Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Place and culture in identity construction and negotiation : the case of Hong Kong Me, Carmut 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2018_february_me_carmut.pdf [ 694.54kB ]
JSON: 24-1.0362869.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0362869-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0362869-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0362869-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0362869-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0362869-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0362869-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

	Place	and	Culture	in	Identity	Construction	and	Negotiation:		The	Case	of	Hong	Kong	by	Carmut	Me	B.Sc.	University	of	California	at	Davis,	2010		A	THESIS	SUBMITTED	IN	PARTIAL	FULFILMENT	OF		THE	REQUIREMENTS	FOR	THE	DUAL	DEGREE	OF	MASTER	OF	ARTS	IN	ASIA	PACIFIC	POLICY	STUDIES	AND		MASTER	OF	ARTS	IN	PLANNING	in	The	Faculty	of	Graduate	and	Postdoctoral	Studies	The	University	of	British	Columbia	(Vancouver)		December,	2017	©Carmut	Me,	2017		 		 ii	Abstract	Identity,	a	contested	subject	in	postcolonial	and	global	cities,	is	discussed	in	this	thesis	as	a	construct	that	is	represented	in	the	processes	of	cultural	production	and	consumption	of	“places”.	The	postcolonial	global	city	is	where	identities	and	cultures	blend	and	contradict,	and	also	where	new	identities	and	cultures	arise.	Portrayed	as	a	space	of	“in-between”	-	not	entirely	“Western”	nor	exclusively	Chinese,	Hong	Kong	demonstrates	the	complexities	of	multiple	global	cultural	flows	mixing	with	local	and	national	aspirations	of	identity.	Exactly	at	a	time	when	the	new	government	and	citizens	are	grasping	the	identity	and	culture	that	is	unique	to	Hong	Kong,	it	threatens	to	“disappear”	in	a	political	and	cultural	sense	(Abbas,	1997).	The	struggles	to	define	Hong	Kong’s	identity	are	exemplified	in	the	outcomes	and	negotiations	of	the	city’s	spatial	processes	–	urban	development,	renewal,	and	heritage	preservation.	Two	cases	in	the	cultural	production	of	space	are	investigated.	As	studies	in	contrast:	the	grand	development	of	the	to-be	international	arts	destination	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	that	symbolizes	Hong	Kong’s	global	aspiration,	and	the	local	residents’	struggle	for	the	preservation	of	Wing	Lee	Street	representing	the	values	of	Hong	Kong’s	working	class.	The	narratives	of	identity	projected	by	those	in	power	(elites,	states,	markets)	are	found	to	contradict	with	how	Hong	Kong	people	identify	themselves	and	their	city,	and	these	contradictions	are	demonstrated	in	the	place	negotiations	in	the	city.		 		 iii	Lay	Summary	The	identity	of	Hong	Kong	is	shown	in	its	unique	places	and	culture,	but	this	identity	is	mixed	and	complex.	Hong	Kong	is	going	through	a	time	of	change	that	is	sparked	by	the	city’s	reunion	with	China.	While	the	Government	of	Hong	Kong	tries	to	keep	Hong	Kong’s	status	in	the	world	by	creating	world-class	arts	facilities,	local	people	want	to	protect	familiar	places	that	they	connect	with.	The	two	cases	in	this	study	are	the	development	of	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	and	the	protection	of	Wing	Lee	Street.	By	exploring	these	two	contrasting	cases,	I	show	how	the	creation	of	new	places	and	the	protection	of	old	places	can	disrupt	or	strengthen	the	identity	of	a	city	and	its	residents.		 		 iv	Preface	This	thesis	is	an	original	work	by	Carmut	Me.	No	part	of	this	thesis	has	been	previously	published.			 		 v	Table	of	Contents	Abstract	.......................................................................................................................................	ii	Lay	Summary	............................................................................................................................	iii	Preface	........................................................................................................................................	iv	Table	of	Contents	.....................................................................................................................	v	List	of	Figures	..........................................................................................................................	vii	List	of	Abbreviations	..........................................................................................................	viii	Acknowledgements	................................................................................................................	ix	Chapter	1	....................................................................................................................................	1	1.1	Introduction	.................................................................................................................................	1	1.2	Scope	and	Research	Questions	..............................................................................................	6	1.3	Method	...........................................................................................................................................	7	1.4	Limitations	................................................................................................................................	13	1.5	Organization	of	This	Thesis	.................................................................................................	14	Chapter	2	Understanding	Identity,	Culture	and	Place	.............................................	17	2.1	The	Reflexive	Relationship	Between	Place	and	Identity	...........................................	17	2.2	Reading	the	City	.......................................................................................................................	19	2.2.1	Spatial	forms,	symbolism	and	cultural	identity	...................................................................	19	2.2.2	Memory,	heritage	and	symbolism	in	the	everyday	spaces	..............................................	21	2.3	Multiplicity,	Tensions	and	Contestations	........................................................................	23	2.3.1	Place	and	power;	counter-hegemonic	place-making	.........................................................	24		 vi	Chapter	3	Globalization	and	Cultural	Cities	................................................................	28	3.1	Globalization:	Effects	on	Urban	Spaces	and	Identity	...................................................	29	3.2	Cultural	Cities	in	the	Context	of	Globalization	..............................................................	33	3.3	Contradictions	in	the	Cultural	City	....................................................................................	35	Chapter	4	Hong	Kong:	Identity,	Culture	and	Space	...................................................	40	4.1	The	“Hong	Kong	Success	Story”	and	Dominant	Narratives	.......................................	40	4.2	Dismantling	Dominant	Narratives	....................................................................................	45	4.3	A	Search	for	Identity	Amidst	Transformation	...............................................................	48	Chapter	5	Crafting	21st	Century	Hong	Kong	as	“Asia’s	World	City”	......................	52	5.1	A	New	Identity	..........................................................................................................................	52	5.2	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	..........................................................................................	55	Chapter	6	Contesting	Identities,	Nostalgia	and	Making	Heritage	.........................	61	6.1	Post-97	Heritage	Preservation	Movement	.....................................................................	61	6.2	Wing	Lee	Street	........................................................................................................................	63	Chapter	7	.................................................................................................................................	73	7.1	Conclusions	and	Implications	.............................................................................................	73	7.2	Challenges	and	Recommendations	for	Policy	and	Planning	Practice	...................	75	7.3	Recommendations	for	Further	Research	........................................................................	79	7.4	Final	Remarks	...........................................................................................................................	81	Bibliography	...........................................................................................................................	83			 		 vii	List	of	Figures	Figure	1.	Aerial	view	of	WCKD	project	under	construction,	on	40	hectares	of	prime	waterfront	land	.......................................................................................................................	56	Figure	2.	Architectural	rendering	of	M+	modern	art	museum	.....................................	58	Figure	3.	Map	of	Wing	Lee	Street	(URA)	................................................................................	66	Figure	4.	Scene	in	“Echoes	of	the	Rainbow”	depicting	1960s	working	class	lifestyle	and	the	outdoor	terrace	of	Wing	Lee	Street.	..............................................................	68	Figure	5.	The	original	tong-lau	structures	before	restoration	.....................................	68	Figure	6.	Restored	tong-lau	buildings	in	2011	....................................................................	72		 		 viii	List	of	Abbreviations	DEVB	 Development	Bureau	Government,	the	 The	Government	of	Hong	Kong		HAB	 Home	Affairs	Bureau	HKSAR	 Hong	Kong	Special	Administrative	Region	PRC	 People’s	Republic	of	China	URA		 Urban	Renewal	Authority		WKCD	 West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	 		 ix	Acknowledgements	I	would	like	to	express	my	deepest	gratitude	to	Dr.	Thomas	Hutton,	my	insightful	and	encouraging	supervisor	whose	thoughtful	and	constructive	criticism	furthered	my	intellectual	pursuit;	without	his	guidance,	it	would	have	been	impossible	to	complete	this	endeavour.	His	enthusiasm,	patience	and	kindness,	from	start	to	finish,	through	the	many	iterations	of	this	paper	and	sessions	with	cappuccinos	and	doughnuts	are	tremendously	appreciated.	I	would	like	to	extend	warmest	thanks	to	Dr.	Leonora	Angeles,	who	provided	me	with	unwavering	support	and	invaluable	advice	and	feedback.	My	appreciation	for	their	tireless	encouragement	and	commitment	throughout	this	process	goes	beyond	what	words	can	describe.		I	would	also	like	to	thank	Dr.	Paul	Evans	for	his	generosity	and	for	especially	taking	time	out	from	his	busy	schedule	to	serve	as	my	external	reader.		I	owe	a	great	deal	to	Dr.	Abidin	Kusno,	whose	excellent	teaching	and	guidance	inspired	my	learning	and	deepened	my	interest	in	critical	theory.	Memorable	classes	taught	by	Nathan	Edelson,	Leonie	Sandercock,	Tim	McDaniels,	Maged	Senbel,	Michael	Leaf,	Mark	Stevens,	Jordi	Honey-Roses,	Stephanie	Chang,	Tsering	Shakya,	Julian	Dierkes	and	Cesi	Cruz	at	SCARP	and	IAR	also	contributed	greatly	to	my	learning	and	experience.	 I	would	like	to	show	appreciation	for	Dr.	Henry	Yu	for	allowing	me	to	join	in	on	some	of	his	classes	in	Hong	Kong.	I’m	also	grateful	for	the	advice,	feedback	and	great	experience	provided	by	Dr.	Ho	Hon	Leung	from	SUNY	Oneonta,	Dr.	T.C.	Chang,	Dr.	Mark	Jayne	and	others	during	the	opportunity	to	present	some	of	my	initial	research	at	the	Urban	Space	and	Social	Life	Conference	in	Hong	Kong	in	2014.	 I	would	like	to	thank	Laura	Keith	for	keeping	me	on	track	and	Kerry	Ross	for	her	support	during	my	time	at	MAAPPS.	I	would	like	to	express	thanks	to	my	friends	and	classmates	at	SCARP	and	MAAPPS,	whom	I	share	great	experiences	with,	in	and	outside	of	the	classroom.	Thanks	to	Kris	for	his	endless	support,	motivation,	and	concern	about	my	wellbeing.	Finally,	without	support	from	my	loving	family,	I	would	not	have	been	able	to	pursue	my	graduate	education,	and	I	owe	the	greatest	thanks	to	them.			 1	Chapter	1		1.1	Introduction		This	paper	discusses	the	intersection	of	place	and	identity	in	the	specific	case	of	Hong	Kong.	Negotiating	between	post-colonial,	global,	national	and	local	narratives,	Hong	Kong’s	experience	presents	an	instructive	avenue	to	investigate	its	production	and	construction	of	images	and	identities.	It	offers	an	opportunity	to	explore	the	gaps	and	contradictions	between	cities	as	“storehouses	of	memory”	(Hayden,	1997)	and	as	places	that	are	constantly	being	reshaped	in	the	active	present.	Prior	to	the	official	designation	of	Special	Administrative	Region	in	the	People’s	Republic	of	China	in	1997,	Hong	Kong	had	been	a	British	colonial	city	for	over	150	years.	During	this	period,	it	experienced	tremendous	growth	–	from	colonial	trading	port	to	industrial	center	to	international	finance	and	commerce	hub.	The	combined	effects	of	colonialism	and	globalization	are	apparent	in	the	city’s	social	and	urban	fabric.	A	mixture	of	colonial,	modern,	and	vernacular	architectural	styles	are	apparent	the	city;	the	ideas	of	a	free	market	prevail,	facilitating	international	trade;	and	forms	of	late	capitalism	can	be	seen	as	a	dominant	value	in	the	city	and	its	people.	After	sovereignty	of	the	region	was	returned	to	China	in	1997	(referred	to	as	“the	Handover”),	the	Region	is	ruled	under	the	“one	country,	two	systems”	principle	which	would	allow	Hong	Kong’s	partially	democratic	governmental	and	capitalist	economic	systems	to	remain	autonomous	and	separate	from	China’s	for	the	next	50	years.	However,	with	“true”	reunification	looming	on	the	horizon,	the	future	of	the		 2	city-region	remains	uncertain.	Local	scholars	suggest	that	the	reunion	with	China	is	a	continuation	its	colonial	history	–	a	form	of	neo-colonialism	with	a	nationalist	agenda	(Ng,	2009;	Siu	&	Ku,	2008;	Ku	&	Tsui,	2008;	Chan	&	So,	2016).	China	strategically	positions	Hong	Kong	within	its	regime,	allowing	Hong	Kong’s	capitalist	market	economy	to	continue	autonomously	while	still	belonging	to	the	state.	The	anxiety	of	political	uncertainty	is	exacerbated	by	social,	economic	and	cultural	changes	since	the	Handover:	an	increase	in	political,	social,	business	and	economic	networks	and	mobility	between	China	and	Hong	Kong	resulting	in	tensions	drawn	out	by	the	cultural	differences	between	the	Mainland	Chinese	and	Hong	Kong	Chinese	people;	heated	debates	about	the	government’s	reinforcement	of	“civic	and	national	education”	to	strengthen	national	identity	(Jones,	2015;	Chong,	2013);	a	desire	for	Hong	Kong	history	that	mobilized	a	heritage	movement	(Erni,	2001);	the	1997	Asian	Financial	Crisis	and	2004	SARS	outbreak	that	brought	increased	concern	over	whether	the	strength	of	Hong	Kong’s	economy	will	continue;	a	large	pro-democratic	movement	driven	by	increased	political	participation	among	youth.	Other	crucial	questions	are	what	role	Hong	Kong	will	be	allowed	to	play	in	China’s	increasing	capitalist	development,	against	Shanghai’s	rivalry	as	a	financial	core	and	Hong	Kong’s	absorption	into	the	Pearl	River	Delta	Economic	Zone.	Hong	Kong’s	identity,	one	that	was	never	given	much	attention	prior	to	the	return	of	sovereignty,	is	now	in	the	center	of	discussions	across	social,	cultural,	economic	and	political	issues	as	it	threatens	to	be	lost	in	the	city’s	reintegration	with	China.	For	many	factors	that	should	not	be	simplified	or	isolated,	including	those	above,	Hong	Kong		 3	people	are	reflecting	upon	what	Hong	Kong	is	and	what	it	means	to	be	a	“Hong	Konger”.	The	making	and	remaking	of	places,	imbuing	meaning	into	space,	is	a	process	through	which	the	powerful	impose	their	imagined	vision	for	the	city	and	the	civil	society	reinforce	their	identity	and	make	claims	to	space.	We	make	and	remake	places	everyday	though	“social	reiterative	practices”	(Cresswell	2004;		Tuan,	1977;	Fraser	&	Lepofsky	2003;	Ho	&	Douglass,	2008).	Through	everyday	practices,	one	builds	a	relationship	with	others	and	with	place,	and	it	becomes	a	part	of	one’s	sense	of	self	(Proshansky,	1978).	The	“lived”	spaces	such	as	streets,	plazas	and	civic	spaces	become	representations	of	identities	as	locations	where	social	memories	are	constructed	and	stored	(Lefebvre,	1991;	Hayden	1997;	Ho	&	Douglass,	2008).	This	thesis	is	situated	in	the	premise	that	no	urban	place	is	void	of	memories,	meanings	and	identity,	and	that	these	meanings	can	be	strengthened	or	challenged	through	changes	in	social,	cultural	circumstances	and	also	in	the	remaking	of	the	built	environment.	Urban	landscapes	are	not	neutral	spaces:	they	are	complex	structures	and	a	result	of	the	interaction	between	humans	and	the	environment.	The	urban	landscape	incorporates	social,	cultural	and	economic	dimensions	and	is	formed	and	shaped	by	human	activities.	They	thus	embody	the	values,	beliefs	and	symbolic	meanings	of	communities;	values,	beliefs	and	symbolic	meanings	that	also	may	change	as	time	and	society	progresses:	the	physical	reflection	of	urban	identity.		The	place-making	and	image-making	practices	in	Hong	Kong	are	abundant,	fluctuating	and	complex	as	various	agencies	actively	seek	to	address	the	concept	of		 4	identity,	globally	and	locally,	whether	explicitly	or	implied.	Market,	state	and	local	actors	are	attempting,	contradicting	at	times,	to	establish	identities	for	the	city	and	its	residents.	On	the	one	hand,	the	Hong	Kong	SAR	government	invests	2.6	billion	US	dollars	towards	a	world-class	cultural	district,	while	local	grassroots	activists	actively	call	for	the	protection	of	built	heritage.	Central	to	this	discussion	is	how	the	city-region	is	grappling	with	its	colonial	past	and	its	reunification	with	the	socially	and	ideologically	disparate	China.	While	Hong	Kong	has	politically	reunited	with	China	through	the	“one	country,	two	systems”	principle,	a	social	and	cultural	integration	has	yet	been	achieved	(So,	2011).	How	do	the	processes	of	identity	construction,	discovery,	and	realization	reflect	the	place-making	practices	and	organization	of	the	city’s	built	environment?		Global	cities	of	today	are	repositioning	to	the	mixing	of	cultures	brought	by	flows	of	people,	goods,	and	ideas.	The	processes	of	globalization	intensify	cosmopolitanism	in	such	cities,	and	create	lasting	affects	upon	their	cultural	identities,	as	well	as	within	built	and	spatial	forms.	Globalization	has	facilitated	cultural	interaction	and	the	formation	of	new	social	relationships,	producing	multicultural	cities	containing	plural	identities.	The	urban	landscape	is	continually	restructured	and	transformed.	