kong at the expense of its heritage
The Urban Renewal Authority’s plan to redevelop the area around Mong Kok flower market is a reminder of the inevitable clash between ‘progress’ and preservation
To maintain the market’s appeal to locals and visitors, minor tweaks should be considered instead of massive overhauls
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I guess heritage preservation must be the same. What one person may see as a useless and derelict old building, better knocked down and replaced with something modern and useful, another may see as a priceless reminder of the community’s past to be preserved almost without regard to cost.
And is it just the buildings, or does heritage include the activities in and around them? To what extent is one’s opinion affected by personal history with the area in question. And who is to be the ultimate arbiter?
These reflections were triggered by the Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA) recent announcement that it is planning major changes in the vicinity of the Mong Kok flower market. Under the plan, some buildings will be demolished; others will be restored and preserved. Some new public facilities, including a canal and park, would be constructed while others are set to go.
The word “market” might bring to mind proposals to maintain those in Western, Central and Yau Ma Tei, among others. The old Western Market building is attractive and the fabric has been well preserved. Some products are still on sale, though it is also used for general community purposes. I have seen senior citizens taking dancing lessons there, for example.
The old Central Market building is rather plain and seems to have been retained for the sake of its age rather than any particularly beautiful features. Incredibly, the old Yau Ma Tei fruit market – whose claim to fame is surely being a former centre for drug trafficking and distribution, protected by corrupt officials – also lives on with plans for revitalisation. I hope there will at least be a plaque on the wall to mark its historic function.
The most beautiful building I have seen in Hong Kong was the old General Post Office, which used to stand at the junction of Pedder Street and Des Voeux Road in Central. Such a location made the site very valuable and the potential revenue for public coffers was just too tempting. So the land was sold and the structure built in 1911 was demolished in 1976.
Former residents and stallholders return to Lee Tung Street, flying kites with slogans criticising the Urban Renewal Authority, on February 4, 2007. Photo: Oliver Tsang
A nondescript commercial building, World-Wide House, now stands there in its place. The post office was relocated to a bland modern building near the waterfront, but that too is now under threat. Incredibly, it too now has its supporters on heritage grounds.
This fundamental clash of priorities – the desire to demolish dilapidated structures on the one hand, the need to preserve buildings, sites and structures of historical, cultural or architectural interest on the other – is inherent in every urban renewal project. The question each time is which way the verdict should go in an individual case.
Inevitably, the URA has been caught up in controversy from time to time. Many people still mourn the loss of Lee Tung Street in Wan Chai, popularly known as Wedding Card Street, and world famous under that name. I had my own wedding invitations printed there in 1974. The 2007 demolition was definitely a cultural loss.
A similar nearby project covering Mallory Street and Burrows Street saw the decline of the local comics industry. One of buildings had been occupied by a street sleepers shelter, relocated to Kennedy Street, its loss perhaps closer to a cultural gain. A pleasant, but somewhat antiseptic, shopping and dining area now occupies the site.
People gather outside the Tai Kwun project and historical site on August 1, 2018. Photo: Dickson Lee
Another way of preserving heritage is by taking commercial considerations out of the equation. I am thinking here of the Tai Kwun project at the site of the old Central Police Station. The revitalisation was funded and supervised by the Jockey Club.
The result has been the development of a thriving area with carefully restored historic buildings. The outcome has resonance with me. During part of the early days of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, we had no cells of our own and often took prisoners to the police station for them to be bailed out.
I am less impressed with the changes at a different police station, the old Marine Police Headquarters in Tsim Sha Tsui. The project was tendered out to a private developer and the commercial influence is more marked.
Now known as 1881 Heritage, though the original building was completed in 1884, the buildings have been restored well enough but the rest of the site has largely been concreted over, albeit with an attractive fountain.
An artist’s impression of the Sai Yee Street / Flower Market Road Development Scheme. Photo: URA
All of these examples are by way of introduction to understanding the flower market scheme. I decided to visit the site in the company of an experienced guide to see for myself what the project entailed. After I returned, I learned that former chief executive Leung Chun-ying had, on his Facebook page, urged members of the URA do the same. I agree with his caution.
The market has developed organically and naturally over many decades. It flourishes in its present location as it currently exists. It is hugely popular with HongKongers and visitors alike. At most, it might benefit from some minor tweaking, but the scale of the proposed redevelopment is major. Plants are very sensitive to construction dust.
I fear we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is estimated that the project would not be completed before 2035. In about 10 years, we could end up with a pristine market where nobody goes. It’s time for second thoughts.
