Passage Three

1．Buildings in Hong Kong suffer the fate of any other commodity，an insight that Walter Benjamin arrived at more than half a century ago“in the convulsions of the commodity economy we begin to recognize the monuments of the bourgeoisie as ruins even before they have crumbled，”an insight that is finally coming into its own．Property speculation means that every building in Hong Kong，however new or monumental，faces imminent ruin on the premise of here today，gone tomorrow—a logistics that，by contracting time，dispenses even with the pathos of decay．The political slogans of the day—“Prosperity and stability”and“Fifty years without change”—are thus belied by an urban landscape that mutates right under our noses，making the question of spatial identity particularly problematic．Architecture，because it is always assumed to be somewhere，is the first visual evidence of a city's putative identity．

2．If we take Hong Kong architecture at face value，we will see it merely as a sign of Hong Kong's growing prosperity．For example，even one otherwise astute commentator on Hong Kong could speak of the“flowering of architecture，art and culture”as“one more aspect of Hong Kong's financial success．．．．Certainly，the skyscrapers which have been put up in recent years have a reasonable number of architectural masterpieces among them．It is no longer necessary for Hong Kongers to feel that they live in a philistine city lacking in elegance．”Such a view，though meant to be laudatory，simply sees architecture as capitalism inscribed in built space．It is necessary therefore to stress，when we pose the question of Hong Kong architecture，that built space bears more than one inscription;that built space is overinscribed．If there is a message，it is a jumbled one，not reducible to one meaning．In this regard，it is worth recalling Roland Barthes's remarks when，speculating on the possibilities of a nonreductive urban semiology，he referred to the city's“erotic dimension．”However abstract it might seem，the city has a diversity that makes it potentially a space of pleasure and encounter，“the site of our encounter with the other．”The built space of the city not only evokes financial progress and the spatial appropriations of power but also gives us cultural residues，dreams of the future，as well as intimations of resistance．Built space therefore must not be understood only as spatial forms，but also as something that both produces and is produced by cultural practices．In the case of Hong Kong architecture，we may begin by identifying three features．

3．The first concerns Hong Kong's receptivity to architectural styles．Architecture as buildings may always be situated in a place，but architecture as style and ideology is eminently transposable．In its architecture as in so much else，Hong Kong is an“open city”exposed to all styles and influences:from the vernacular to the colonial，from modernism to post-modernism．This extreme receptivity is unusual and could be related as much to its“floating”identity as to its growing affluence and accelerated development．In other words，space has as much to do with subjectivity as with economics．Many accounts of the city point out that Hong Kong does not look very different from other Asian cities，with its indiscriminate mix of drab and grandiose buildings．However，all we have to do is compare Hong Kong with a city like Taipei，which is quite as affluent，to see the difference．Taipei also displays a mixture of architectural styles，but the overall feeling is not quite the same．One of Taiwan's strongest claims to political legitimacy has always been to present itself as the true custodian of“Chinese culture．”As a result，there is a kind of hesitancy in its employment of contemporary architectural forms，which stems from the implicit ideological interference of its image of Chinese identity．Hong Kong has neither a fixed identity nor the inhibitions that come from it．Hence the sharp contrast—to take one example—in the two cities'respective cultural centers．The Taipei cultural complex is a pastiche of Chinese architectural styles，while the Hong Kong cultural center is committed to contemporaneity．

4．Besides its receptivity to architectural styles，a second feature that is hard not to notice about Hong Kong is the constant building and rebuilding，which might remind us of that old joke about the colony:“A nice city—once it is finished．”The building and rebuilding suggest that space is almost like a kind of very expensive magnetic tape that could be erased and reused．Here again，economic factors dovetail with subjective responses．What is erased are cultural memories;what is rebuilt are more profitable buildings．This applies to Hong Kong as a whole，but it is particularly true of Central(District)，which is not only Hong Kong's business district today，but also the area that historically was the first to be developed．There are almost no vestiges of this past history in Centra，except for the old colonial-style Supreme Court building，which has been preserved from the bulldozers and used now for Legislative Council meetings．

5．But perhaps the most noticeable feature of all is the city's hyperdensity，estimated at more than forty thousand people per square mile．Even this high figure is only an overall average;there are indeed many areas like Mongkok and Shumshuipo that have considerably higher densities，or the recently demolished Walled City which with an area of one-hundredth of a square mile had a population of thirty-three thousand，giving it a density of more than three million per square mile，by far the highest in the world．Building expanded in two directions:horizontally following the flat land along the coastline and areas reclaimed from the sea; vertically in the form of high-rises that are like new kinds of walled cities．Finally because high-density space has to serve a variety of purposes，form does not necessarily follow function，and there is in most districts no neat separation of commercial from residential use．(From Culture and Politics of Disappearance by Ackbar Abbas)

Questions for Understanding

1．What feature(s)Hong Kong's buildings in the age of commodification?

2．Does the author intend to agree with the view that HK architecture means growing prosperity?Why?

3．What's the significance of the first feature HK's architecture?

4．In what way is Hong Kong not a nice city as someone implies?

5．What does the author intend to say with the analysis of HK's architecture?

【注释】

[1]teleologically:用目的论的方法，目的论地(认为事物的产生和发展都是有目的的)。

[2]abstract:抽象的，概念的(与具体的事物或经验相对立)。指在现代社会中，人们习惯以抽象的而非具体的视角看问题。比如，人们说“富有的白人社会”时，并不具体到到底有多少钱/财富才算富有，肤色浅到什么程度才算白色;另外，该词此处还有“零碎的、分离的、不连贯的”的意思，明显指的是现代性的世界观和方法论。

[3]Immanuel Wallerstein:伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦(1930～)是西方“新马克思主义”学者的代表人物，世界体系理论的开拓者和创始人。“霸权”论是其世界体系理论的重要组成部分。沃勒斯坦从资本主义世界经济体的角度，详细探讨了霸权的含义和实质、霸权的模式和兴衰、霸权国家的相互比较及共同特点、国家机器在霸权进程中的作用等诸多问题，进而认为“霸权……在资本主义世界经济体的历史发展中扮演了意义重大的角色”。

[4]Henri Lefebvre:昂利·列斐伏尔(1901～1991)，一位和20世纪一同降生的现代法国思想大师，在其60多年的创作生涯中，为后人留下了60多部著作、300余篇论文这样一笔丰厚的精神遗产，是西方学界公认的“日常生活批判理论之父”，“现代法国辩证法之父”，区域社会学、特别是城市社会学理论的重要奠基人。

[5]Richard Sennett:理查德·塞内特，麻省理工学院社会学教授，新著有《新资本主义文化》(The Culture of the New Capitalism，Yale，2006);《不平等时代的敬意》(Respect in an Age of Inequality，Penguin，2003)和《性格的侵蚀》(The Corrosion of Character，Norton，1998)。美国艺术和科学学院院士;英国皇家文学、艺术协会成员。

[6]le Corbusier's“Plan Voisin”:le Corbusier，勒·柯布西郁(1887～1965)，20世纪最著名的法国建筑大师、城市规划家、现代建筑激进分子，被称为“现代建筑的旗手”;Plan Voisin，(巴黎)规划图，1925年由柯布西郁设计，虽未实施，但其中钢筋水泥所构成的机械美对现代建筑风格影响深刻。