Since	the	1970s,	with	the	aim	of	positioning	cities	in	the	global	arena,	planners,	architects	and	policy	makers	utilize	various	strategies	to	insert	these	places	in	the	world	cities	arena.	“Homogenization”	of	globalizing	cities	is	attributed	also	to	some	grand	“worlding”	projects	(Ong	2011,	2011),	creating	“places	of	nowhere”	and	spaces	for	consumption.	Friedmann	(2010)	refers	to	these	practices	as	place-	 5	breaking	rather	than	place-making.	As	neighbourhoods	are	renewed	and	redeveloped,	places	are	reappropriated	and,	as	a	consequence,	embedded	social	memories	and	collective	identity	become	fragmented	(Hayden,1995;	Kusno,	1998;	Yeoh,	2001).		Dualistically,	globalization	has	brought	a	revival	of	interest	in	the	ideas	of	locality	and	place.	As	cities	become	homogenized,	a	need	arises	for	the	national/local	state	to	emphasize	the	culture	of	the	“local”	and	“authentic”	identity	in	order	to	both	reinforce	nationalism	and	establish	competitive	distinction	(Kong,	Gibson	&	Khoo,	2006;	Sassen,	2002;	Douglass,	2002).	Cities	turn	their	focus	to	cultural	development,	integrating	economic	and	cultural	activity	around	the	production	and	consumption	of	the	arts,	architecture,	fashion	and	design	(Scott,	2000),	alongside	the	enhancement	of	place-based	heritage	to	strengthen	place	identity.	Concurrently,	histories	and	memories	are	valorized	-	often	with	re-interpretation	of	those	memories	(Mckenzie	&	Hutton,	2015;	Kong,	2007;	Douglass	&	Ho,	2002).	Images	and	symbolism	are	used	to	showcase	the	city’s	cultural	identity.	In	attempts	to	articulate	the	city’s	local	identity	through	these	intentional	policies	and	design,	the	imagined	hegemonic	narrative	is	imposed	on	the	landscape,	often	contradicting	the	narratives	of	the	lived	spaces.	In	this	context,	the	places	in	question	are	not	just	territories	where	material	transformations	take	place,	but	also	where	identities	and	power	are	negotiated.	Moreover,	the	focus	on	cultural	consumption	of	forms	of	internationally	recognized	arts,	at	times	challenge	the	recognition	of	vernacular	spaces	as	well	as	intangible		 6	heritage.	As	opposed	to	the	tangible	heritage	of	buildings	and	monuments,	the	concrete	objects	that	validate	social	memories,	intangible	heritage	is	more	fragile	and	requires	a	different	set	of	tools	and	programs	for	conservation.	UNESCO	(2016)	defines	intangible	heritage	as	“the	practices,	representations,	expressions,	knowledge,	skills	–	as	well	as	the	instruments,	objects,	artefacts	and	cultural	spaces	associated	therewith	–	that	communities,	groups,	and…individuals	recognize	as	part	of	their	cultural	heritage.”	In	this	sense,	intangible	heritage	manifested	in	oral	traditions,	performing	arts,	social	practices,	rituals	and	festive	events	contribute	to	a	sense	of	identity.		In	recent	years,	Hong	Kong	has	followed	other	major	cities	and	invested	in	cultural	development	as	a	strategy	to	strengthen	its	economy	and	to	attract	the	“creative	class”	(Florida,	2002).	This	has	sparked	contentious	debate	from	local	political	and	cultural	critics	(Cartier,	2008).	In	the	context	of	its	reunification	with	China,	and	the	backdrop	of	the	“one	country,	two	systems”	principle,	Hong	Kong	and	its	people	are	faced	with	the	ideals	of	a	global	city	while	dealing	with	struggles	in	attempts	to	define	the	identity	of	the	city;	and	for	whom	cultural	development	serves.	1.2	Scope	and	Research	Questions	This	paper	explores	place-making	practices	and	processes	in	the	form	of	cultural	infrastructure	development	and	heritage	preservation	in	Hong	Kong	to	document	and	understand	the	implications	for	local	identities.	From	this	discussion,	I	hope	to	better	document	and	describe	the	organic	self-realization	of	Hong	Kong	people’s		 7	collective	identity	via	the	rejection	of	cultivated	and	projected	identities	through	government	and	privatized	urban	development	and	the	culture	which	facilitated	this	process.	Through	this	research,	we	can	identify	interdisciplinary	connections	between	urban	studies,	sociology	and	cultural	studies	research;	and	when	applied	to	either	discourse	can	contribute	another	dimension	of	value.		The	principal	research	questions	of	this	study	are:	1. What	is	the	relationship	between	the	cultural	production	of	place-making	and	identity	in	postcolonial	globalizing	cities	during	periods	of	change?		2. How	is	Hong	Kong	establishing	identity	through	cultural	production	of	place-making	and	heritage?	What	are	the	various	place-making	practices	set	up	by	the	states	vs.	market	vs.	local;	elites	vs.	non-elites?	3. How	do	the	place-making	practices	discussed	in	Q2	portray	the	multiple	narratives	of	identity	in	Hong	Kong?	What	are	the	similarities/contradictions	between	the	images	created?		4. How	do	everyday	practices	and	individual	identity	contradict	or	comply	with	projected	narratives	by	states	and	markets?	1.3	Method	This	thesis	is	informed	by	qualitative	methods	of	inquiry.	This	research	uses	a	comparative	analysis	approach	and	case	study	method.	An	extensive	literature		 8	review	in	an	interdisciplinary	approach	is	used	in	the	exploration	of	the	questions	above.	The	intersection	between	identity	and	the	built	environment	is	a	discursive	one,	and	thus	requires	an	examination	using	various	perspectives	of	geographers,	historians,	sociologists,	and	cultural	and	planning	theorists.	This	research	contributes	to	the	fields	of	human	geography,	urban	and	policy	studies	and	research	regarding	post-colonialism	and	identity.	Furthermore,	it	provides	a	cross-disciplinary	view	that	connects	the	processes	in	place-making	and	processes	involved	with	construction	of	identity.		To	address	Questions	2	and	3,	a	case-study	method	is	used	to	investigate	the	issues	and	themes	discussed	in	the	previous	question	in	a	specific	example:	Hong	Kong.	As	current	meanings	of	the	city	spaces	were	negotiated	within	a	historical	and	social	context,	formal	scholarly	studies	and	media	articles	regarding	the	places	were	analyzed	to	understand	the	perceptions	of	the	places	and	practices	by	the	local	government,	state	officials,	and	local	residents.	To	understand	the	state’s	objectives	for	the	cases,	policy	documents	and	public	statements	were	further	investigated	for	a	critical	perspective	on	the	issues	of	place	identity	and	place-making.	The	two	cases,	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	and	Wing	Lee	Street,	were	chosen	for	their	relevance	with	the	issues	and	themes	in	this	thesis:	globalization,	cultural	production	and	consumption	in	21st	century	Hong	Kong.	The	cases	are	compared	and	contrasted	to	provide	unique	and	complementary	insights	into	the	research	questions.	Both	cases	take	place	in	the	context	of	the	globalizing	city,	present	global-local	tensions,	and	also	highlight	the	local	people’s	concerns	about	identity,	place		 9	and	place-making.	At	a	first	glance,	the	WKCD	project	advances	globalization	by	creating	a	place	for	the	global	consumption	of	the	arts,	while	the	outcome	of	preservation	of	Wing	Lee	Street	resists	urban	growth	and	development	often	exacerbated	by	globalization.	The	former	is	the	Hong	Kong	government’s	overt	response	to	global	tendencies	of	capital/cultural	production	and	a	key	strategy	for	economic	development,	whereas	the	latter	case	is	tied	to	local	stakes	and	the	production	of	vernacular	cultures.	The	two	contemporary	cases,	taking	place	in	post-Handover	Hong	Kong,	are	temporally	relevant	and	therefore	able	to	speak	to	questions	regarding	identity	issues	and	social	change	since	1997.			The	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	(WKCD)	case	is	purposefully	selected	for	its	significance	as	a	key	state-led	hegemonic	cultural	project	and	largest	cultural	facility	development	project	in	post-Handover	Hong	Kong.	WKCD	is	chosen	simply	because	there	is	no	other	cultural	development	project	of	this	magnitude	in	the	city.	As	one	of	the	first	major	projects	conceived	after	Hong	Kong’s	transfer	of	sovereignty,	the	social	and	cultural	implications	of	this	project	are	extensive	and	significant,	such	as	concerns	about	its	community	consultation	processes	and	implications	on	local	arts	industries	(Ku	and	Tsui,	2008;	Lui,	2008;	Cartier,	2008).	Moreover,	wide	coverage	of	the	project	in	the	media	provides	rich	material	for	analysis	of	public	opinions.	The	case	of	Wing	Lee	Street	is	chosen	to	juxtapose	the	case	of	WKCD	in	terms	of	scale	and	representation.	WKCD	is	state-led	whereas	the	Wing	Lee	Street	case	is	community-focused	(and	in	the	latter	case,	state	agencies	played	a	reactionary	role).	Symbolically,	the	WKCD	as	a	new	project	represents	an	outlook	for	the	future.	In		 10	comparison,	Wing	Lee	Street	as	heritage	project	is	one	that	looks	to	the	past	(while	serving	the	present).	The	Wing	Lee	Street	case	stands	out	from	other	controversial	cases	of	heritage	preservation	for	the	purpose	of	this	study	because	of	its	relevance	in	contemporary	cultural	production,	stemming	from	its	relationship	with	the	local	film	“Echoes	of	the	Rainbow”.	Comparing	their	spatial	scales,	the	twelve	tenement	buildings	along	the	length	of	70	metres	of	Wing	Lee	Street	are	miniscule	compared	to	the	40	hectares	of	land	that	the	WKCD	sits	on,	and	provides	contrasting	perspectives	towards	the	meaning	of	identity	for	Hong	Kong.		Other	contenders	of	the	case	selection	included	two	cases	of	adaptive	reuse	of	colonial	structures	into	cultural	hubs:	Police	Married	Quarters	(PMQ)1	and	the	Central	Police	Station	Compound	(CPS)2.	The	redevelopments	of	these	two	sites	were	led	by	government	agency	partnered	with	non-profit	organizations.	These	two	are	instructive	towards	cultural	development	and	post-colonial	identity	formation	(given	their	symbolic	representation	of	the	colonial	period),	and	either	one	would	have	been	added	as	a	third	case,	but	the	current	research	is	limited	by	time	and																																																									1 The PMQ is a graded historic building which was a dormitory for policemen families between 1951 and 2000. In November 2010, the HKSAR Government announced the plan to preserve the site for creative industries uses. The project was completed in 2014 in collaboration with charitable organization  2 The CPS is a heritage revitalization project, named “Tai Kwun” which “comprises of three declared monuments, the former Central Police Station, the Central Magistracy and the Victoria Prison”. It began in 2007 through a partnership between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and The Hong Kong Jockey Club. The Jockey Club CPS Limited is a not-for-profit operator set up by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust to manage the centre for heritage and arts. (Retrieved from: 		 11	availability	of	resources.	Furthermore,	information	on	these	two	projects	were	not	as	readily	available,	therefore	limiting	the	required	analysis.		This	study	is	also	grounded	in	the	subjectivity	of	personal	experiences.	Sense	of	place	and	perceptions	of	it	are	idiosyncratic,	though	there	are	commonalities	between	individuals	and	groups.	The	investigation	and	discussion	about	Hong	Kong	culture	and	identity	are	dependent	on	individuals’	perception	of	the	city,	and	gathered	through	published	articles,	media	and	official	statements,	as	well	as	through	the	researcher’s	observation,	reflection	and	introspection.	Therefore,	the	researcher’s	positionality	and	reflexivity	is	needed	to	clarify	what	has	shaped	this	research	inquiry.	As	the	researcher,	awareness	of	my	own	position	as	an	intentional	agent	and	acknowledgement	of	my	subjective	biases	shaped	by	personal	experiences	and	preconceptions	is	integral	in	recognizing	my	rationale	in	pursuing	this	topic.	I	am	considered	a	transnational	migrant;	I	was	born	in	Hong	Kong	and	had	the	opportunity	to	immigrate	to	Canada	at	the	age	of	five	with	my	mother	and	older	sister.	My	father	stayed	in	Hong	Kong	for	work.	When	we	immigrated	in	1994,	we	joined	the	wave	of	mass	migration	from	Hong	Kong	to	Canada	that	was	sparked	by	the	concern	about	the	Transfer	of	sovereignty	of	Hong	Kong	to	China	in	1997.	I	later	came	to	understand	that	this	was	a	very	common	phenomenon	for	Hong	Kong	families.	The	phenomenon	is	called	“Astronaut	families”:	based	on	“strategic	decisions”,	transnational	members	of	the	family	reside	away	from	their	country	of	origin	while	maintaining	social	and	familial	ties.	In	the	process,	“social	identities		 12	may	be	reinforced	or	reconfigured”	(Ho,	2001;	Yeoh,	Huang	&	Lam,	2005;	Kobayashi,	2007).	In	my	case,	my	father	had	better	economic	opportunities	in	Hong	Kong,	while	my	sister	and	I	were	accompanied	by	my	mother	in	Canada	for	a	preferred	education.		Because	my	father	stayed	in	Hong	Kong	and	the	ramifications	of	the	Handover	did	not	have	significant	or	immediate	impact	on	daily	life,	we	moved	back	in	2000,	a	few	years	after	obtaining	Canadian	citizenship.	Our	new	citizenship	became	a	safety	net	in	case	subsequent	consequences	arose	and	a	mechanism	for	more	convenient	mobility	relative	to	Hong	Kong	citizenship.	In	Hong	Kong,	my	sister	and	I	attended	an	international	high	school	taught	in	English	and	was	based	on	British	and	International	curriculum	-	the	fact	that	it	was	the	colonial	education	system	even	after	the	Handover,	has	contributed	to	some	of	my	research	biases.	Furthermore,	our	Chinese	language	proficiency	had	worsened	significantly	during	our	recess	in	Canada,	and	we	were	no	longer	able	to	keep	up	with	the	local	school	curriculum.	For	university,	I	went	to	the	United	States	and	pursued	a	bachelor’s	degree	in	landscape	architecture	at	the	University	of	California	at	Davis.	This	furthered	my	learning	in	the	“west”	and	cultivated	a	bicultural	perspective	as	I	became	acutely	aware	of	cultural	differences.	Before	my	current	graduate	opportunity,	I	again	moved	back	to	Hong	Kong	for	several	years;	working	and	interacting	with	local	people	gave	me	an	integrated	perspective.		This	amalgam	of	experiences	had	profound	influence	in	shaping	my	own	identity	and	my	relationship	with	and	perception	of	Hong	Kong,	and	contributed	to	the		 13	framing	of	the	current	research	inquiry.	As	such,	I	view	Hong	Kong	through	a	perspective	informed	by	this	lived	experience.	I	view	Hong	Kong	as	an	individual	who	simultaneously	has	deep	connection	via	ethnicity,	cultural	heritage	and	familial	ties,	as	well	as	significant	separation	given	substantial	physical	distance,	notable	temporal	separation	and	epistemology	that	is	fundamentally	based	on	my	Eurocentric	education	background.	I	acknowledge	that	my	upbringing	in	a	democratic	and	capitalistic	society	sympathizes	towards	Hong	Kong’s	democratic	development	and	therefore	shapes	an	argument	that	allows	Hong	Kong	to	have	a	self-discovery	of	identity.	1.4	Limitations	There	are	several	limitations	pertaining	to	the	scope,	findings	and	methods	used	in	the	exploration	of	this	thesis.	First,	this	thesis	discusses	various	histories	and	narratives	of	Hong	Kong’s	plural	identities	in	relation	to	place,	heritage	and	the	built	environment,	however,	the	in-depth	study	and	analysis	of	the	formation	of	these	identities	is	beyond	the	scope	of	this	thesis	and	research	questions.	Second,	the	multiplicity	of	place	creates	a	challenge	to	the	study	of	it	and	observation	through	a	cultural	place-making	lens	is	only	one	of	many	ways	to	analyze	identity	and	the	interpretations	of	it.	Moreover,	this	study	is	focused	on	providing	specificity	for	the	case	city	of	Hong	Kong	and	the	cases	are	grounded	in	this	specific	experience	and	geopolitical	context,	therefore,	caution	should	be	taken	when	generalizing	findings	to	other	localities.	Rather,	this	research	may	be	offered	as	a	comparison	with	other	cases	and	contributes	to	a	wider	understanding	of	identity	and	place	in	globalizing		 14	and	postcolonial	cities.	Finally,	as	this	research	is	based	on	qualitative	inquiry,	limitations	include	researcher	bias	and	interpretation,	which	the	previous	positionality	statement	attempts	to	address.		1.5	Organization	of	This	Thesis	The	following	chapter	(Chapter	2)	introduces	the	concepts	of	place,	identity	and	place-making	and	their	interrelationships.	This	chapter	proposes	that	as	cultural/social	constructs,	place	and	identity	are	open	to	subjective	interpretation;	hence,	identity	can	be	reinforced	or	contradicted	through	place-making	practices.	From	this	perspective,	the	dominant	narrative	of	the	city	can	be	critiqued,	making	possible	the	exploration	of	processes	in	identity	transformation	and	discovery	in	place	politics.	Chapter	3	discusses	globalization	and	its	effects	on	urban	places	and	identities,	and	examines	the	production	of	cultural	capital	as	a	strategy	for	cities	to	achieve	global	status.	The	development	of	cultural	icons	and	heritage	preservation	practices	can	be	both	complementary	and	contradicting	place-making	processes	in	postcolonial	globalizing	cities.	Introducing	an	understanding	of	globalization	and	the	trend	of	culture-focused	urban	development	and	revitalization,	this	chapter	will	provide	context	for	the	in-depth	case	studies	in	the	following	chapters.		Chapter	4	discusses	dominant	identity	narratives	of	the	case	city,	Hong	Kong.	This	chapter	examines	place-making	practices	in	the	city	on	a	broader	scale,	making		 15	connections	between	Hong	Kong’s	perceived	identities	and	its	place-making	practices.	Through	the	exploration	of	the	various	portrayals	of	Hong	Kong’s	identity,	including	its	post-colonial,	national	and	global	accounts,	this	chapter	highlights	the	struggles,	tensions	and	contradictions	in	the	dominant	narratives	in	past	and	present	day	Hong	Kong.	This	chapter	sets	the	context	for	the	following	case	studies	by	elucidating	the	residents’	and	state’s	increasing	concern	for	the	development	and	construction	of	Hong	Kong’s	identity	after	1997.	The	first	case	study	of	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	is	examined	in	Chapter	5.	This	chapter	explores	the	cultural	and	social	issues	arising	from	the	development	of	this	highly	political	and	controversial	multibillion	U.S.	dollar	cultural	project.	The	development	of	this	prestigious	cultural	project,	legacy	of	Tung	Chee	Hwa,	the	first	Chief	Executive	of	Hong	Kong	in	1999,	demonstrates	the	complexities	between	the	political	and	social	dimensions	of	place	and	identity.		The	dualism	observed	and	experienced	in	the	city,	of	rapid	development	and	the	surge	of	public	interest	in	nostalgia	and	heritage	are	seen	to	be	working	at	opposite	ends,	with	contradicting	objectives	for	the	city.		In	Chapter	6,	the	role	of	place-making	in	heritage	revitalization	and	its	intersections	with	culture-led	urban	regeneration,	are	examined	through	the	second	case	study.	This	chapter	explores	the	preservation	argument	for	the	lived	spaces	at	Wing	Lee	Street.	While	the	tenement	housing	on	the	street	is	not	designated	as	monument	or	antiquities	by	authorities,	it	is	recognized	by	locals	as	a	place	that	represented	the	collective	identity	of	citizens.	Place-making	processes	at	this	site	disclose	implications	of		 16	contesting	interests	of	capital	and	the	local.	In	both	case	studies,	I	highlight	the	tensions,	contradictions	and	resistance	amongst	locals,	states	and	the	market.		The	final	chapter	concludes	the	arguments	made	in	this	thesis	and	makes	recommendations	for	further	research.	I	propose	key	areas	for	further	investigation	and	discussion	to	highlight	specific	identity	and	place-making	discourses,	cultural	and	heritage	planning	issues,	and	provide	a	guiding	framework	that	acknowledges	the	intricacies	at	play	when	dealing	with	notions	of	identity	and	place:	informed	in	my	study	by	the	unique	socio-econ-political	landscape	of	Hong	Kong.		 		 17	Chapter	2		Place-making	in	Cities:	Understanding	Identity,	Culture	and	Place		Place	and	identity	are	interrelated.	The	concept	of	place-identity	is	connected	to	the	physical	environment	around	us,	as	well	as	our	interpretation	and	relationship	with	space.	The	places	that	our	societies	create	express	dominant	meanings,	identities,	and	values	of	those	such	as	the	state	and	the	market.	Certain	cities	portray	a	strong	cultural	identity	and	imagery,	while	others	present	more	nuanced	forms	of	cultural	expression.	Power	relations	can	be	comprehended	and	inferred	through	the	reading	of	place	and	politics	of	identity.		2.1	The	Salience	of	Place:	The	Reflexive	Relationship	Between	Place	and	Identity		“We	must	be	insistently	aware	of	how	space	can	be	made	to	hide	consequences	from	us,	how	relations	of	power	and	discipline	are	inscribed	into	the	apparently	innocent	spatiality	of	social	life,	how	human	geographies	become	filled	with	politics	and	ideology.”	(Edward	Soja,	1989:6)	“Place”	for	the	most	part	has	to	do	with	materiality	and	location.	But	more	than	just	physical	space,	place	is	a	realm	with	human	meaning	(Cresswell,	2004).	Academic	literature	acknowledge	place	as	a	social	construct,	underlining	its	socio-spatial-	 18	temporal	linkages	(Massey	2010;	Lefebvre	1991).	Place	and	society	“are	simultaneously	realized	by	thinking,	feeling	and	doing	individuals,	and	different	conditions	in	which	such	realizations	are	experienced	by	thinking,	feeling,	doing	subjects”	(Keith	and	Pile,	1993,	2004).	As	Lefebvre	(1991)	has	pointed	out,	the	material	environment	is	both	the	product	of,	and	the	condition	of,	the	possibility	of	social	relations	by	which	identities	are	formed	and	transformed;	therefore	place	cannot	remain	static	or	be	isolated	from	the	social.		Our	sense	of	attachment	to	certain	locations,	for	example,	our	“hometown”,	is	closely	tied	to	how	we	identify	others	and	ourselves.	Cresswell	(2004)	reflects	that	a	sense	of	place	is	the	subjective	and	emotional	attachment	people	have	towards	place.	Whether	a	place	invokes	a	sense	of	belonging,	familiarity,	nostalgia,	or	conflict	is	subjective	to	our	interpretation	and	also	our	identity.	Place	is	a	location	intertwined	with	our	lives	and	experiences,	in	which	collective	memories,	images,	feelings	and	meanings	are	held	(Lowenthal,	1975).	The	physical	environment	provides	stability	to	our	identities	because	they	act	as	visual	reminders	of	our	histories,	our	personal	and	collective	memories	(Hayden,	1997).		Cresswell	(2004)	adds	that	place	is	“a	way	of	seeing,	knowing	and	understanding	the	world.	When	we	look	at	the	world	as	a	world	of	places	we	see	different	things.	We	see	attachments	and	connections	between	people	and	place.	We	see	worlds	of	meaning	and	experience	(11).”	As	a	social	construct,	a	location	and	a	way	of	seeing,	place	contributes	to	the	formation	of	identity	as	it	functions	to	provide	a	sense	of	belonging,	construct	meaning,	foster	attachments,	and	mediate	change	(Proshansky,		 19	1978).	Reciprocally,	our	identity	and	how	we	see	the	world	also	affects	how	we	build	and	use	place.	People	who	experience	place	may	be	“reading”	and	interpreting	the	built	environment	through	everyday	usages	of	place.	By	understanding	this	reciprocal	relationship	between	identity	and	place,	we	may	also	better	understand	the	relations	and	consequences	of	restructuring	places	on	identity.	2.2	Reading	the	City	For	sociologists	and	psychologists	“place-identity”	is	a	concept	linked	to	personal	identity	and	our	interpretation	of	certain	places,	whereas	in	spatial	planning	and	design	place-identity	is	related	to	qualities	of	the	place	itself	and	how	certain	places	are	distinguished	through	its	physical	features.	The	two	ideas	are	inextricably	connected.	The	discussion	of	place-identity,	both	in	terms	of	the	physical	forms	as	well	as	the	underlying	social	processes,	is	important	in	unraveling	the	layers	of	meaning	that	exist	in	human	settlements.	The	politics	of	place	are	not	only	about	the	design	and	function	of	places,	but	also	of	identity,	how	groups	express	their	“sense	of	self	and	their	desires	for	the	spaces	which	constitute	their	‘home’	–	be	it	the	local	neighbourhood	or	the	nation	home,	an	indigenous	home	or	one	recently	adopted”	(Jacobs,	2002,	2).	2.2.1	Spatial	forms,	symbolism	and	cultural	identity	A	city	can	be	read	through	its	spatial	forms	and	physical	structures.	Focusing	on	the	physical	form	of	the	city,	Lynch	(1960)	observes	how	a	city’s	image	is	perceived	by	city	dwellers	through	its	streets,	buildings,	nodes	and	landmarks.	For	Lynch,	the		 20	“legibility”	of	a	city	is	related	to	clarity	and	coherence	–	how	easy	it	is	to	recognize	the	symbols	and	patterns,	and	to	distinguish	them	from	others	–	that	evokes	a	sense	of	place	and	gives	a	city	its	identity.	In	Spaces	of	Global	Cultures:	architecture,	urbanism,	identity,	Anthony	King	(2004)	is	interested	in	how	the	image	of	buildings	transmit	symbolic	messages,	social	and	political	meanings	of	power,	status	and	identity.	King	explores	how	the	transplanting	of	architectural	cultures	from	one	cultural	location	to	another	has	social	and	cultural	effects	on	subjects	and	their	identities,	as	well	as	how	meanings	of	symbols	and	icons	of	power	can	change	over	time.	King’s	(2004)	example	of	the	skyscraper	demonstrates	this	fluidity.	The	skyscraper	became	a	symbol	of	economic	power	and	modern	identity	in	America	in	the	late	nineteenth	century.	China’s	adoption	of	the	vertical	form	of	the	skyscraper	and	shift	away	from	its	historically	symbolic	representation	of	power	(as	seen	in,	for	example,	the	Forbidden	City)	is	a	result	of	global	cultural	influences.		Place	identity	and	the	cultural	identity	of	cities	are	closely	related:	cities	which	have	distinct	cultural	production	and	performance	are	also	acknowledged	as	cities	with	strong	place-identities	(Scott,	2000).	“Orthogenic”	cities	“formed	essentially	from	a	single	cultural	basis	or	origin”	have	a	high	degree	of	“cultural	legibility”	(Hutton	2015,	39).	These	cities	are	identified	as	having	an	overall	coherence	in	the	built	environment.	Rome,	Venice	and	Paris	are	cited	as	examples	of	places	that	demonstrate	a	powerful	cultural	imaginary,	a	sense	of	place.	Often	centralized	around	grand	plazas	and	monuments	that	express	civic	pride	or	power	of	rulers	(Healey,	2002),	the	historic	city	of	cultural	identity	is	embodied	through	physical		 21	locations.	The	naming	of	streets,	plazas	and	parks	after	historic	icons	cements	the	importance	of	such	figures	in	the	building	of	nations	and	states,	contributing	to	the	“imagined	community”	(Anderson,	1991),	as	a	symbol,	a	visual	and	concrete	reminder	of	memory,	and	used	by	hegemonic	agents	in	the	construction	of	nationhood	and	national	identity.		But,	we	should	not	dismiss	the	diverse	forms	of	cultural	production	in	“heterogenic”	cities	and	their	multiple	layers	of	culture,	histories	and	urban	change	(Hutton,	2015).	Heterogenic	cities	may	also	have	a	strong	sense	of	place	and	a	distinct	place-identity.	Heterogenic	cities	that	come	under	the	influence	of	multiple	social,	political	and	cultural	contexts	such	as	London,	San	Francisco,	Singapore	and	also	Hong	Kong,	generate	more	conflictual	forms	of	cultural	expression	and	identity	formation	(Hutton,	2015).	For	example,	readings	into	postcolonial	cities	may	provide	more	understanding	of	how	the	multiple	layers	of	culture,	history,	and	politics	interact	in	the	cultural	production	of	space.	Correspondingly,	Oakes	(2015,	5)	states	that	it	is	important	“to	recognize	from	the	outset	that	all	cities	are	already	cultural”.	We	should	look	at	these	cities	“not	as	sites	of	local	‘variations’	of	universal	Western	models,	but	as	locations	where	mobile	policies	are	always	already	remade	as	they	travel	within	the	networked	space	of	global	urbanism”	(Oakes	2015,	5).		2.2.2	Memory,	heritage	and	symbolism	in	the	everyday	spaces	Memory	is	critical	in	the	formation	of	both	personal	and	place	identity	and	important	in	shaping	discourses	on	preservation,	development	and	how	heritage	is		 22	defined	and	represented	(Moore,	2007).	As	we	read	and	experience	place,	we	are	also	reading	its	multiple	layers	of	“stored	memory”	(Hayden	1997).	The	city	is	seen	as	place	where	collective	memory	is	embodied	(Lowenthal,	1975)	and	where	memory	is	expressed	in	a	multitude	of	forms	and	scales:	in	the	form	of	built	heritage	(Henderson,	2001),	the	valorization	of	monuments,	buildings	or	neighbourhoods,	in	the	expression	of	architectural	styles	and	materials	through	different	time	periods	(King,	2004;	Kusno,	2010),	even	the	spatial	organization	of	a	cluster	of	buildings		(Hayden,	1997;	Moore,	2007).		In	our	modern	day	society,	everyday	structures	(examples	here	are	the	football	club,	heritage	district	or	retail	precinct)	may	also,	over	time,	symbolize	a	city	for	its	residents	and	visitors.	In	Everyday	Globalization,	Timothy	Shortell	(2014)	demonstrates	that	signs	of	collective	identity	are	embedded	and	visible	in	the	everyday	public	spaces	of	urban	neighbourhoods.	Analyzing	the	visual	signs	of	the	everyday	vernacular	landscape	in	immigrant	neighbourhoods	of	Brooklyn	and	Paris,	Shortell	elucidates	the	capacity	for	the	everyday	spaces	to	become	a	signifier	of	cultural	identity	of	a	neighbourhood,	in	contrast	with	institutional	and	overt	cultural	identity	development	presented	in	museums	and	monuments.	Immigrants	create	their	own	sense	of	place,	establishing	a	cultural	identity	of	the	neighbourhood	that	both	enhances	collective	identity	of	people	who	are	associated	with	the	place	and	also	distinguishing	it	from	other	neighbourhoods.	Shortell	argues	that	these	visual	signs	not	only	enable	people’s	recognition	of	the	space,	but	also	contributes	to	how	individuals	perform	in	the	environment	and	towards	others.			 23	2.3	Multiplicity,	Tensions	and	Contestations	While	the	physical	signs	and	symbols	do	help	us	read	and	understand	a	city,	we	should	not	remove	the	subjective	dimension	of	personal	experience	and	how	individual	understanding	of	the	world	contribute	to	our	readings	of	places.	For	example,	how	an	affluent	person	reads	the	city	is	different	from	how	a	marginalized	person	does.	Ilse	Helbrecht	(2004)	proposes	a	perspective	of	seeing	the	city	“as	text	and	as	art”,	both	as	a	representation	and	as	a	lived	reality,	through	two	lenses	simultaneously:	non-representational	and	representational	theories.	Through	the	non-representational	theory,	we	see	cities	as	the	concrete,	inferring,	for	example,	the	look	and	feel	of	the	urban	landscape;	and	through	the	representational	theory,	we	connect	the	abstraction	of	theory	to	what	we	see	physically.		By	looking	beyond	the	materiality	of	space,	we	can	analyze	underlying	social,	political	and	economic	factors	of	place	and	identity	building	(Massey,	2004,	2010).	Multiple	narratives	and	perspectives	must	be	uncovered	for	an	understanding	of	agencies	and	agents	in	the	production	of	place.	In	her	seminal	work,	Space,	Place	and	Gender,	Doreen	Massey	(2004)	saw	space	and	place	as	socially	constructed;	proposing	that	this	way	of	looking	at	it	turns	“geography	into	history	and	space	into	time”.	She	challenges	the	idea	that	space	and	place	are	static,	and	argues	that	seeing	space	as	such	is	problematic	because	it	ignores	that	place,	people,	and	cultures	have	trajectories.	Her	perspective	sees	space	as	social	constructs	and	where	power	relations	are	played	out.				 24	Michael	Keith	and	Steve	Pile	in	Place	and	the	Politics	of	Identity	(2004)	make	two	points	in	regards	to	the	relativist	notion	of	spatiality	(1)”There	is	no	singular,	true	reading	of	any	specific	landscape	involved	in	the	mediation	of	identity”,	“multiple	enunciations	of	distinct	forms	of	space	are	simultaneously	present	in	any	landscape.”	(2)	“Each	and	every	reading	of	a	specific	landscape	is	not	of	equal	value	or	validity.”	(2004,	6).	Keith	and	Pile	maintain	that	place	is	“more	than	a	passive	abstract	arena	where	one	can	seek	a	relationship	between	real,	the	imaginary	and	the	symbolic”	(identity	and	one’s	perception	and	representation)	(Keith	and	Pile,	2004,	2).	2.3.1	Place	and	power;	counter-hegemonic	place-making	Readings	of	place	help	us	remember	and	reconnect	the	spatialities	of	counter-hegemonic	cultural	practices.	Place	is	important	in	considering	the	“right	to	the	city”.	Whose	memories	are	celebrated	through	festivals	and	events	organized	in	public	plazas?	Whose	victories	are	celebrated	through	the	erection	of	monuments	and	the	placement	of	plaques?	More	subtly,	who	is	allowed	(and/or	tolerated)	to	make	their	mark	in	the	city	through	their	daily	activities?	In	asking	these	questions,	we	are	able	to	critically	analyze	the	making	and	using	of	place	and	dissect	power	relations	associated	with	it.	Place-making	activities	in	the	everyday	are	in	one	way	or	another,	representative	of	societies’	power	relations.	Harvey	(1989)	reflects	that	those	who	have	the	power	to	produce	space	are	therefore	able	to	enhance	their	own	power,	and	have	greater		 25	capacity	to	change	and	control	the	appearance	and	access	of	space.	On	the	one	hand,	place	articulates	social	constructions	imposed	by	those	in	power.	“Neighbourhood	organizations	put	pressure	on	people	to	tidy	their	yards;	city	governments	legislate	for	new	public	buildings	to	express	the	spirit	of	particular	places”	(Cresswell,	2004,	5).	On	the	other	hand,	ordinary	people	inscribe	themselves	in	the	city	though	everyday	practices	of	using	and	interpreting	place,	forming	a	dialogue	with	the	cities’	past,	present	and	future.		In	The	Power	of	Identity,	Castells	(1997)	distinguishes	between	“legitimizing”,	“resistance”	and	“project”	identities.	Legitimizing	identities,	such	as	national	citizenship,	are	created	and	enforced	by	dominant	institutions	out	of	hegemonic	ideals.	Resistance	identities	are	produced	by	marginalized	people’s	contesting	perceptions	of	place.	Project	identities	are	new	identities	that	redefine	people’s	position	in	society,	and	as	the	resistance	identity	overtakes	legitimizing	identity.	When	applied	to	place	and	place-making,	such	identities	become	materialized	and	manifested	in	spaces	that	organize	and	structure	our	daily	activities.		Within	nation-states,	oppressed	groups	attempt	to	assert	their	own	identities	through	place-making.	Cultural	struggles	over	place	and	place-making	are	often	interpreted	from	the	perspective	of	the	marginalized	in	issues	around	ethnicity,	gender,	and	class.	Borrowing	from	literature	on	translocal	place-making,	immigrants	exert	agency	on	their	locality	and	the	production	of	power,	meaning	and	(new)	hybrid	and	multiple	identities.	Here,	place-making	is	seen	as	a	vehicle	for	cross-cultural	learning	and	collective	action.	As	an	act	of	resistance,	place-making		 26	produces	spaces	of	identity	“in	the	face	of	open	rejection,	marginalization	and	racism”	(Main	&	Sandoval.	2015).	It	is	also	seen	as	subtle	resistance	against	the	hegemony,	and	is	associated	with	civic	participation	during	times	of	social	peril	and	political	instability.	Main	and	Sandoval	(2015)	observe	this	in	the	case	of	MacArthur	Park	in	Los	Angeles.	They	illustrate	how	the	South	American	immigrant	population	finds	a	sense	of	belonging	in	seeking	to	recreate	places	from	their	homeland	through	informal	activities	(soccer	and	vending).	Main	and	Sandoval	(2015)	characterize	these	as	acts	of	resistance	that	contributed	to	the	production	of	the	park’s	sense	of	place	for	this	group	of	people.	Moreover,	while	the	aesthetics	of	the	park	was	different	from	South	America,	it	still	reminded	them	of	home.		Again	in	the	transnational	city	of	Los	Angeles,	Caceres	(2009)	observes	the	role	of	graffiti	art	as	an	act	of	resistance	and	as	an	art	form.	She	contends	that	graffiti	articulates	the	“ethos	of	the	working	class,	those	on	the	margins,	and/or	communities	of	color	throughout	urban	centers	around	the	world”	(2).	Connecting	graffiti	with	diversity	and	Los	Angeles’	transnational	identity,	she	argues	for	better	support	of	diverse	forms	of	art	through	inclusive	municipal	planning.			Castells’	(1997)	ideas	can	also	be	analyzed	in	Keith	and	Pile’s	(2004)	writing	about	the	London	Docklands.	The	community’s	resistance	towards	the	redevelopment	of	their	neighbourhood	created	a	project	identity	from	a	resistance	one:		“The	notion	of	Docklands	became	a	symbol	around	which	people	mobilized;	a	way	in	which	residents	defined	their	neighbourhood;	and	an	administrative		 27	and	economic	zone;	an	imagined	geography	and	a	spatialized	political	economy-	a	way	of	seeing	and	a	way	of	life.	(multiple	groups	with	different	areas/interests)	led	to	a	multi-layered	and	multi-dimensional	geography	of	resistance.	“by	mobilizing	a	territorialized	sense	of	both	place	and	community	identity,	they	forced	themselves	on	to	the	political	agenda	and,	because	of	their	continued	commitment	to	‘their	land’	(even	thought	they	neither	own	it	nor	control	it),	they	will	outlast	the	London	Docklands	Development	Corporation	and	continue	to	resist	the	fly-by-night	property	developers.“	(Keith	and	Pile,	2004,	13)	In	summary,	this	chapter	explores	the	notions	of	place	and	identity,	with	emphasis	on	how	both	are	concepts	that	are	fluid	and	prone	to	interpretation	and	manipulation.	The	view	that	place	contains	multiplicities	enables	us	to	interrogate	spatial	practices	to	reveal	occluded	histories,	memories,	and	motives	of	agents	and	agencies.	The	dominant	identity	projected	by	cities	and	places	represent	those	who	hold	power,	but	it	can	also	be	challenged	and	changed	by	efforts	of	those	who	are	less	powerful.	The	discussion	of	power	relation	in	place	and	place-making	will	be	continued	in	the	next	chapter,	exploring	how	representations,	symbols,	imaginations	are	affected	in	changing,	globalizing	cities.		 		 28	Chapter	3	Globalization	and	Cultural	Cities	As	cities	and	places	are	restructured	in	the	progression	of	society	and	technology,	the	symbolic	meanings	of	the	places	of	identity	are	transformed.	As	we	increasingly	become	under	the	influence	of	multiple	cultures	and	technology,	our	concepts	of	identity,	nationhood	and	sense	of	belonging	also	become	mobile	and	flexible.	Globalization	plays	a	significant	role	in	such	transformations	and	reorganization	of	place	and	identity.	“Global	cities”	are	characterized	as	sites	where	global	political,	economic	and	cultural	flows	meet	and	collide	with	local	imaginaries	and	identities	(Sassen,	2001).	New	urban	spaces	are	created	and	old	spaces	take	on	different	meanings	as	a	result	of	global	ebbs	and	flows	of	capital,	culture,	production	and	trade.	Cities	with	global	aspirations	are	increasingly	recognizing	the	need	to	accumulate	particular	forms	of	cultural	capital	to	compete	for	global	position.	The	cultural	production	of	icons	(Kong	2007)	and	images	(Scott,	2000),	alongside	the	(re)invention	of	place-based	heritage,	are	becoming	commonly	used	as	strategies	for	gaining	global	status,	while	the	cultural	identity	of	the	city	is	being	framed	as	a	driver	of	economies	and	well	being	of	residents	(Douglass,	Ho	&	Ooi,	2008).	Scholarship	suggests	that	such	strategies	are	sometimes	“at	odds	with	projects	of	nationhood”	(Kong	2007),	or	that	a	dominance	of	a	global	culture	contributes	to	a	loss	or	dilution	of	intrinsic	local	culture/identity,	and	ironically	limiting	the	development	of	creativity	(Zukin,	1995).			 29	3.1	Globalization:	Effects	on	Urban	Spaces	and	Identity	The	restructuring	of	place	through	urban	development	and	renewal	is	associated	with	the	processes	of	neoliberalism	and	globalization	(Douglass,	Ho	&	Ooi,	2008).	To	what	extent	does	the	globalization	of	cities	and	places	transform	the	identity	of	these	places	and	consequently	the	identity	of	inhabitants	and	vice	versa?	What	roles	do	place	and	place	identity	play	in	the	context	of	globalization?	“Global	cities”	are	characterized	as	networked	nodes,	with	multiple	and	intensive	global	flows	of	people,	goods,	services,	ideas	and	images	(Sassen	2001).	Lily	Kong	(2007,	384)	suggests	that	“global	cities	often	share	more	in	common,	have	more	to	do	with,	and	identify	more	with	other	global	cities	than	with	other	cities	and	hinterlands	in	their	own	countries.”	Rapid	urbanization,	the	development	of	mega-projects	and	flagship	projects	are	some	of	the	results	of	inter-city	competition.	Further,	post-industrial	cities	“turn	entrepreneurial”	to	seek	global	capital,	resulting	in	the	commodification	of	the	city	and	its	places	of	culture	(Yeoh,	2005;	Harvey,	1989).		Furthering	Sassen’s	paradigm	of	global	cities,	Graham	and	Marvin	(2001)	characterize	the	shattering	effects	of	transnational	infrastructural	networks	on	urban	environments	and	political	conditions	as	“splintering	urbanism”.	Graham	and	Marvin’s	theory	of	splintering	urbanism	claims	that	increasingly	privatized	systems,	including	urban	spaces,	are	supporting	the	fragmentation,	polarizations	and	disparities	of	metropolitan	areas	across	the	world.			 30	The	privatization	of	the	public	sphere,	of	public	urban	spaces,	semi-public	spaces	that	dominate	public	life	is	driven	by	global	flows.	Global	ideologies	contribute	to	the	development	of		“grand	projects…	created	not	only	for	their	functions	as	offices,	commercial	outlets	or	living	spaces.	They	are	also	intended	to	create	symbolic	value	as	elements	of	world	city	status”	(Ho	and	Douglass,	2008,	202).	Imageries	are	utilized	by	cities,	and	also	by	corporations,	to	drive	consumption	and	attract	foreign	investment.	Zukin	(1991;	1996)	argues	that	contemporary	landscapes	in	the	global	and	postindustrial	economy,	such	as	the	gentrified	downtowns,	tourist	areas	and	commercialized	neighbourhoods,	are	cultural	products	created	by	a	market	culture.	Zukin	(1991)	applies	Schumpeter’s	(1942)	concept	of	“creative	destruction”	to	the	landscape,	arguing	that	the	processes	of	capitalism	replace	authentic,	public	and	vernacular	landscapes	with	market-oriented	and	franchised	“nonplaces”.	These	spaces	conform	to	private	and	market	values	to	serve	the	consumer	economy,	ultimately	affecting	our	sense	of	place	and	attachment	to	place.		Another	example	of	how	spaces	are	changing	in	cities	as	a	result	of	globalization	is	in	the	emergent	spatial	divisions	of	labour	within	districts	and	neighbourhoods.		Hutton	(2009)	examines	the	respatialization	of	the	inner	cities	of	London,	Vancouver,	Singapore	and	San	Francisco,	showing	the	interactions	between	processes	of	industrial	change,	space	and	place	in	the	city	in	relation	to	new	industry	formation.	Derelict	inner	city	neighbourhoods	of	post-industrial	cities	where	warehouses,	and	labour	once	accumulated	are	being	reconstructed	and	re-imagined	as	“zones	of	experimentation,	creativity,	and	innovation”,	largely	enabled		 31	by	transnational	flows	(Hutton,	2009).	The	re-imagining	of	these	spaces	from	industrial	to	“creative”	changes	the	identity	of	such	spaces	and	the	neighbourhoods	where	they	are	housed.	Additionally,	these	new	appealing	place-images	are	used	towards	marketing	strategies	by	developers	and	cities	to	drive	economic	objectives.	On	a	social	level,	Friedmann	(2010)	and	Zukin	(2009)	argue	that	the	place-marketing	practices	that	favour	consumption	emphasizes	“place-breaking”	and	creation	of	dehumanized	spaces.	It	results	in	a	privatized	urban	sphere	that	decreases	public	spaces	and,	consequentially,	democratic	governance	(Ho	and	Douglass	2008).	Friedmann	(2010)	stresses	the	need	to	re-establish	the	local,	neighbourhood-focused	social	(and	cultural)	relationships	as	an	important	aspect	of	a	healthy	city	in	the	context	of	gentrification,	real	estate	speculation	and	consumption.	Moreover,	the	building	of	a	global	city	identity	contradicts	the	building	of	national	identities	and	national	citizenship.	Zabielskis	(2008)	adds	that	the	practice	of	“place-breaking”	is	exacerbated	by	the	“widespread	prevalence	of	weak	or	undeveloped	senses	of	citizenship	and	civil	society	in	many	urbanizing	areas”	(269).		Rather	than	simplifying	the	global	culture	as	one	of	homogeneity,	Arjun	Appadurai’s	(1990)	five	“scapes”	offer	a	pluralist	view	of	capitalism	processes	and	the	restructuring	urban	place	and	identity.	Appadurai’s	(1990)	global	cultural	economy	is	a	“disorganized”	one	of	complexity	and	irregularity.	The	five	dimensions,	“scapes”,		 32	of	“global	cultural	flows”	construct	the	“imagined	world”3	in	which	people	and	social	groups	live.		Ethnoscapes	are	"the	landscape	of	persons	who	constitute	the	shifting	world	in	which	we	live,"	(33)	stable	communities	often	partly	constituted	by	movement	of	immigrants	and/or	people	from	other	places.	Technoscapes	are	the	global	configuration	shaped	by	the	increasingly	rapid	exchange	and	transfer	of	technology	from	one	place	to	another	(34).	Financescapes	are	the	changing	configurations	of	global	capital	as	it	moves	through	"currency	markets,	national	stock	exchanges,	and	commodity	speculations"	(34).	Mediascapes	are	both	"the	distribution	of	the	electronic	capabilities	to	produce	and	disseminate	information	(newspapers,	magazines,	television	stations,	and	film-production	studios)"	and	"the	images	of	the	world	created	by	these	media"	(35).	Finally,	Ideoscapes	“have	to	do	with	the	ideologies	of	states	and	the	counterideologies	of	movements	explicitly	oriented	to	capturing	state	power	or	a	piece	of	it.	These	ideoscapes	are	composed	of	elements	of	the	Enlightenment	worldview,	which	consists	of	a	chain	of	ideas,	terms,	and	images,	including	freedom,	welfare,	rights,	sovereignty,	representation,	and	the	master	term	democracy"	(36).	While	the	forces	of	capitalism	and	globalization	disrupts	and	fragments	urban	neighbourhoods	and	affect	the	formation	of	identity,	the	restructuring	of	the	global																																																									3	Building	on	Benedict	Anderson’s	(1991)	“imagined	communities”		 33	economy	also	enabled	the	emergence	of	a	new	cultural	economy	that	is	connected	with	place-identity	and	place-based	memories.		3.2	Cultural	Cities	in	the	Context	of	Globalization		Culture	is	the	hallmark	of	global	cities	Allen	Scott	(2000)	highlights	the	highly	symbiotic	connection	between	place,	culture	and	economy.	Both	the	perceived	and	experienced	image	of	a	city	largely	has	to	do	with	the	idea	of	culture.	“Culture	is	both	a	unique	differentiator	of	cities	and	urban	places,	as	well	as	a	potent	force	in	globalization”	(Hutton,	2015,	72).	The	emergence	of	the	cultural	industries	and	“economy	of	signs”	(Urry,	1994)	–	“exchange	of	cultural	goods	with	highly	aesthetic	content,	identity,	and	function”	-	play	a	large	role	not	only	in	the	tourism	industry,	but	also	urban	restructuring.	Cultural	consumption	and	cultural	production	play	significant	roles	in	the	development	of	identity	and	create	a	city	that	consists	not	only	of	aestheticized	urban	landscapes	and	gentrified	neighbourhoods	for	the	consumer,	but	also	the	myriad	development	of	cultural	industries	in	the	arts,	media	and	education	that	correspond	to	these	consumerist	activities.	The	relational	aspect	of	space	–	histories	and	memories	that	contribute	to	the	operation	and	restructuring	of	urban	economics	–	is	“especially	pronounced	in	the	cultural	economy	of	the	city”	(Hutton,	2015,	195).	The	interest	in	locality	and	culture	was,	as	many	scholars	point	out,	affected	by	the	restructuring	of	places,	the		 34	changing	material	practice	of	production,	consumption,	information	flow,	and	communication,	the	reorganization	of	space	relations	and	of	time	horizons	within	capitalist	development	(Urry,	1994;	Scott,	2000;	Ley,	2003;	Hutton,	2009).	“As	cities	became	increasingly	global	and	homogenous,	it	had	become	necessary	to	re-image	the	city	and	manufacture	distinctions…	creating	heterogeneous	striations	within	the	smooth	and	undifferentiated”	(Douglass,	Ho	&	Ooi,	2007,	248).	As	Sharon	Zukin	(1996)	puts	it,	“culture	is	more	and	more	the	business	of	cities…and	their	unique	competitive	edge.”			Richard	Florida	(2002),	in	his	international	bestseller,	The	Rise	of	the	Creative	Class:	And	how	it's	Transforming	Work,	Leisure,	Community	and	Everyday	Life,	posits	that	a	“Creative	Class”	of	highly	talented	and	mobile	workers	are	drivers	of	the	future	economy.	He	argues	that	in	order	for	cities	to	succeed,	they	need	to	cater	to	the	needs	and	wants	of	this	elite	group	of	individuals	who	seek	vibrant	urban	cultures.	He	asserts	that	it	is	the	city’s	role	to	create	the	conditions	to	attract	this	creative	class.	Harnessing	the	allure	of	place,	by	imagining	and	attempting	to	evoke	a	sense	of	place,	cities	use	cultural	production	and	creation	of	images	to	combat	“placelessness”	(Yeoh	&	Kong,	1997;	Kaymaz,	2013).	In	the	last	two	decades,	the	integration	of	economic	and	cultural	activity	through	the	production	and	consumption	of	culture	is	increasingly	deployed	to	attract	the	affluent	urban	cosmopolites	(Ley,	2003).	Place-based	cultural	strategies	of	economic	development	take	many	forms,	from	the	encouragement	of	historic	preservation	to	creating	new	museums	and	tourist	zones.	Creative	strategies	in	the	field	of	urban	policy	“works		 35	with	extant	‘neoliberal’	development	agendas,	framed	around	interurban	competition,	gentrification,	middle-class	consumption	and	place-marketing”	(Peck,	2005).	Through	the	construction	of	flagship	projects	as	part	of	the	cultural	regeneration	of	the	city	(Evans,	2003),	production-based	strategies	such	as	the	development	of	a	cultural	industries	sector,	and	consumption-based	strategies	through	image	promoting	and	place-marketing	(Kong,	2000),	cities	have	become	amalgams	of	cultures	and	symbols	with	the	grain	of	neoliberal	agendas	(Peck,	2005).		3.3	Contradictions	in	Representation,	Symbolism	and	Identity	in	the	Cultural	City		There	are	social	and	cultural	implications	of	this	regeneration	and	gentrification	of	the	urban	landscape.	The	dominance	of	images	and	branding	utilized	to	construct	and	reconstruct	the	identity	of	a	city	inherently	affects	individual	and	collective	identities.	Romanticized	images	created	for	visitors	not	only	contribute	to	the	tourists’	perception	of	the	city,	as	these	identities	constructed	amidst	processes	of	globalization	become	a	part	of	the	identity	of	residents,	too.	Are	the	images	reflective	of	existing	identities	or	are	these	images	substantively	new,	to	enable	the	story	of	a	new	identity?	Does	this	limit	the	organic	construction	of	identity?	In	the	past	few	decades,	the	processes	of	globalization	was	seen	to	“dilute”	the	inherent	culture	of	cities,	creating	places	of	a	dominant	global	culture,	one	that	is	driven	by	consumerism	and	the	privatization	of	public	spaces.	Others	suggest	that		 36	rather	than	the	dominance	of	a	global	culture,	transnational	flows	are	localized	to	create	a	“glocal”	or	“hybrid”	culture	that	is	unique	to	the	host	city	(Robertson,	1994;	King,	2004).	In	addition,	Kong	(2007,	384)	asks,	“are	efforts	at	attaining	global	city	status	at	odds	with	projects	of	nationhood,	which	essentially	emphasis	the	building	of	internal	ties?”	Lepofsky	and	Fraser	(2009,	129)	point	out	that	place-marketing	projects	work	at	the	cultural	meaning	of	the	city	in	terms	of	“who	can	make	claims	upon	the	city”	and	“whom	cities	are	for”.	The	use	of	imagery	reinterprets	local	memories	and	histories,	sometimes	embellishing	the	identity	and	lifestyles	in	the	urban	global	city.	As	a	result,	this	vision	of	the	urban	global	city	becomes	the	dominant	vision	of	the	city’s	life	and	culture.	Moreover,	place-marketing	efforts	“dilute	the	diverse	nuance	derived	from	the	local	residents	that	organically	vitalizes	and	shapes	a	community”,	creating	displacement	of	residents	and	local	businesses	(Kong,	2007).		“In	the	reconstruction	of	place,	some	histories	are	privileged	while	others	are	expunged	from	the	collective	memory”	(Winchester,	2003,	135).		The	alteration	of	the	meanings	or	forms	of	the	landscape	through	heritage	preservation	and	revitalization	then	also	contributes	to	identity	building,	or	contradiction,	refashioning	the	imaginaries	of	the	past	for	future	purposes.	The	valorization	of	various	landscapes	as	heritage	areas	or	historic	monuments,	whether	utilized	to	increase	a	national	sense	of	history	or	belonging,	or	as	place-marketing	and	place-branding	for	tourism,	whether	led	by	the	state	or	by	community,	enforces	a	specific	memory	and	identity.			 37	In	Consuming	Places,	Urry	(1995)	suggests	the	processes	of	place-marketing	through	the	creation	of	images	for	tourists	or	potential	visitors	affect	the	construction	of	place	or	local	identities.	Increasingly,	images	produced	for	the	tourist	become	a	part	of	the	identity	of	a	city.	Images	that	are	created	for	tourist	project	a	certain	identity	of	place,	which	may	contradict	vernacular	or	local	cultures.	Similarly,	Yaldiz	et	al.	(2014)	argue	that	with	the	continuous	changing	and	regeneration	of	cities,	their	iconic	urban	identity,	architectural	identity	and	the	urban	images	about	them	are	lost	–	that	their	“readabilities”	are	lost.	The	concern	is	that	these	cities’	citizens	live	these	perception	and	memory	problems,	ultimately	festering	feelings	of	disconnect.	This	sense	of	disconnect	then	makes	preservation	of	the	historical	–	cultural	heritage,	local	originalities	and	identities	within	that	city	–	more	challenging.		Brenda	Yeoh	(2005)	observes	how	urban	image-making	and	branding	is	used	by	the	state	to	maintain	a	cultural	identity	in	Singapore	and	as	a	nation-building	exercise.	“Cultural	Imagineering”	in	the	city-state	included	a	shift	towards	heritage	conservation	and	creation,	revalorizing	the	images	and	histories	of	the	nation	in	“historic	districts”	like	Chinatown,	Little	India	and	Kampong	Glam.	Yeoh	argues	that	this	was	an	economic	motivation,	as	well	as	a	strategy	to	foster	national	pride,	catered	to	attract	tourists	and	to	retain	foreign	talent	while	attempting	to	forge	an	identity	for	Singaporeans.	In	the	process	to	reify	heritage,	boundaries	between	the	“valued”	historic	areas	and	the	excluded	landscapes	are	created,	exacerbating	the	cultural	disparities	and	tensions	between	the	existing	diverse	cultural	groups	in	Singapore	(Yeoh,	2005).			 38	Critics	of	the	cultural	and	creative	city	place-marketing	strategies	exemplify	that	such	practices	contribute	to	cities’	inequalities,	fragmentation	and	struggles	between	social	and	cultural	classes.	Such	practices	that	favour	the	“creative	class”	and	outside	capital	leads	to	a	negligence	of	inherent	resources.	A	criticism	of	Richard	Florida’s	theory	is	its	contribution	to	intentional	gentrification	effects	that	the	type	of	marketized	capital	bring	to	older	neighbourhoods,	particularly	the	pricing	out	of	lower	income,	working	class	communities	in	order	to	house	creative	industries	and	professionals.	Pratt	(2010,	8)	states	“there	is	an	implicit	hegemonic	project	of	favouring	a	particular	type	of	culture	(that	appeals	to	a	modern,	or	cosmopolitan,	sensibility)	over	local	or	indigenous	styles...	In	many	senses	this	is	the	classic	cosmopolitan/international–local	tension:	played	out	very	strongly	via	culture.”	Florida’s	tasks	for	policy	makers	are	ostensible	and	widely	adopted	by	cities	left	and	right.	However,	the	market-oriented	and	individualistic	“creativity	strategies	have	been	crafted	to	co-exist	with	urban	social	problems,	not	to	solve	them,"	writes	Peck	(2005).	The	privatization	of	public	spaces,	driven	by	cities’	increasingly	entrepreneurial	and	neoliberal	governance	places	the	responsibility	of	place-making	and	consequently	of	identity	construction	into	the	hands	of	private	developers	and	corporations.		As	demonstrated	in	this	section,	the	culture	and	identity	of	the	city	is	dynamic,	and	is	driven	by	global	flows.	To	further	explore	the	multifaceted	situation,	the	next	chapter	turns	to	the	case	of	Hong	Kong	and	examines	how	place	and	identity	in	the		 39	context	of	globalization	is	played	out	in	a	global	city	that	continues	to	undergo	global,	national	and	local	pressures.				 		 40	Chapter	4	Hong	Kong:	Identity,	Culture	and	Space		This	chapter	examines	Hong	Kong’s	dominant	identity	narratives,	which	are	closely	related	to	and	portrayed	in	the	urban	landscape	of	the	city.	The	main	narratives	of	Hong	Kong	are	shown	to	be	consistent	with	its	historiographies,	and	persist	to	the	current	day.	This	chapter	argues	that	these	narratives	are	used	for	the	maintenance	of	Hong	Kong’s	global	city	identity,	and	to	drive	the	continuation	of	economic	development.	At	the	same	time,	recent	events	such	as	the	concern	with	heritage,	exemplify	increased	resistance	of	this	status	quo,	as	Hong	Kong	citizens	are	reaffirming	and	reconfiguring	how	they	identify	with	the	city.	By	drawing	on	dominant	narratives	and	studying	who	and	what	are	driving	these	depictions,	we	gain	a	better	understanding	of	the	tensions	and	contradictions	present	in	the	city.	4.1	The	“Hong	Kong	Success	Story”	and	Dominant	Narratives	of	Hong	Kong		The	“Hong	Kong	success	story”	tells	the	tale	of	how	a	rural	fishing	village	at	the	edge	of	China	became	one	of	the	“Four	Asian	Tigers”	(The	Economist,	1998)	in	the	1980s	and	a	global	city.	The	persistent,	dominant	narratives	of	Hong	Kong	can	be	recounted	in	this	story.	In	1841,	after	the	Opium	War,	Hong	Kong	Island	-	a	“barren	rock”	-	was	ceded	by	Imperial	China	to	Great	Britain.	Kowloon	Peninsula	was	ceded	to	Britain	after	the		 41	Second	Opium	War,	under	the	Convention	of	Beijing	in	1860.	In	1898,	under	the	Second	Convention	of	Peking,	to	add	a	buffer	zone	between	the	mainland	and	the	island,	the	British	negotiated	for	a	lease	period	of	99	years	for	the	New	Territories	area	(Yu,	2004;	Caroll,	2007).	In	the	early	colonial	period,	Britain	continued	to	exploit	Hong	Kong	and	its	resources	as	a	colonial	trading	port	between	Europe	and	Asia,	and	America,	during	which	the	Gold	Rush	brought	large	numbers	of	workers	and	sojourners	to	and	from	America.	Most	people	were	from	the	surrounding	region	of	Canton,	in	search	for	better	work	and	lives.	Since	this	time,	the	port	city	has	been	characterized	as	a	territory	of	flows,	trade,	labour,	money,	and	a	mixture	of	cultures.		After	Japanese	occupation	in	the	Second	World	War,	during	which	the	territory	suffered	harsh	captivity,	military	and	cultural	oppression	under	the	Japanese,	Hong	Kong	resumed	as	a	British	colony.	The	Empire	maintained	the	status	of	Hong	Kong	as	an	entrepot	in	hopes	to	continue	its	trade	with	the	new	Beijing	government	that	was	forming	in	the	1940s.	Hong	Kong’s	manufacturing	and	export	industries	grew	spectacularly,	enabled	by	laissez-faire	conditions,	labour	supply	and	entrepreneurial	business	migrants	from	China.	The	establishment	of	the	People’s	Republic	of	China	in	1949	and	the	Cultural	Revolution	during	the	1960s	and	70s	brought	great	numbers	of	Chinese	refugees	to	Hong	Kong.	The	population	of	Hong	Kong	rapidly	increased	from	1.6	million	in	1940	to	3	million	in	1960,	and	5.2	million	in	1980	(Morris,	1988).	The	colonial	government	restricted	the	number	of	refugees	entering	Hong	Kong	while	China	closed	itself	off	to	prevent	the	infiltration	of	capitalism	from	Hong	Kong	(So,	2011).	Instead	of	trade	with	China,	Hong	Kong	sent		 42	its	exports	into	the	global	market.	Until	the	introduction	of	the	Open	Door	Policy	in	China	in	1978,	the	economies	of	Hong	Kong	and	China	remained	largely	separate.	The	1956	riot	was	one	of	the	first	full-scale	riots	in	the	territory,	partly	sparked	by	the	dissatisfaction	towards	low	wages,	long	working	hours,	and	overcrowded	conditions.	Nationalist	and	Communist	groups	in	Hong	Kong	also	built	up	an	anti-colonial	sentiment.	As	the	rest	of	the	world	was	going	through	decolonizing	processes,	in	the	1970s	the	government	introduced	the	positive	non-intervention	governance,	which	facilitated	economic	development	and	capitalism.	This	laid	the	groundwork	for	Hong	Kong’s	establishment	as	a	financial	centre	and	global	city,	its	economy	and	industries	became	more	advanced	than	China’s.	Key	institutions	such	as	the	Hong	Kong	Bank,	Standard	Chartered	were	established	which	contributed	to	the	economic	growth	of	the	tertiary	sector.	A	series	of	reforms	improved	the	public	services,	environment,	housing,	welfare,	education	and	transportation	infrastructures	of	Hong	Kong.		In	1984,	then	British	Prime	Minister,	Margaret	Thatcher	and	China’s	Premier,	Zhao	Ziyang,	signed	the	Sino-British	Joint	Declaration,	which	set	the	course	for	Hong	Kong	to	be	“reunited”	with	China	in	1997.	The	“one	country,	two	systems”	principle	was	to	take	place	for	fifty	years	and	Hong	Kong	would	be	able	to	exercise	its	capitalist	system	and	maintain	its	way	of	life	as	a	Special	Administrative	Region	of	the	PRC.		Chu	(2012,	7)	argues	that	in	this	narrative,	Hong	Kong	was	labeled	a	colonial	“experiment”,	and	is	seen	as	having	“unquestionably	benefited	from	the	adoption	of		 43	colonial	policy	and	legal	system,	which	have	been	rightly	preserved	intact	after	the	return	of	the	colony’s	sovereignty	to	Mainland	China”.	The	success	of	Hong	Kong	is	often	attributed	to	the	“imperatives	of	market	freedom,	harmonious	intercourse	of	‘cultures,’	and	a	hardworking	Chinese	workforce	governed	by	a	non-interventionist	government.”(Chu,	2012,	5)	The	key	identities	in	Hong	Kong	are	its	East-West	dualism,	a	space	of	flows	and	a	developmental	“capitalist	paradise.”		The	city	has	always	been	defined	by	its	hybrid	identity	of	both	Chinese	and	British	and	interpreted	as	mediation	between	two	societies.	As	a	gateway	between	the	West	and	the	East,	Hong	Kong	held	an	advantageous	position	as	a	node	in	the	colonial	network	of	labour	and	capital.	Meanwhile,	it	was	described	as	a	“miraculous	offspring	of	British	colonial	ethics	and	Confucian	values”	(Birch,	1991).		The	urban	development	of	Hong	Kong	is	also	the	conveying	of	these	two	cultures	and	other	dichotomies	including	tradition	and	modernity,	local	and	global,	(post)colonial	and	national	–	from	the	colonial	structures	as	symbols	of	power	and	civility,	to	tenement	structures	with	a	Southern	Chinese	architectural	style,	hyper-dense	public	housing	developments,	and	today’s	modern	skyscrapers.		Moreover,	“cultural”	activities	of	both	West	and	East,	i.e.,	ballet	and	Cantonese	Opera,	were	incubated	during	the	colonial	period.	The	non-interventionist,	bread	and	circuses	style	of	governance	was	used	to	maintain	a	cultural	harmony	in	order	to	prevent	civil	unrest	(Cartier,	2008).		 44	Associated	with	the	first	construct,	Hong	Kong	is	often	also	portrayed	as	a	space	of	transient	flows,	a	“borrowed	place,	borrowed	time.”4	As	a	trading	port	throughout	its	colonial	history,	and	highly	networked	node	in	modern	day,	the	city’s	population	is	made	up	of	mainly	migrants,	expats	and	sojourners,	most	with	a	temporary	and	transitory	mindset	of	coming	and	going.	The	success	of	Hong	Kong	entrepreneurs	is	often	attributed	to	this	flexibility	and	mobility	to	take	up	a	myriad	of	opportunities	in	different	locations	(Ong,	1988).	Ackbar	Abba’s	(1997)	writing	on	the	“culture	and	politics	of	disappearance”	speaks	to	the	transient	nature	of	the	city	as	both	an	advantage	and	problem	when	seeking	to	define	the	future	of	Hong	Kong’s	identity.		The	third	construct,	which	is	closely	related	to	the	previous	two,	is	the	idea	of	Hong	Kong	as	a	land	of	market	freedom,	a	“capitalist	enclave	located	outside	the	troubled	Chinese	Mainland”,	combined	with	a	political	pluralism	and	civic	freedom	“that	offered	opportunities	for	those	willing	to	take	risks	and	work	hard	to	become	wealthy	and	successful”	(Chu,	2012,	9).		Many	observers	write	about	the	dominant	narratives	of	the	Hong	Kong	story;	and	over	time,	they	have	become	a	part	of	Hong	Kong’s	history.	“The	promotion	of	utilitarianism	and	consumerism	as	a	way	of	life…	broke	down	rigid	distinctions	between	Chinese	and	Western	culture.	Thus,	Hong																																																									4	referring	to	the	British’	lease	of	the	territory		 45	Kong’s	hybrid	culture	which	seemed	to	effortlessly	fuse	East	and	West	was	brought	about	by	unrestrained	capitalism’s	wholesale	demystification	of	those	cultural	barriers	that	had	been	fostered	by	an	earlier	‘colonialism’.”	(Chun,	1996,	59)	In	Si	Ming	Li’s	recollection	(1990),	the	British	colonial	legacy	of	non-interventionism	resulted	in	apolitical	citizens.	In	Li’s	observation	and	recollection,	Hong	Kong	is	characterized	by	utilitarianism	and	materialism,	which	have	profound	effects	on	urban	and	land	development	-	driving	real	estate	speculation,	rapid	development	and	redevelopment.	This	is	also	evident	in	the	heritage	arena;	he	explains	that	the	people’s	motivation	of	economic	achievement	results	in	little	interest	in	the	preservation	of	the	“old”.	Li	(1990)	argues	that	because	land	and	housing	prices	in	Hong	Kong	are	some	of	the	highest	in	the	world,	there	are	few	local	Chinese	people	who	seem	to	be	interested	in	preservation	of	colonial	buildings.	Buildings	and	districts	are	demolished	and	rebuilt	to	make	way	for	housing.	Finally,	he	observes	that	Hong	Kong	may	face	assimilation	with	China,	but	the	strength	of	Beijing’s	position	will	also	be	influenced	by	international	capitalism	and	by	democratic	developments	within	Hong	Kong.	He	was	confident	that	Hong	Kong’s	culture	and	urban	landscape	would	remain	heterogenic.		4.2	Dismantling	Dominant	Narratives	These	dominant	portrayals	of	the	city	and	society	of	Hong	Kong	continue	to	the	present	day.	While	all	are	still	true	to	an	extent,	post-colonial	academic	studies		 46	added	nuances	and	complexities	to	these	narratives,	allowing	for	more	interpretations	of	the	“success	story”.	A	closer	look	into	the	key	constructs	reveal	certain	contradictions	and	tensions.	To	fully	dismantle	these	dominant	narratives	is	a	worthwhile	and	interesting	endeavour,	though	it	is	beyond	the	scope	of	the	current	paper.		Plenty	of	scholars,	in	particular	local	post-colonial	scholarship,	have	raised	very	instructive	points	in	their	critique	of	the	“Hong	Kong	Success	Story”	(Erni,	2001;	Chu,	2012;	Chiu,	1997;	Lee,	1994).	It	is	relevant	to	highlight	a	few	of	their	arguments,	such	as	the	problematizing	of	these	portrayals:		The	colonial	government	often	cast	as	benign,	and	its	culture	of	modernization	and	civility	was	largely	due	to	colonial	rule	–	forgetting	the	rooted	racial	discrimination	and	segregation	in	the	city’s	past.	The	“grand	historical	narrative”	of	Hong	Kong,	Cheung	(1999)	argues,	recognizes	the	city	as	a	“capitalist	success	and	miraculous	transformation	from	a	remote	fishing	village	to	a	world-class	metropole,	paying	little	reference	to	the	various	kinds	of	‘miseries	produced	by	modernity	–	exploitation,	alienation,	uneven	development”,	as	well	as	the	history	of	pre-colonial	and	rural	Hong	Kong.	The	depiction	of	Hong	Kong	people	as	hard-working,	utilitarian	and	therefore	apolitical	–	when	social	activism	has	a	long	history	in	Hong	Kong,	and	continues		 47	from	the	1950s	to	today,	whether	held	in	anti-colonial5	or	anti-communist6	sentiments	and	democracy	(Occupy	protest)	or	social	justice.	The	East-West	dualism	often	seen	as	a	harmonious	aspect	of	Hong	Kong	society	–	but	actually	contains	a	lot	of	ambiguity	and	conflicts.	Through	the	example	of	the	history	of	the	tong-lau	or	“Chinese	Building”	typology,	Chu	(2012)	explores	that	these	buildings	although	seen	as	characteristically	Chinese,	many	were	actually	built	and	owned	by	European	speculators.	“The	categorization	of	tong-lau	was	defined	by	colonial	land	policy	and…persistently	maintained	by	those	with	stakes	in	housing	development.”		Chu	(2012)	challenges	these	historical	constructs	and	argues	that	they	are	a	way	of	framing	reality	and	history,	used	by	different	actors	for	specific	purposes.		“The	standardized	narrative	venturing	on	economic	success	and	upward	mobility	of	an	immigrant	population	continues	to	be	invoked	as	a	source	of	pride	and	aspiration	by	successive	administrations,	business	elites	and	many	Hong	Kong	citizens	themselves.	At	the	same	time,	the	continuous	emphasis	on	Hong	Kong’s	pragmatism	and	self-reliant	character	of	its	people	–	and																																																									5	i.e.	the	1967	anti-colonial	riots	that	were	instigated	by	pro-communist	unions	and	events	in	the	PRC	(Scott,	1989)		6	Hong	Kong	citizens	hold	candlelight	vigils	annually	on	June	4th,	in	memory	of	the	1989	Tiananmen	incident		 48	emphasis	that	fits	well	with	today’s	neoliberal	logic	–	also	repeatedly	deflects	the	call	for	social	reform	and	political	change.”	(Chu,	2012,	5)	The	constructs	pose	challenges	to	the	realization	of	Hong	Kong’s	identity,	and	to	the	related	notion	of	heritage	preservation.	Ku	(2010)	demonstrates	how	the	juxtaposition	of	the	rule	of	law	and	the	Mainland’s	legal	system	is	utilized	in	contemporary	Hong	Kong,	to	argue	for	the	preservation	of	a	colonial	institutional	structure	representing	the	establishment	of	the	rule	of	law	in	Hong	Kong.	The	rule	of	law	casted	the	government	as	benign,	and	the	abstract	“discourses	arising	out	of	…	activities	[guided	tours,	public	lectures,	exhibitions	around	the	site	of	preservation]	were	in	part	subsumed	in	a	benign	statist	framework	and	in	part	impregnated	with	other	possibilities”	(Ku,	2010,	396).	In	a	post-colonial	context,	Hong	Kong	is	not	seen	as	comparable	with	colonial	situations	elsewhere	(Caroll,	2007).	Not	to	entirely	invalidate	or	dismiss	the	dominant	narratives,	but	to	provide	an	alternative	view,	these	scholars	contributed	to	making	possible	the	alternative	and	counter-dominant	depictions	of	Hong	Kong.	It	is	through	these	perspectives	that	we	continue	to	interrogate	the	results	of	inserting	these	dominant	narratives	on	the	place-identity	of	21st	century	Hong	Kong.		4.3	A	Search	for	Identity	Amidst	Transformation	Hong	Kong	has	been	characterized	and	recognized	by	its	“success”	and	“growth”,	that	in	merely	150	years	of	colonization,	it	has	surpassed	its	colonizer	in	terms	of		 49	economic	development.	It	is	therefore	not	a	surprise	that	the	city	and	even	its	people	are	characterized	as	such.	However,	the	city	is	also	undergoing	widespread	change.	What	is	being	increasingly	brought	to	the	forefront	of	the	discussion	is	how	the	city	is	becoming	increasingly	polarized,	with	growing	issues	of	income	inequality,	housing	affordability,	environment	degradation	and	poverty.	Central	to	this	discussion	is	how	the	city-region	is	grappling	with	its	colonial	past	and	its	reunification	with	China.	As	we	will	see	in	the	case	studies	below,	Hong	Kong	residents	are	undergoing	a	process	of	identity	seeking	and	reaffirmation.	One	can	see	this	in	light	of	recent	events,	most	notably	the	series	of	protests	during	the	Occupy	Central	movement	that	took	place	in	September	of	2014.	The	sentiments	of	a	“Hong	Konger	identity”;	“collective	memory”	and	ideas	of	democracy	were	all	inherently	linked	together	in	support	of	heritage	preservation	and	in	rallies	and	protests	calling	for	economic,	social	and	environmental	justice.		Identity	and	the	definition	of	a	local	identity	became	an	important	topic	in	post-handover	Hong	Kong	partly	due	to	social,	cultural	and	political	changes	in	the	Special	Administrative	Region,	especially	for	youth	who	were	born	and	bred	in	this	instability.	“Youth	brought	up	in	Hong	Kong’s	apolitical	culture	were	forced	to	ask	how	they	were	Chinese…	The	emergence	of	an	identifiable	Hong	Kong	culture	was	a	rather	late	post-war	phenomenon”		(Chun	1996,	59).	During	the	period	of	political	separation	from	China,	and	closing	off	of	the	borders	after	the	Cultural	Revolution,	the	new	generation	of	Hong	Kong	people	born	and	bred	in	Hong	Kong	developed	a		 50	sense	of	belonging	to	the	city.		As	children	of	Chinese	immigrants	who	fled	from	the	mainland,	they	observed	the	political	unrest	in	the	territory,	and	fostered	sentiments	towards	the	Rule	of	Law	and	ideologies	of	democracy	and	freedom.	The	socio-political	environment	in	Hong	Kong	has	sparked	what	Erni	(2001)	calls	a	desire	for	history	by	both	localists	and	nationalists.	This	desire	was	sparked	by	an	imagined	future	that	Hong	Kong	will	be	submerged	into	the	“socialist”	ideals	of	China	that	emerged	in	the	few	years	before	and	after	the	Handover.		In	post-97	Hong	Kong,	Hong	Kong	is	struck	by	nostalgic	sentimentality,	as	exemplified	in	publications	of	research	into	Hong	Kong’s	historical	past,	films	and	songs	that	celebrate	Hong	Kong’s	values,	and	an	increased	concern	for	heritage.		Hong	Kong	is	a	unique	case	in	post-colonialism	because	its	post-colonial	result	is	not	assuming	independence,	but	an	asymmetrical	reunion	with	China	(Abbas,	1997;	So,	2011).		Alvin	So	(2011)	argues	that	Hong	Kong	and	China	show	a	unification	process	(in	legal	and	political	aspects)	but	not	an	integration	process	(in	economic,	social	and	cultural	aspects).	This	uneven	unification	process	has	contributed	to	the	contestations	of	Hong	Kong	identity.	Hong	Kong	was	unable	to	complete	a	process	of	decolonization,	as	the	reunification	and	re-nationalization	processes	came	into	the	foreground.		“Many	people	feared	Hong	Kong	would	be	subsumed	by	the	Chinese	cultural	hegemony.	This	was	not	without	basis.	Toward	the	end	of	Hong	Kong’s	British	era,	China’s	ambition	to	reinscribe	Hong	Kong	within	the	Chinese		 51	national	narrative,	geographically	or	ideologically,	was	overt.	There	was	a	veritable	industry	of	Hong	Kong	studies	in	China	under	the	official	sponsorship	of	different	Mainland	Chinese	academic	and	political	institutions.	In	these	writings,	Hong	Kong’s	history,	society,	and	culture	are	articulated	within	the	Chinese	national	agenda	and	thus	local	experience	and	culture	are	elided,	erased,	or	reconstructed.”	(Ng,	2009,	11)	In	summary,	this	chapter	underlines	the	main	narratives	present	in	Hong	Kong,	as	well	as	how	they	are	being	challenged	or	reinforced	by	various	agents.	The	changes	in	Hong	Kong	after	1997	contributed	to	a	desire	for	history	as	well	as	a	desire	for	identity	on	the	parts	of	both	the	SAR	government	and	the	local	community.	1997	signifies	a	new	era	for	Hong	Kong.	The	following	chapter	shows	how	the	government	attempts	to	construct	a	new	identity	for	the	city.		 		 52	Chapter	5		Crafting	21st	Century	Hong	Kong	as	“Asia’s	World	City”		5.1	A	New	Identity	In	2001,	the	post-Handover	Hong	Kong	Special	Administrative	Region	(HKSAR)	government	launched	a	program	called	BrandHK	to	promote	the	city’s	identity	as	“Asia’s	World	City.”	The	first	Chief	Executive	of	Hong	Kong	after	the	Handover,	Tung	Chee	Hwa	had	likened	Hong	Kong	to	New	York	and	London,	as	a	financial	capital	of	the	world.	As	such,	to	maintain	this	identity,	the	Hong	Kong	government	aimed	to	invest	widely	in	place-marketing	and	place-branding	strategies	to	continue	to	attract	international	capital,	labour	and	investment.			Part	of	the	BrandHK	initiative	was	an	emphasis	on	the	development	of		“creative	industries”	to	facilitate	economic	growth.	The	creative	city	imaginary	introduced	by	Hong	Kong’s	post-97	government	was	a	timely	move:	Hong	Kong’s	economy	was	facing	effects	from	the	Asian	Financial	Crisis	and	social	and	political	challenges	signaled	by	the	Handover7.	Tung	Chee	Hwa,	emphasized	the	strengthening	of	arts	and	culture	as	a	strategy	to	facilitate	economic	development	while	enhancing	the																																																									7	In	addition,	in	the	wake	of	the	1997	financial	crisis,	the	government	also	facilitated	large	infrastructures	in	urban	peripheries	such	as	Science	Park	in	the	New	Territories,	and	Cyberport	in	Pok	Fu	Lam,	both	conceived	with	heavy	private	investment	from	land	corporations	between	1998-2001.	The	successes	and	failures	of	these	projects	are	investigated	in	Jessop	&	Sum	(2000),	Koh	(2006)	and	Ostrov’s	(2002)	analyses	of	Hong	Kong’s	entrepreneurial	strategies.		 53	city	as	a	place	for	quality	living,	thus	promoting	tourism	and	attracting	investment	(HKSAR	Policy	Address,	1999).		For	years,	Hong	Kong	was	perceived	as	a	“cultural	desert”.	The	city’s	success	was	attributed	to	its	economic	growth	in	the	industrial	sectors	in	the	1960s	and	1970s,	and	subsequently	in	the	services	sectors,	namely,	real	estate	and	finance.	Cartier	(2008)	argues	that	Hong	Kong’s	cultural	development	lags	behind	other	global	cities	as	Hong	Kong	people	are	identified	with	utilitarianism	and	a	focus	in	upward	mobility	and	economic	gains,	leaving	little	time	or	energy	for	the	arts.	Indeed,	a	survey	investigating	local	people’s	participation	in	cultural	activities	found	only	a	very	small	percentage	of	Hong	Kong	locals	go	to	“cultural”	attractions	like	galleries,	and	arts	performances.	Although	a	large	number	of	them	reported	going	to	the	movies	often,	they	reserve	the	idea	that	“culture”	is	for	the	elites	and	upper	class	(University	of	Hong	Kong,	2003).		However,	these	studies	are	very	often	a	transplant	of	theories	embedded	in	specific	geography	and	knowledge	grounded	in	“culture”	of	Western	societies.	We	may	think	of	Hong	Kong	as	rich	in	forms	of	culture	that	are	embedded	in	tradition	and	folk.	Local	scholars	have	noted	(criticized)	that	Hong	Kong’s	cultural	policy	development	focused	too	much	on	marketing,	corresponding	only	to	growth,	efficiency	and	prosperity,	neglecting	the	fostering	of	growth	of	legitimate	cultural	capital	(Chu,	2010;	Cartier,	2008;	Kam,	2012).	In	his	critical	discussion	of	BrandHK,	Stephen	Chu	(2010)	argues	that	the	assignment	of	“Asia’s	World	City”	identity	placed	too	much	emphasis	on	defining	its	international	visibility	and	the	developing	of	Asian	creative		 54	industries,	but	marginalized	local	creative	industries.	The	development	of	creative	industries	as	framed	by	the	BrandHK	concept	limits	the	“surfacing	of	vernacular	hybrid	cultures	and	spaces”.	Chu	(2010)	argues	that	the	“overwhelming	emphasis	on	branding	Hong	Kong	has	ironically	led	to	the	loss	of	Hong	Kong’s	intrinsic	uniqueness	which	he	identifies	as	its	“emergent	community”	between	the	global	and	the	local,	“where	genuine	cosmopolitanisms	find	the	space	to	emerge.”		There	is	an	opportunity	here	to	expand	the	interpretation	of	culture	in	Hong	Kong	to	include	not	only	the	contemporary	forms	of	arts	but	also	ones	embedded	in	heritage	and	the	culture	of	people	and	way	of	living.	Forms	of	intangible	cultural	heritage	like	Cantonese	Opera	(recognized	as	an	art	form	for	common	people),	and	traditional	arts	should	be	accepted	in	a	creative	industries	approach.	Post-97	(particularly	postcolonial)	local	scholars	argue	that	Hong	Kong’s	culture	has	always	been	vibrant	and	rich,	often	citing	Hong	Kong’s	robust	film	industry,8	which	thrived	since	the	1970s,	despite	a	“lack	of”	cultural	policy	in	the	colonial	government’s	main	agenda	(Cartier,	2008).	In	his	first	policy	address	of	the	third	term,	Chief	Executive	Donald	Tsang	said,	“Over	the	next	five	years,	we	need	to	cultivate	a	new	spirit	for	these	new	times.	We	need	to	become	new	Hong	Kongers,	better	equipped	to	sustain	developments	in	the	new																																																									8	Hong	Kong	was	dubbed	“Hollywood	of	the	East.”	The	Hong	Kong	film	production	industry	that	often	created	films	featuring	comedy	with	a	cultural	flair	and	Kung	Fu	action	movies	were	developed	in	the	60s	(See	Ng,	2009;	Erni,	2001;	Abbas,	1997)		 55	era.”	(HKSAR,	2007).	Agnes	Ku	and	Ngai	Pun	(2004)	argue	that	his	“new	Hong	Kongers”	messaging	is	bound	by	the	identity	of	the	global	consumer,	“failing	to	adequately	answer	the	claims,	the	needs	and	concerns	of	the	people.”		5.2	Branding	and	Place-making	Through	the	Arts:	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District		Like	many	cities,	Hong	Kong’s	development	in	the	arts	and	culture	is	exemplified	by	struggles	between	class	and	capital.	The	post-Handover	government	recognized	the	global	movement	for	generating	“creative	economy”	and	attracting	the	“creative	class”	(Florida,	2002)	as	a	necessity	to	compete	for	worldliness.	Aspiring	for	Hong	Kong	to	remain	a	transnational	global	city,	while	strategically	incorporating	status	quo,	the	officials	supported	the	promotion	of	the	arts	activities	in	the	forms	of	international	art	fairs	such	as	Art	Basel,	attracting	international	art	collectors	to	Hong	Kong	since	the	2010s.	The	new	strategies	to	develop	culture,	creative	industries	and	cultural	consumption	are	not	departing	from	persistent	neo-liberal	policies	and	capitalism.		The	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	(WKCD)	project	(see	Figure	1)	represented	the	construction	of	“Asia’s	World	City”	identity	projected	by	the	state.	The	WKCD	is	a	planned	arts	and	cultural	district	on	a	40	hectare	prime	waterfront	site	at	the	southern	tip	of	the	West	Kowloon	Reclamation	Area.	The	proposed	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	(WKCD)	is	to	be	developed	to	allow	Hong	Kong	people	to	find	a	‘‘cultural	oasis	to	enrich	[their]	lives’’,	and	an	attraction	to	bring	in	more	overseas		 56	visitors	(HKSAR,	2002).		Figure	1.	Aerial	view	of	WCKD	project	under	construction,	on	40	hectares	of	prime	waterfront	land	“The	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	(WKCD)	project	is	an	important	strategic	investment	of	the	HKSAR	Government	to	meet	the	long-term	infrastructural	and	development	needs	of	Hong	Kong’s	arts	and	culture.	The	WKCD	is	being	developed	as	an	integrated	arts	and	cultural	district	with	world-class	facilities.	It	aims	to	promote	the	development	of	arts	and	culture,	meet	the	growing	cultural	needs	of	the	public	and	strengthen	Hong	Kong’s	position	as	an	international	arts	and	cultural	metropolis.”		(HKSAR,	2008)		In	2002,	the	Government	announced	the	call	for	proposals	for	the	WKCD,	clearly	communicating	that	this	‘‘landmark	development’’	would	‘‘enhance	Hong	Kong’s	position	as	a	world	city	of	culture’’.	In	addition	to	its	global	ambition,	the	WKCD	also	aims	to	‘‘enrich	cultural	life	by	attracting	internationally	acclaimed	performances	and	exhibitions;	nurture	local	arts	talent	and	create	more	opportunities	for	arts		Figure	1	has	been	removed	due	to	copyright	restrictions.	The	removed	image	is	an	aerial	photo	of		the	West	Kowloon	peninsula	waterfront,	showing	the	surrounding	water,	skyscrapers	in	the	background,	and	WKCD	site	under	construction.	Original	Source:	Government	of	Hong	Kong	Home	Affairs	Bureau.	(2008).	Home	affairs	bureau	–	policy	responsibilities	–	culture	–	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District.	Web.	Accessed	10	Nov	2017:	Culture/wkcd.htm		 57	groups;	enhance	international	cultural	exchange;	put	Hong	Kong	on	the	world	arts	and	culture	map;	provide	state-of-the-art	performance	venues	and	museums;	offer	more	choices	to	arts	patrons;	encourage	creativity;	enhance	the	harbourfront;	attract	overseas	visitors;	and	create	jobs’’	(WKCDA,	2002).	Some	of	these	goals	are	competing	–	the	fostering	of	local	arts	versus	attracting	internationally	acclaimed	exhibitions;	offering	more	choices	to	arts	patrons	versus	creating	a	public	space	for	all.		This	project	is	significant	in	the	discussion	of	Hong	Kong’s	identity	because	its	development	process	represents	the	city’s	struggle	to	balance	between	economic	growth	and	preservation,	as	well	as	global,	national	and	local	pressures.	The	project	has	received	wide	criticisms	from	the	local	community,	who	argued	that	the	project	has	neither	foresight	nor	long-term	planning.	The	WKCD	project	was	partly	driven	by	foreign	companies	and	investors’	criticisms	about	the	lack	of	cultural	infrastructure	and	performance	venues	in	a	city	as	globalized	as	Hong	Kong,	which	attracts	millions	of	tourists	every	year.	The	WKCD	was	a	stage	in	which	the	post-colonial	city-state	was	to	construct	a	physical	space	for	public	and	global	recognition	and	consumption.		In	the	early	stages	of	conceptualization,	the	project	was	criticized	for	not	seeking	active	participation	from	the	local	community	and	decisions	that	lacked	transparency	(Lui,	2008).	The	government	made	an	endowment	of	US$2.8	billion	to	develop	the	project,	inviting	international	“starchitects”	to	submit	designs	for	the	master	plan	and	the	structures	(see	Figure	2).	It	is	worth	noting	that	the	public’s		 58	anxiety	over	this	project	is	a	timely	demonstration	of	the	people’s	deep	concern	and	attempts	to	grasp	and	define	Hong	Kong’s	identity	in	their	own	terms.	The	identity	projected	through	the	WKCD	project	is	one	that	continues	to	place	emphasis	on	the	“legitimizing”	identity	imbued	by	those	in	power.	Capitalism	and	commodification	is	the	hallmark	of	that	perspective	of	the	city	and	is	so	reflected	in	the	WKCD	project,	leaving	little	or	no	space	for	development	of	vernacular	culture.		Figure	2.	Architectural	rendering	of	M+	modern	art	museum			In	2005,	a	group	of	Hong	Kong	residents	established	a	non-profit	organization	named	the	People’s	Panel	on	West	Kowloon.	With	the	aim	to	bring	together	voices	from	the	general	public	and	government	agencies,	the	Panel	organized	forums,	both	online	and	off,	to	discuss	issues	ranging	from	the	WKCD	project	to	Hong	Kong’s	cultural	policy	in	general.	The	original	design	of	a	canopy	design	for	the	facility	was			Figure	2	has	been	removed	due	to	copyright	restrictions.	The	removed	image	is	an	architectural	rendering	of	M+	modern	art	museum.		Original	Source:	Herzog	&	de	Meuron.	M+	Building.	(2017).	West	Kowloon	District	Authority.	Web.	Accessed	on	12	Nov	2017	from				 59	challenged	by	the	public’s	critique	of	the	“landmark	space”	and	“constructed	culture”	for	tourists,	which	lacks	the	multidimensional	aspects	of	Hong	Kong’s	existing	culture.	The	Panel	released	a	proposal	named	“Re-defining	West	Kowloon”	based	on	public	feedback	and	suggested	the	process	of	civic	participation	for	the	project.	The	project	was	forced	to	undergo	further	advisory	group	reviews.	A	new	design	competition	was	launched	and	this	time,	the	winner	of	the	project	was	Foster’s	+	Partners’	City	Park	Concept,	with	its	new	adopted	slogan	as	“A	Place	for	Everyone.”	To	add	another	dimension	of	complexity	in	this	highly	political	project,	in	late	2016,	an	announcement	was	made	for	a	Palace	Museum	that	will	be	added	to	the	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District.	“To	foster	and	reconnect	the	histories	between	Hong	Kong	and	China	and	to	showcase	Chinese	culture	and	history”,	the	Palace	Museum	will	foresee	major	connection	with	Beijing’s	national	agenda.	“Even	the	board	members	of	WKCD	were	unaware	until	the	plans	rolled	out”	(Chow,	2017).	This	is	a	surprising	turn	of	event.	While	WKCD	was	painted	in	its	early	conception	as	a	project	departed	from	political	grounds,	Beijing’s	attempt	to	foster	the	“reconnection”	of	these	“histories”	has	received	harsh	criticism	from	arts	and	cultural	critics	and	the	public	who	were	disappointed	in	the	lack	of	transparency,	calling	it	a	“secretive	deal”	between	Carrie	Lam	(the	new	Chief	Executive	who	was	in	the	running	when	the	deal	was	struck)	and	the	Palace	Museum	to	“show	her	loyalty	to	the	central	government”	(Chow,	2017	and	Kwok,	2017).	Some	even	expressed	that	a	judicial	review	should	be	considered.			 60	The	colonial	legacy	of	the	government	was	one	that	supported	high-end	arts	and	non-interventionist	approach	for	local	indigenous	cultural	activities;	this	continued	and	is	evident	in	the	WKCD	project,	which	commits	to	the	privatization	of	arts	and	culture.	Carolyn	Cartier	(2008)	looks	at	the	WKCD	development	in	a	postcolonial	context,	emphasizing	the	project	as	a	continuation	of	colonial-era	planning	in	the	centre	of	the	city,	while	giving	less	attention	to	the	existing	culture	in	the	urban	periphery	(arts	in	industrial	districts,	organic	and	dynamic	arts	produced	by	local	artists	that	explore	issues	of	society	and	politics.)		The	WKCD	became	(and	continues	to	be)	rooted	in	the	symbolic	value	of	a	hegemonic	identity,	the	identity	of	global	consumption	set	in	the	precarious	postcolonial	political	arena	between	national	and	local	narratives.	Associating	a	place	with	a	cultural	icon	is	an	attempt	to	imbue	a	place	with	a	creative	character.	“Conflicts	caused	through	the	hegemonic	process	of	selection,	choice,	re-evaluation	and	cultural	change,	therefore,	arise	where	the	city	branding	and	cultural	projects	reinforce	a	homogenous	culture”	(Evans,	2003,	424).	Andy	Pratt	(2010)	emphasizes	that	the	focus	on	the	consumption	at	the	expense	of	production	prioritizes	consumption	and	idealizes	culture,	and	this	is	evident	in	WKCD.	Ku	(2004)	points	out	that	the	approach	of	the	government’s	policy	and	decision-making	towards	arts	and	culture	is	one	that	is	top-down,	centralized	with	a	detachment	from	the	community	in	general.			 		 61	Chapter	6	Contesting	Identities,	Nostalgia	and	Making	Heritage		6.1	Post-97	Heritage	Preservation	Movement	Heritage	preservation	is	not	a	new	concept	for	post-colonial	Hong	Kong,	however,	it	is	increasingly	garnering	interest	in	tandem	with	the	concepts	of	“Hong	Kong	identity”	and	“Hong	Kong	culture”.		Heritage	represents	identity	and	values	of	society,	manifested	in	physical	space,	and	acts	as	a	reminder	of	past	events	(Lowenthal,	1975;	Henderson,	2008).	It	is	a	contested	arena,	in	which	the	past	and	the	present	are	intertwined	and	multiple	narratives	from	past	and	present	are	interrelating	in	the	physical	space.	In	the	context	of	the	reunification	and	of	globalization	and	relentless	urban	renewal,	built	heritage,	which	hold	memory	and	meaning,	allows	the	people	of	Hong	Kong	to	grasp	onto	the	past	as	a	way	of	remembering,	and	affirming	their	identity	(Cheung,	2010;	Henderson,	2001,	2008;	Ku	2010).		The	interest	in	heritage	preservation	and	place	identity	in	Hong	Kong	increased	in	the	early	2000s,	as	tensions	between	Chinese	and	Hong	Kong	culture	and	their	political	differences	brought	about	a	desire	to	define	collective	identity	on	the	part	of	both	nationalists	and	localists.	These	interests	in	locality	and	identity	are	expressed	especially	by	youth	who	are	distinguishing	themselves	as	Hong	Kong	people	instead	of	Chinese	nationals	(Fung,	2001).	The	“heritage	movement”	reached	a	peak	in	2006,	when	planned	demolition	of	the	Queens	Pier	and	Star	Ferry		 62	Terminal	brought	protestors	to	the	site,	arguing	that	the	site	was	significant	to	Hong	Kong	identity,	despite	it	having	“no	architectural	merit”	(Ng	et	al,	2010).		The	everyday	and	vernacular	spaces	are	gaining	value	to	the	cosmopolitan	members	of	Hong	Kong,	and	are	viewed	as	important	as	those	that	represent	grand	historical	elements	such	as	monuments	or	those	that	represent	the	authorities.	Activists	who	fought	for	the	protection	of	Queen’s	Pier	argued	that	the	structure	was	symbol	of	the	everyday	working	class	who	passed	through	the	pier	on	their	daily	commute	(Ng	et	al.,	2010).	It	was	not	the	architectural	features	that	the	activists	wanted	to	preserve,	but	the	associated	memories	and	values	attached	to	the	place.	This	desire	for	history	and	nostalgic	memories	has	been	the	major	driver	of	the	heritage	movement	in	Hong	Kong.	Mee	Kam	Ng	(2010)	documents	this	in	detail,	in	her	recount	of	the	protest	for	Queens	Pier:	“…	Queen’s	Pier	was	adjacent	to	the	City	Hall	complex	and	Edinburgh	Place,	it	became	a	popular	spot	for	social	gathering,	fishing,	boarding	launches	for	cruise	trips	and	dating.	…	it	was	often	the	gathering	place	for	civic	and	social	functions,	including	the	cross-harbour	swimming	race.	It	was	also	the	place	used	for	the	Campaign	for	Chinese	as	Official	Language	as	well	as	the	Protect	Diaoyutai	Island	Movement	in	1970….	[These	spaces]	not	only	symbolized	the	opportunity	for	new	generations	of	Hong	Kongers	to	live	and	appropriate	space	to	imbue	it	with	meaning;	this	public	space	actually	gave	them	a	right	to	the	commercial	and	political	heart	of	the	city	core,	a	right	that	was	denied	in	Victorian	Hong	Kong.	…When	the	Government	was	about	to	demolish	the		 63	Star	Ferry	clock	tower,	the	protestors	occupied	the	working	areas	for	24	hours.	…When	the	clock	tower	was	dismantled,	the	activists	tried	to	protect	Queen’s	Pier	by	occupying	and	living	in	it…	Before	the	actual	‘dismantling’	of	Queen’s	Pier	…	a	group	called	‘Local	Action’,	started	a	hunger	strike	on	the	pier…Many	other	local	social	and	cultural	groups	attempted	to	‘stimulate’	interest	in	people’s	‘lived’	space	at	Queen’s	Pier…	On	the	eve	of	the	removal	of	Queen’s	Pier,	about	200	people	gathered	outside	it	for	a	candlelight	vigil	to	show	support	for	the	hunger	strikers.	On	1	August	2007,	the	30-plus	protesters	were	cleared	from	the	site	and	Queen’s	Pier	was	completely	demolished	in	February	2008…”	(Ng	et	al,	2010,	423)	According	to	Lu	(2009),	the	local	community	who	demanded	conservation	saw	new	developments	that	destroy	older	buildings	as	symbols	of	the	rich	and	powerful.	With	a	growing	gap	between	the	rich	and	the	poor,	the	working	class	are	resentful	towards	economic	and	political	power	acquired	by	property	developers	and	big	corporations	in	the	city.	Heritage	conservation	is	seen	as	“an	opportunity	to	participate	in	the	decision-making	process	of	urban	planning	and	city	development,	and	democratic	right”	(Lu,	2009,	266).	6.2	Wing	Lee	Street	The	case	study	of	Wing	Lee	Street	further	demonstrates	that	Hong	Kong	people	are	recognizing	their	identity	through	struggles	for	the	protection	of	lived	spaces.	At	the	same	time,	it	also	presents	complexities	around	nostalgia,	memory,	cultural		 64	production	and	consumption,	and	around	the	government’s	policies	regarding	heritage.		Wing	Lee	Street	is	located	in	Sheung	Wan	District	on	Hong	Kong	Island,	adjacent	and	to	the	east	of	the	current	central	business	district	(Central	District).	This	area	was	the	original	centre	of	Chinese	Hong	Kong	and	Chinese	commercial	economy	until	the	1950s.	Hong	Kong	Island	has	few	flat	areas	and	Wing	Lee	street	was	constructed	in	the	1920s-30s	as	development	expanded	to	the	rugged	areas	of	the	island.	Many	terraces	were	built	(haphazardly)	during	this	period	to	support	the	pace	of	development.	The	population	consisted	of	predominantly	working	class	immigrants	from	Southern	China,	as	colonial	segregation	restricted	the	Chinese	living	quarters	to	certain	parts	of	the	city.		The	Second	World	War	destroyed	many	of	the	buildings	and	tenement	structures,	including	those	on	Wing	Lee	Street,	and	the	commercial	activity	also	moved	to	Mong	Kok,	Kowloon	after	the	war.	The	buildings	existing	today	were	built	after	the	war,	in	the	1950s-60s.		In	the	1970s	to	90s,	these	“tong-lau”	唐樓	literally	translated	as	“Chinese	Building”	(like	shophouses	in	Southeast	Asia,	these	are	traditional	post-war	tenement	buildings	unique	to	Hong	Kong	and	Southern	China)	were	designated	residential	use,	however,	there	were	also	many	informal	uses	(such	as	print	shops)	that	supported	the	needs	of	the	growing	communities.	Moreover,	owing	to	lack	of	housing,	it	was	common	for	many	of	the	spaces	to	be	subdivided	by	owners	into	more	units	to	lease	out,	and	residents	built	additional	structures	on	the	roofs	and	courtyards.			 65	The	tong-laus	that	were	built	during	the	post-war	period	were	constructed	quickly	to	accommodate	for	the	growing	population	using	reinforced	concrete,	which	does	not	last	as	long	as	brick	and	mortar,	and	were	only	meant	to	last	about	50	years.	Because	these	buildings	have	already	reached	their	projected	lifespan,	many	of	them	are	ripe	for	the	URA’s	renewal	schemes.	Wing	Lee	Street	has	twelve	tong-lau	structures	(see	Figure	3).	In	2008,	a	proposal	was	made	to	redevelop	the	cluster	of	old	buildings	along	Wing	Lee	Street	and	Staunton	Street.	The	Urban	Renewal	Authority	(URA)	supported	the	Wing	Lee	Street	redevelopment	plan,	which	proposed	to	demolish	nine	of	the	buildings.	However,	in	2010,	owing	to	public	outcry,	the	URA	withdrew	support	for	the	redevelopment	of	the	street,	and	even	proposed	to	the	Town	Planning	Board	to	designate	the	street	as	a	special	preservation	zone.	To	date,	the	URA	has	acquired	a	majority	of	the	buildings,	and	worked	with	owners	of	the	other	buildings	to	restore	the	structures.		 66	Figure	3.	Map	of	Wing	Lee	Street	(URA)	Heritage	activists,	students,	young	architects	and	academics	were	among	those	most	interested	in	the	preservation	of	the	street.	Wing	Lee	Street	was	saved	from	demolition,	while	another	similar	street	(Lee	Tung)	that	housed	commercial	and	residential	activities	was	demolished	and	redeveloped	a	year	before.	The	preservation	of	the	street	is	accredited	to	the	award-winning	film,	“Echoes	of	the	Rainbow”	which	was	filmed	at	the	location,	and	starred	big	local	actors	Simon	Yam		Figure	3	has	been	removed	due	to	copyright	restrictions.	The	figure	is	a	map	of	Wing	Lee	Street	by	the	Urban	Renewal	Authority,	which	highlights	the	location	of	the	twelve	tong-lau	buildings	and	areas	slated	for	redevelopment	in	2007.	Original	Source:	Urban	Renewal	Authority,	H19	Wing	Lee	Street	and	Staunton	Street	Site	Map.	(16	Mar	2010).	Press	Release:	URA	proposes	alternative	implementation	concept	for	conserving	Wing	Lee	Street.	Web.	Accessed	10	Oct	2017:			 67	and	Sandra	Ng.	Along	with	the	starring	cast	of	the	movie,	the	director	and	producer	were	advocates	for	the	protection	of	the	buildings	on	Wing	Lee	Street.	The	film	was	about	a	family	of	a	shoemaker	in	Hong	Kong	in	the	1960s,	struggling	to	make	ends	meet.	Director	Alex	Law	chose	Wing	Lee	Street	as	the	location	of	the	family’s	home	and	neighbourhood,	and	explained	that	it	was	the	only	place	he	could	find	in	Hong	Kong	that	still	retained	the	characteristics	of	the	city	in	the	60s.	The	film	won	the	Crystal	Bear	Award	for	Best	Feature	Film	in	the	Generation	category	of	the	60th	Berlinale,	the	international	film	festival	held	in	Berlin	in	2010.		Scenes	shot	at	Wing	Lee	Street	depicted	the	sense	of	place	of	a	working	class	neighbourhood,	recreating	the	warmth	of	bittersweet	life	in	the	60s.	Families	ate	meals	and	carried	out	their	everyday	activities	on	the	shared	terraces.	(See	Figures	4	and	5)		 68	Figure	4.	Scene	in	“Echoes	of	the	Rainbow”	depicting	1960s	working	class	lifestyle	and	the	outdoor	terrace	of	Wing	Lee	Street.		Figure	5.	The	original	tong-lau	structures	before	restoration			Figure	4	has	been	removed	due	to	copyright	restrictions.	The	removed	image	is	a	screenshot	of	a	scene	in	the	film	“Echoes	of	the	Rainbow”,	depicting	the	use	of	Wing	Lee	Street	terrace	as	shared	community	space,	actors	in	foreground	act	as	neighbours	having	dinner	on	the	outdoor	terrace.	Original	Source:	Law,	Alex	K.	Y.,	dir.	Echoes	of	the	Rainbow.	Perfs.	Simon	Yam,	Sandra	Ng,	Aarif	Lee,	Evelyn	Choi.	2010.	DVD.	Tai	Seng	Entertainment,	2010.					Figure	5	has	been	removed	due	to	copyright	restrictions.	The	removed	image	is	a	photo	of	the	row	of	tong-lau	structures	on	Wing	Lee	Street.	Original	Source:		Peng,		Cong	Ran	彭琮然.	Tong-laus	on	Wing	Lee	Street	has	unique	Hong	Kong	character 永利街的唐樓群極具香港特色. Echoes	of	the	Rainbow	actors	say	save	Wing	Lee	Street	《歲月神偷》演藝人:保留永利街. HK	Apple	Daily.	(23	Feb	2010).	Web.	Accessed	on	30	Oct	2017	from:				 69	Cultural	identity	is	expressed	in	heritage,	and	in	this	case,	the	reaffirmation	of	identity	is	facilitated	by	nostalgia	and	collective	memory	represented	in	the	place-based	images	of	Wing	Lee	Street.	The	restoration	of	Wing	Lee	Street	poses	an	instructive	intersection	between	symbolism,	nostalgia	and	identity.	The	street’s	relationship	with	the	film	-	how	the	street	is	depicted	in	the	film,	and	the	importance	of	the	film	in	the	argument	for	the	street’s	preservation	-	also	introduces	a	perspective	different	from	the	previous	instances	of	heritage	concerns,	such	as	the	Queen’s	Pier	event.		Wing	Lee	Street	represents	several	portrayals	of	Hong	Kong’s	identities	and	values.	First,	the	street	is	a	symbol	of	Hong	Kong	in	the	1960s,	and	represents	the	identity	and	livelihoods	of	the	working	class	that	was	depicted	in	the	film.	This	cultural	identity	is	particularly	internalized	in	the	newer	generation,	born	in	the	60s,	70s	and	80s	who	are	attached	to	Hong	Kong	as	their	permanent	home,	rather	than	as	a	place	of	“transition”	or	a	temporary	shelter	during	their	parent’s	era.	During	the	postwar	era,	the	restriction	of	immigration	facilitated	the	formation	of	identity,	one	that	is	grounded	in	place;	Hong	Kong	was	no	longer	a	place	of	flows.	A	sense	of	local	belonging	to	the	city	emerged	in	the	1960s	and	70s.		Second,	the	period	of	the	1960s	and	70s	was	just	before	the	era	of	rapid	tertiarization,	post-industrialism	and	hyper	globalization.	Amongst	locals,	the	bustling	era	of	the	1960s	and	1970s	was	seen	as	a	success	on	the	backs	of	hard-working	immigrants	and	refugees,	and	was	celebrated	despite	its	hardships.	Wing	Lee	Street	is	a	physical	reminder	of	those	times,	and	a	part	of	this	local	identity.	To		 70	Hong	Kong	people,	Wing	Lee	Street	and	the	lifestyles	and	ideologies	that	were	showcased	in	the	celebrated	film	were	representative	of	their	identity.	Third,	this	case	demonstrates	the	value	Hong	Kong	people	place	on	the	distinct	identity	of	a	Hong	Konger,	one	that	is	divergent	from	the	Mainland’s.	The	60s	and	70s	were	a	time	when	“distinction	between	Hong	Kong	and	Mainland	China	became	more	palpably	felt”	(Sussnam,	2010).	The	second	and	third	generation	of	Chinese	immigrants	settled	into	the	city,	adapting	to	its	colonial	influences,	and	a	vernacular	culture	arose.	Hong	Kong	people	were	aware	of	the	political	unrest	in	China,	the	Cultural	Revolution	and	the	Tiananmen	Square	incident	led	to	a	negative	sentiment	towards	China’s	oppressive	government.	Interestingly,	the	hands-off	governance	of	the	colonialists	incubated	a	local	culture	of	Hong	Kong	indigenes	mixed	with	the	immigrants	and	refugees.	Additionally,	a	notable	observation	is	the	involvement	of	young	people	in	protests	for	heritage	(as	well	as	in	the	democratic	movement).	Fung’s		(2001)	study	found	that	since	the	Handover,	young	people	aged	30	and	below	identified	more	with	a	“Hong	Kong”	identity	than	a	“Chinese”	identity.	Further,	the	case	demonstrates	not	only	contestation	between	market	and	society,	but	also	between	social	classes	in	the	heritage	arena.	The	younger	generation	involved	in	the	heritage	movement	were,	as	Lu	(2009)	alluded	in	the	Queen’s	Pier	case,	concerned	about	power	inequalities,	power	granted	to	URA	and	developers	and	rapid	development.	While	educated	youth	and	heritage	academics	fought	for	the	protection	of	the	tong	lau	buildings;	residents	were	opposed	to	the	renewal	project	not	because	they	treasured	the	attached	cultural	values,	but	because	they	thought		 71	that	the	compensation	offered	by	the	URA	for	their	relocation	was	not	enough.	Some	of	the	building	owners	who	held	these	buildings	as	investment	also	were	looking	forward	to	the	prospect	of	compensation	from	the	URA.	Additionally,	the	URA	had	trouble	reaching	other	building	owners,	who	seemed	to	care	little	about	the	development	or	redevelopment	of	the	site.		This	case	highlights	contestations	in	Hong	Konger’s	search	for	and	self-realization	of	identity,	which	poses	challenges	to	the	associated	processes	of	heritage	preservation.	Keefe	(2007)	argues	that	all	landscapes	qualify	as	somebody’s	heritage,	and	highlights	the	contradictory	nature	of	preserving	landscape	–	“landscape	that	is	artificially	sealed	at	a	particular	moment	stops	being	the	landscape	that	it	was	and	becomes	a	new	landscape…	[I]dentities	are	inscribed	in	landscapes,	even	in	ones	that	seem	very	mundane.”	The	successful	preservation	of	the	street	is	largely	owing	to	the	success	of	the	acclaimed	film.	As	in	all	films	and	movies,	the	location	and	memories	depicted	are	romanticized	and	idealized	in	the	story.	Challenges	arise	for	the	decolonization	process	and	for	an	affirmation	of	an	independent	identity	when	identity	is	based	on	these	romanticized	and	idealistic	imaginations	of	the	past.		Finally,	the	case	demonstrates	a	need	for	a	set	of	clear	policies	that	are	able	to	guide	heritage	preservation,	taking	into	account	the	contemporary	histories	of	Hong	Kong,	as	well	as	the	intangible	values	of	the	community.	The	preservation	of	the	street	is	a	testament	to	a	reactionary	mentality,	both	on	the	part	of	the	government	and	the	locals	who	fought	for	preservation.	The	preservation	of	the	street	would	not	have		 72	taken	place	if	not	for	the	street’s	relationship	with	the	film	and	the	public’s	concern	over	the	loss	of	this	particular	filming	location.	Without	clear	guidelines,	urban	renewal	will	continue	to	happen	in	similar	postwar	neighbourhoods,	along	with	piecemeal	revitalization	and	restoration	driven	by	private	developers.	Figure	6.	Restored	tong-lau	buildings	in	2011			 			Figure	6	has	been	removed	due	to	copyright	restrictions.	The	removed	image	a	photo	of	the	frontage	of	a	restored	tong-lau	building	on	Wing	Lee	Street.	Original	source:	Urban	Renewal	Authority.	Frontage	of	G7	Centre	at	Wing	Lee	Street.	(2017).	Heritage	Preservation	and	Revitalization	URA.	Web.	Accessed	on	12	Nov	2017	from				 73	Chapter	7	7.1	Conclusions	and	Implications	In	this	paper,	the	importance	of	place	is	understood	in	the	context	of	identity	construction	and	cultural	production	in	cities	that	are	in	between	globalizing	and	nationalizing	tendencies.	Place	and	place	identity,	their	physical,	social	and	cultural	aspects,	each	contribute	to	our	understanding	of	the	environment	around	us,	grounding	us	in	our	relationship	with	others.	Joining	earlier	scholarship	on	dynamisms	of	place,	this	thesis	continues	the	discussion	about	locating	the	intangible	and	obscure	constructs	related	to	the	seemingly	static	but	convoluted	notions	of	place	and	identity.	Cities	with	a	strong	cultural	personality	are	said	to	have	a	strong	legibility	that	is	apparent	in	the	urban	landscape.	Yet	with	increasing	global	cultural	flows,	cities	are	in	a	constant	state	of	flux.	The	concept	of	place	identity	displays	mixed	and	subtle	cues	in	cities	with	multiple	cultural	influences,	complicating	our	readings	into	power	and	politics	of	place.		It	is	also	necessary	to	acknowledge	that	places	are	inherently	associated	with	motives	(whether	implicit	or	explicit)	of	agents	shaping	the	construction,	destruction	and	reconstruction	of	places.		In	the	postindustrial	and	postmodern	era,	cities	are	aspiring	to	be	global.	Governments	and	policy	makers	of	these	cities	are	increasingly	capitalizing	on	the	cities’	identities,	places	and	cultures:	culture	has	become	a	signifier	of	world	status.	The	production	and	consumption	of	culture	and	creativity	is	now	at	the	forefront	of		 74	economic	development.	Moreover,	the	cultural	economy	with	its	fundamental	focus	on	aesthetics	and	performance,	is	reshaping	the	urban	landscape	of	cities	and	consequently,	the	identities	of	cities.	For	Hong	Kong,	the	aspiration	to	become	“Asia’s	World	City”	involves	seeking	cultural	capital	through	place-marketing	and	place-branding.	The	development	of	cultural	infrastructure	hardware	is	supported	by	neoliberal	policies	that	facilitate	a	market-	and	consumption-centred	approach	to	cultural	development.		The	longstanding	narratives	of	Hong	Kong	are	questioned	in	the	investigation	of	urban	development	and	heritage	preservation	in	post-Handover	Hong	Kong.	The	dominant	narratives	of	Hong	Kong,	including	its	depictions	as	a	city	between	the	East	and	West,	a	land	of	capitalist	freedom,	and	a	place	of	transience,	are	posing	new	challenges	and	tensions	as	the	Hong	Kong	government	and	residents	are	experiencing	the	largest	battle	over	the	concept	of	identity,	an	identity	that	has	never	been	in	the	foreground	of	debate	throughout	Hong	Kong’s	colonial	history.	The	Special	Administrative	Region	is	at	a	junction	between	its	worlding,	nationalizing	and	decolonizing	objectives.	This	thesis	has	argued	that	these	conflicts	are	demonstrated	and	reflected	in	the	construction,	restructuring	and	revalorizing	of	place.			The	WKCD	is	symbolic	of	the	attempt	to	forge	a	new	global	identity	for	the	city	and	also	for	Hong	Kongers.	By	highlighting	its	internationalism,	the	WKCD	supports	a	narrative	that	disregards	cultural	challenges	of	renationalization	and	fails	to	acknowledge	and	reconcile	with	the	city’s	colonial	experience.	It	therefore		 75	overlooks	the	prolific	and	distinctive	arts	and	cultural	production	that	already	exists	organically	in	the	city.	The	narrative	that	is	projected	by	the	global	aspiration	of	WKCD	is	one	that	propagates	the	perception	that	there	is	no	local	art	or	talent	worth	the	attention	or	status.		On	the	other	hand,	built	heritage	reinforces	existing	identity	by	acting	as	a	“storehouse	of	memory”	(Hayden,	1997),	a	physical	reminder	of	the	past	that	acts	as	an	anchor	for	identity	in	the	present.	In	contrast	with	the	new	and	global	identity	central	to	the	WKCD	project,	the	preservation	of	Wing	Lee	Street	represents	the	collective	identity	and	community	values	of	Hong	Kongers.	As	a	representation	of	an	era	when	identity	was	formed	and	stabilized,	Wing	Lee	Street	acts	as	an	important	place	for	today’s	Hong	Kong	society.	The	activists	who	cared	for	Wing	Lee	Street	do	not	see	it	as	an	aestheticized	space;	rather,	they	are	drawing	connections	between	place	and	history,	and	the	current	affairs	pertaining	to	inequality	and	democratization.		7.2	Challenges	and	Recommendations	for	Policy	and	Planning	Practice	My	thesis	has	attempted	to	draw	connections	between	the	developments	of	new	cultural	icons	with	preservation	of	the	old,	situating	these	in	a	broader	context	of	identity	and	globalization.	The	examination	of	the	two	cases	demonstrate	a	need	for	Hong	Kong	to	achieve	a	more	balanced	approach	to	cultural	development,	one	that	places	emphasis	on	nurturing	existing	vernacular	cultures	and	that	involves	the		 76	intersection	between	heritage	–	intangible	and	tangible	-	and	consumption	strategies	that	are	currently	the	norm.	I	agree	with	Chang	and	Huang’s	(2011,	2085)	recommendation	for	another	Asian	global	city,	Singapore:	“while	some	degree	of	worldliness	is	essential	in	any	redevelopment,	a	new	balance	has	to	be	sought	between	the	excesses	of	global	urbanism	and	the	parochialism	of	vernacular	concerns.”	The	same	can	be	said	for	Hong	Kong.	Singapore	has	been	dubbed	a	capital	of	culture	in	Asia.	Lee	Kuan	Yew	excelled	in	the	forging	of	a	new	postcolonial	identity.	But	one	fundamental	difference	between	Singapore	and	Hong	Kong	is	that	Singapore	has	the	ability	to	define	its	own	identity,	while	Hong	Kong	is	not	given	the	option	of	independence.	Built	and	cultural	heritage	and	cultural	industries	are	opportunities	for	the	expression	of	identity.	I	stress	that	the	reinforcement	of	identity	of	Hong	Kong	will	benefit	from	a	holistic	approach	that	encompasses	culture	and	heritage	under	the	larger	umbrella	of	cultural	development.		Heritage	has	gained	significant	traction	since	2006,	including	the	government’s	commitment	towards	conservation.	Prior	to	2006,	heritage	was	managed	across	a	dozen	of	departments	(Distefano	&	Cummer,	2012).	With	the	loss	of	Queen’s	pier,	the	government	was	propelled	to	create	policy	that	recognized	heritage	resources.	After	2007,	a	new	Development	Bureau	(DEVB)	was	established	to	lead	all	development	related	heritage	conservation	projects	and	almost	all	pre-existing	departments	with	responsibilities	related	to	heritage	resources	were	gathered	under	the	DEVB	(Distefano	&	Cummer,	2012).	In	2008,	the	Commissioner	for		 77	Heritage’s	Office	(CHO)	was	set	up	to	support	programs	related	to	conservation.	The	URA	is	also	a	department	under	the	DEVB.		It	is	an	achievement	that	heritage	conservation	is	now	a	central	part	of	government	policy,	but	it	is	almost	impossible	to	achieve	conservation	without	framing	it	as	a	driver	of	development,	which	is	the	DEVB’s	core	focus.	The	Heritage	Revitalization	through	Partnership	Scheme	and	economic	incentives	for	preservation	of	privately-owned	historic	buildings	are	strategies	with	conservation	related	objectives	in	tandem	with	emphasis	on	urban	development.	Asian	cities	are	the	world’s	fastest	growing	cities,	so	it	is	also	where	innovations	in	heritage	conservation	have	the	most	opportunities	to	arise.	Hong	Kong	has	an	opportunity	to	be	a	leader	in	the	preservation	of	heritage	that	is	sensitive	to	cultural	and	social	aspects,	not	just	the	built	environment.	This	could	be	in	the	form	of	cross-sector	collaboration	between	arts,	cultural	and	heritage,	and	between	private	building	owners	and	non-profit	organizations.	A	district-wide	advisory	committee	formed	of	property	owners,	residents	and	arts	and	cultural	groups	with	local	knowledge	could	advise	on	heritage	and	cultural	development	in	their	local	area,	liaise	with	their	district	councilor	who	will	be	able	to	bring	concerns	to	the	Legislative	Council	and	DEVB.	Currently,	the	Culture	Branch	(which	deals	with	arts	and	cultural	programs	and	managing	the	Hong	Kong	Arts	Development	Council),	the	Antiquities	and	Monuments	Office	(dealing	with	Heritage	Impact	Assessments	and	determining	Historical	Grades	of	buildings),	as	well	as	the	WKCD	Project	Management	Team	(which	coordinates	directly	with	the	WKCD	Authority	on	implementation,	planning		 78	and	monitoring)	are	under	the	Home	Affairs	Bureau	(HAB).	Intersections	between	arts	and	cultural	software,	governed	by	HAB,	and	heritage	hardware,	dealt	by	DEVB,	are	needed	for	elevating	culture	as	a	way	to	strengthen	identity	and	civic	values.	For	example,	the	Hong	Kong	Arts	Development	Council,	which	provides	funding	for	education	and	programs,	can	be	involved	with	URA	and	CHO	in	infrastructure	development	and	planning	to	leverage	for	functional	spaces	for	cultural	uses.		Of	course,	there	is	the	challenge	of	strengthening	cultural	and	heritage	policies	given	the	constraints	of	existing	neoliberal	spatial	ideologies.		Land	prices	in	Hong	Kong	are	the	highest	in	the	world	because	of	limited	supply	of	developable	land	(controlled	by	the	government).	Further,	land	sales	(actually	are	leases	of	up	to	99	years)	to	private	developers	(and	highest	bidder)	are	prime	revenue	generators	for	the	government.	Hence,	there	are	only	a	few	major	land	developers	in	Hong	Kong	and	they	hold	the	majority	of	developments,	and	thus	also	power,	in	the	city.		This	has	been	the	case	since	the	colonial	period.		These	circumstances	obviously	raise	serious	challenges	to	heritage	preservation,	and	also	to	the	development	of	WKCD	as	an	arts-focused	project.	In	addition	to	the	planned	museums	and	galleries,	the	site	of	WKCD	will	also	see	immense	commercial	development,	residential	towers	and	luxury	hotels.	Further,	Hong	Kong	needs	to	continue	to	demonstrate	cognizance	of	histories	occluded	in	colonialism,	as	well	as	the	processes	of	renationalization,	in	order	to	establish	an	identity	that	will	strengthen	the	unique	cultural	landscape	in	the	city.	Wing	Lee	Street	and	the	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	“are	not	just	personal		 79	view[s]	but	are	not	the	true	representation	of	the	city	society	either…”	The	spatialities	“draw	on	a	relationship	between	the	real,	the	imaginary	and	the	symbolic	that	is	not	beyond	truth	and	falsity,	but	is	different	from	it.”	(Keith	and	Pile,	2004,	24).	It	is	imperative	for	Hong	Kong’s	future	as	a	globalized	yet	unique	city	to	acknowledge	and	mediate	the	multiple	forces	vying	for	claims	over	its	identity	to	fully	reflect	and	foster	the	multi-faceted	emerging	identity	in	the	processes	of	creation	and	preservation.	7.3	Recommendations	for	Further	Research	In	this	research,	I	have	framed	cultural	development	and	heritage	development	around	the	concept	of	place	identity.	Other	instructive	avenues	include	the	exploration	of	these	themes	through	social	activism	and	social	movement	lenses,	placing	these	ideas	in	the	discussion	of	democracy	and	social	justice.		This	approach	would	provide	the	examination	of	various	other	social	problems	contributing	to	this	uprising	of	identity	struggles,	including	the	concerns	about	income	inequality,	housing	affordability,	environmental	degradation,	consequences	related	to	hyperdensity,	and	so	on.		The	discussion	about	heritage	in	Hong	Kong	poses	questions	about	how	heritage	should	be	classified	or	recognized.	The	dialogue	on	“cultural	authenticity”	may	contribute	to	this	investigation.	As	local	scholars	such	as	Stephen	Chu	(2010)	has	argued,	Hong	Kong’s	uniqueness	stems	from	its	emergent	identity.	If	identity	is	a	concept	that	shifts	and	changes	in	the	global	city,	what	then,	constitutes	as		 80	something	that	truly	represents	Hong	Kong	identity,	and	should	that	be	the	basis	for	heritage	preservation	decisions?	What	about	other	parts	of	occluded	or	overlooked	histories,	for	example	Hong	Kong’s	industrial	heritage,	and	the	experiences	and	contributions	from	non-dominant	cultures	and	populations	in	modern	day	Hong	Kong,	including	expatriates,	non-Chinese	immigrants,	domestic	workers	and	refugees?	Another	remaining	question	that	warrants	further	research	is	Hong	Kong’s	process	of	decolonization.	Are	processes	of	decolonization	and	local	identity	development	possible	while	the	city	is	facing	global	and	national	pressures?	Is	the	recognition	of	intrinsic	identity	caused	by	or	exacerbated	by	this	situation?	It	would	be	illuminating	to	compare	Hong	Kong’s	decolonization	with	other	post-colonial	and	global	cities	to	effectively	guide	globalizing	development	while	maintaining	and	preserving	cultural	heritage.	An	obvious	comparable	case	would	be	Singapore,	a	predominantly	Chinese	populace	that	no	longer	identifies	as	nationally	Chinese.	However,	as	aforementioned,	Singapore	is	able	to	control	its	narrative,	whereas	Hong	Kong’s	reunification	with	China	encroaches	on	this	autonomy.	In	this	sense,	a	comparison	with	Shanghai,	a	Chinese	city	geographically	situated	in	China	with	a	brief	colonial	association,	may	also	provide	insight	on	the	identities	associated	with	post-colonial	urban	cosmopolitanism	within	China.	Taipei,	on	the	other	hand,	with	a	self-actualized	independent	identity	separate	from	the	Mainland,	upholds	a	self-recognition	of	rich	and	authentic	Confucianist	Chinese	culture,	heritage	and	values,	while	rejecting	Mainland	sociopolitical	views.	In-depth	research	comparing	these		 81	nuanced	global	and	cultural	cities	and	their	trajectories	in	relation	to	place	and	identity	would	provide	a	comprehensive	insight	into	the	relative	importance	each	city	places	on	lasting	cultural	identity,	the	valuation	of	globalization	and	ultimately	their	respective	places	in	the	world.	7.4	Final	Remarks	Since	I	began	this	paper	with	an	explanation	of	my	positionality,	it	is	appropriate	to	conclude	with	a	critical	reflection	of	my	experience	in	this	research	process.	Since	I	first	became	interested	in	this	topic	in	2014,	the	landscapes	and	politics	of	Hong	Kong	has	changed	significantly,	and	so	has	my	own	perception	of	the	city.	I	must	admit	to	holding	preconceived	notions	about	Hong	Kong,	as	I	was	intertwined	with	the	city	through	a	lived	experience,	albeit	close	at	times	and	distant	at	times.	I	confronted	those	constructs	as	I	tried	to	gain	more	knowledge	from	the	literature	and	media	articles.	Time	and	again,	I	found	myself	asking	whether	I	agreed	with	those	arguments,	whether	they	matched	with	my	own	understanding	or	if	they	challenged	and	changed	my	perceptions.		In	the	beginning,	I	was	moved	by	the	gaining	concern	for	Hong	Kong’s	cultural	practices	and	heritage,	as	they	were	also	things	that	brought	fond	memories	and	nostalgia.	I	was	also	struck	by	the	difference	in	political	outlook	amongst	the	young	and	the	older	generations	in	Hong	Kong,	as	well	as	their	affinity	with	China.	Youth	were	portrayed	as	reckless	political	activists,	while	middle-aged	working	professionals	wish	for	stability	and	status	quo.	As	I	delved	deeper,	I	found	even		 82	more	discrepancies	and	variations	across	Hong	Kong	society.	These	voices	and	views	should	not	be	overgeneralized	as	they	contribute	to	a	rich	and	diverse	civil	society.	Hong	Kong’s	identity	crisis	will	be	key	to	how	the	Hong	Kong	story	unfolds.		 		 83	Bibliography	Abbas,	A.	(1997).	Hong	Kong:	Culture	and	the	politics	of	disappearance.	Hong	Kong	University	Press.	Anderson,	B.	(1991).	Imagined	Communities:	Reflections	on	the	Origin	and	Spread	of	Nationalism.	London,	New	York.	Barber,	L.	(2014).	(Re)	making	heritage	policy	in	Hong	Kong:	A	relational	politics	of	global	knowledge	and	local	innovation.	Urban	Studies,	51(6),	1179-1195.	Boyd,	R.,	&	Ngo,	T.	W.	(Eds.).	(2005).	Asian	states:	beyond	the	developmental	perspective.	Routledge.	Carroll,	J.	M.	(2007).	A	concise	history	of	Hong	Kong.	Rowman	&	Littlefield	Publishers.	Castells,	M.	(2011).	The	power	of	identity:	The	information	age:	Economy,	society,	and	culture	(Vol.	2).	John	Wiley	&	Sons.	Cartier,	C.	(2008).	Culture	and	the	City:	Hong	Kong,	1997—2007.	China	Review,	59-83.	Chan,	M.	K.,	&	So,	A.	Y.	(2016).	Crisis	and	transformation	in	China's	Hong	Kong.	Routledge.	Chang,	T.	C.,	&	Huang,	S.	(2011).	Reclaiming	the	city:	Waterfront	development	in	Singapore.	Urban	Studies,	48(10),	2085-2100.		 84	Chong,	E.	K.	M.	(2013).	The	Controversies	from	Civic	Education	to	National	Education.	occasional	paper,	(227).	Chen,	B.	(2013,	August	13).	Revival	of	Hong	Kong’s	tong	lau	buildings	hits	many	hurdles.	The	South	China	Morning	Post.	Retrieved	on	November	13,	2017	from	Cheung,	E.	M.	(2001).	The	hi/stories	of	Hong	Kong.	Cultural	Studies,	15(3-4),	564-590.		Cheung,	Sidney	C.H.	and	Tam,	Siumi	Maria	(eds)	(1999)	Culture	and	Society	of	Hong	Kong:	A	Bibliography.	Hong	Kong:	The	Chinese	University	of	Hong	Kong.		Chiu,	S.	W.	K.	and	Hung,	H.	F.	(1997)	‘The	colonial	state	and	rural	protests	in	Hong	Kong’.	Occasional	paper	no.	59.	Hong	Kong	Institute	of	Asia-	Paciéc	Studies,	The	Chinese	University	of	Hong	Kong.		Chow,	O.	(2017,	January	15).	Hong	Kong	musicians	lament	loss	of	mega	performance	venue	at	site	of	Palace	Museum.	The	South	China	Morning	Post.	Retrieved	on	November	10,	2017	from	Chow,	V.	(2017,	January	4).	Secretive	deal	on	Hong	Kong	Palace	Museum	will	further	erode	trust	in	authorities.	The	South	China	Morning	Post.	Retrieved	on	September	8,	2017	from	Chu,	C.	(2012).	Speculative	Modern:	Urban	Forms	and	the	Politics	of	Property	in	Colonial	Hong	Kong	(Doctoral	Dissertation).	Retrieved	from	UC	Berkeley		 85	Electronic	Theses	and	Dissertations	(UMI:	12170) Chu,	C.	(2012).	Between	typologies	and	representation:	The	Tong	Lau	and	the	discourse	of	the	‘‘chinesehouse’’in	colonial	Hong	Kong.	In	Rajagopalan,	M.,	&	Desai,	M.	S.	(Eds.)	Colonial	frames,	nationalist	histories,	imperial	legacies,	architecture,	and	modernity,	253-283.	Surrey,	England:	Ashgate	Publishing,	Ltd.	Chun,	A.	(1996).	Discourses	of	identity	in	the	changing	spaces	of	public	culture	in	Taiwan,	Hong	Kong	and	Singapore.	Theory,	Culture	&	Society,	13(1),	51-75.		Cresswell,	T.	(2004).	Place:	an	introduction.	John	Wiley	&	Sons.	DiStefano,	L.	D.,	Lee,	H.	Y.,	&	Cummer,	K.	(2011).	Hong	Kong	style	urban	conservation.	In	International	Council	on	Monuments	and	Sites	(ICOMOS)	General	Assembly	and	Scientific	Symposium.	International	Council	on	Monuments	and	Sites	(ICOMOS).	Douglass,	M.,	Ho,	K.	C.,	&	Ooi,	G.	L.	(2008).	Globalization,	the	city	and	civil	society	in	Pacific	Asia.	Globalization,	the	City	and	Civil	Society	in	Pacific	Asia,	1.		Erni,	J.	N.	(2001).	Like	a	postcolonial	culture:	Hong	Kong	re-imagined.	Cultural	Studies,	15(3-4),	389-418.	Evans,	G.	(2003).	Hard-branding	the	cultural	city–from	Prado	to	Prada.	International	journal	of	urban	and	regional	research,	27(2),	417-440.		 86	Florida,	R.	(2002).	The	Rise	of	the	Creative	Class–and	how	it’s	transforming	work,	leisure,	community	and	every	day	life.	Basic	Books,	New	York.	Government	of	Hong	Kong.	(October	10,	2007)	2007-08	Policy	Address	-	A	New	Direction	for	Hong	Kong	-	by	the	Chief	Executive,	Mr	Donald	Tsang.	Retrieved	from		Hall,	P.	(2000).	Creative	cities	and	economic	development.	Urban	studies,	37(4),	639-649.	Hayden,	D.	(1997).	The	power	of	place:	Urban	landscapes	as	public	history.	MIT	press.	Healey,	P.	(2002).	On	creating	the'city'as	a	collective	resource.	Urban	Studies,	39(10),	1777-1792.	Helbrecht,	I.	(2004).	Bare	geographies	in	knowledge	societies–creative	cities	as	text	and	piece	of	art:	two	eyes,	one	vision.	Built	environment,	30(3),	194-203.	Henderson,	J.	C.	(2001).	Heritage,	identity	and	tourism	in	Hong	Kong.	International	Journal	of	Heritage	Studies,	7,	219e235.		____________.	(2008).	Conserving	Hong	Kong’s	heritage:	the	case	of	Queen’s	Pier.	International	Journal	of	Heritage	Studies,	14(6),	540e554.		Ho,	K.,	&	Douglass,	M.	(2008).	Globalisation	and	liveable	cities:	Experiences	in	place-making	in	Pacific	Asia.	International	Development	Planning	Review,	30(3),	199-213.		 87	Ho,	E.,	Ip,	M.,	&	Bedford,	R.	(2001).	Transnational	Hong	Kong	Chinese	families	in	the	1990s.	New	Zealand	Journal	of	Geography,	111(1),	24-30.	Hutton,	T.	A.	(2009).	Trajectories	of	the	new	economy:	Regeneration	and	dislocation	in	the	inner	city.	Urban	Studies,	46(5-6),	987-1001.	_____________.	(2015).	Cities	and	the	cultural	economy.	Routledge.		Jacobs,	J.	M.	(2002).	Edge	of	empire:	Postcolonialism	and	the	city.	Routledge.		Jessop,	B.,	&	Sum,	N.	L.	(2000).	An	entrepreneurial	city	in	action:	Hong	Kong's	emerging	strategies	in	and	for	(inter)	urban	competition.	Urban	studies,	37(12),	2287-2313.	Jones,	Carol.	(2015).	Lost	in	China?	Law,	Culture	and	Identity	in	Post-1997	Hong	Kong.	Cambridge	University	Press	2015.	Kendall,	P.	(2017).	The	location	of	cultural	authenticity:	identifying	the	real	and	the	fake	in	urban	Guizhou.	The	China	Journal,	77(1),	93-109.	King,	A.	(2004).	Spaces	of	global	cultures:	architecture,	urbanism,	identity.	Routledge.	Kong,	L.	(2007).	Cultural	icons	and	urban	development	in	Asia:	Economic	imperative,	national	identity,	and	global	city	status.	Political	Geography,	26(4),	383-404.		 88	Kong,	L.,	Gibson,	C.,	Khoo,	L.	M.,	&	Semple,	A.	L.	(2006).	Knowledges	of	the	creative	economy:	Towards	a	relational	geography	of	diffusion	and	adaptation	in	Asia.	Asia	pacific	viewpoint,	47(2),	173-194.	Kobayashi,	A.,	&	Preston,	V.	(2007).	Transnationalism	through	the	life	course:	Hong	Kong	immigrants	in	Canada.	Asia	Pacific	Viewpoint,	48(2),	151-167.	Ku,	A.	S.	M.,	&	Tsui,	C.	H.	C.	(2008).	The"	Global	City"	as	a	Cultural	Project:	The	Case	of	the	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District.	In	Siu,	H.	F.,	&	Ku,	A.	S.	M.	(Eds.)	Hong	Kong	Mobile:	Making	a	Global	Population,	343-365.	Hong	Kong:	Hong	Kong	University	Press.		Ku,	A.	S.	M.	(2010).	Making	heritage	in	Hong	Kong:	A	case	study	of	the	central	police	station	compound.	The	China	Quarterly,	202,	381-399.	Kusno,	A.	(2010).	The	appearances	of	memory:	Mnemonic	practices	of	architecture	and	urban	form	in	Indonesia.	Duke	University	Press.	Kwok,	D.	(2017,	January	13).	Hong	Kong’s	Palace	Museum	plan	throws	out	the	rulebook	to	put	politics	above	the	people.	The	South	China	Morning	Post.	Retrieved	on	October	12,	2017	from	Lee,	Leo	Ou-Fan	(1994)	‘Chinese	studies	and	cultural	studies:	some	(dis-)connected	thoughts’.	Hong	Kong	Cultural	Studies	Bulletin,	1,	20–3.		Lefebvre,	H.	(1991).	The	production	of	space	(Vol.	142).	Blackwell:	Oxford.			 89	Lepofsky,	J.,	&	Fraser,	J.	C.	(2003).	Building	community	citizens:	Claiming	the	right	to	place-making	in	the	city.	Urban	studies,	40(1),	127-142.	Ley,	D.	(2003).	Artists,	aestheticisation	and	the	field	of	gentrification.	Urban	studies,	40(12),	2527-2544.	Li,	S.	M.	(1990).	The	Sino-British	Joint	Declaration,	1997,	and	the	land	market	of	Hong	Kong.	Review	of	Urban	&	Regional	Development	Studies,	2(1),	84-101.	Lin,	G.	(2003).	Identity,	mobility,	and	the	making	of	the	Chinese	diasporic	landscape	in	Hong	Kong.	In	Ma,	L.,	Cartier,	C.	(eds)	The	Chinese	Diaspora:	Space,	Place,	Mobility,	and	Identity,	141-161.	Landham:	Rowman	&	Littlefield	Lowenthal,	D.	(1975).	Past	time,	present	place:	landscape	and	memory.	Geographical	Review,	1-36.	Lui,	T.	L.	(2008).	City-branding	without	content:	Hong	Kong's	aborted	West	Kowloon	mega-project,	1998–2006.	International	Development	Planning	Review,	30(3),	215-226.	Main,	K.,	&	Sandoval,	G.	F.	(2015).	Placemaking	in	a	translocal	receiving	community:	The	relevance	of	place	to	identity	and	agency.	Urban	Studies,	52(1),	71-86.	Massey,	D.	(2004).	Space,	place	and	gender.	John	Wiley	&	Sons.	_________.	(2010).	A	global	sense	of	place	(pp.	pp-232).	Aughty.	org.	Mckenzie,	M.,	&	Hutton,	T.	(2015).	Culture-led	Regeneration	in	the	Post-industrial		 90	Built	Environment:	Complements	and	Contradictions	in	Victory	Square,	Vancouver.	Journal	of	Urban	Design,	20(1),	8-27.	Moore,	N.	Whelan,	Y.,	eds.	2007.	Heritage,	Memory	and	the	Politics	of	Identity.	New	Perspectives	on	the	Cultural	Landscape.	Aldershot:	Ashgate.	Morris,	J.	(1988)	Hong	Kong:	Epilogue	to	an	Empire.	Vintage	Departures	Edition.	Ng,	J.	(2009).	Paradigm	city:	Space,	culture,	and	capitalism	in	Hong	Kong.	SUNY	Press.	Oakes,	T.,	&	Wang,	J.	(2015).	Making	Cultural	Cities	in	Asia.	Routledge.	Ong,	A.	(1998).	Flexible	citizenship	among	Chinese	cosmopolitans.	CULTURAL	POLITICS,	14,	134-162.	________.	(2011).	Introduction:	Worlding	cities,	or	the	art	of	being	global.In	A.	Roy	and	A.	Ong	(Eds.)	Worlding	Cities:	Asian	Experiments	and	the	Art	of	being	Global.	1-26.	Oxford,	UK:	Wiley-Blackwell.	________.	(2011).	Hyperbuilding:	spectacle,	speculation,	and	the	hyperspace	of	sovereignty.	In	A.	Roy	and	A.	Ong	(Eds.)	Worlding	Cities:	Asian	Experiments	and	the	Art	of	being	Global.	205-226.	Oxford,	UK:	Wiley-Blackwell.	Peck,	J.	(2005).	Struggling	with	the	creative	class.	International	journal	of	urban	and	regional	research,	29(4),	740-770.	Proshansky,	H.	M.	(1978).	The	city	and	self-identity.	Environment	and	behavior,	10(2),	147-169.		 91	Relph,	Edward.	"A	pragmatic	sense	of	place."	Making	sense	of	place	(2008):	311-324.	Scott,	A.	J.	(2000).	The	cultural	economy	of	cities:	essays	on	the	geography	of	image-producing	industries.	Sage.	Scott,	I.	(1989).	Political	change	and	the	crisis	of	legitimacy	in	Hong	Kong.	University	of	Hawaii	Press.	Siu,	H.	F.,	&	Ku,	A.	S.	M.	(2008).	Hong	Kong	Mobile:	making	a	global	population.	Hong	Kong	University	Press,	HKU	So,	A.	Y.	(2011).	“One	country,	two	systems”	and	Hong	Kong-China	national	integration:	A	crisis-transformation	perspective.	Journal	of	Contemporary	Asia,	41(1),	99-116.	Soja,	E.	W.	(1989).	Postmodern	geographies:	The	reassertion	of	space	in	critical	social	theory.	Verso.		Sussman,	N.	M.	(2010).	Return	migration	and	identity:	A	global	phenomenon,	a	Hong	Kong	case	(Vol.	1).	Hong	Kong	University	Press.	Teather,	E.	K.,	&	Chow,	C.	S.	(2003).	Identity	and	place:	the	testament	of	designated	heritage	in	Hong	Kong.	International	Journal	of	Heritage	Studies,	9,	93e115.		Tomlinson,	P.	(2014,	July	4).	Preserving	what’s	left	of	Hong	Kong’s	lost	architecture.	The	South	China	Morning	Post.	Retrieved	on	August	5	,2017	from		 92	Tung,	C.H.	(1999):	The	1999	Policy	Address,	htm,	accessed	on	5	April	2016.		UNESCO.	(2016)	Basic	Texts	of	the	2003	Convention	for	the	Safeguarding	of	the	Intangible	Cultural	Heritage.	Retrieved	on	December	9,	2017	from:	src/2003_Convention_Basic_Texts-_2016_version-EN.pdf	University	of	Hong	Kong,	Public	Opinion	Programme.	(2003).	Survey	on	West	Kowloon	Cultural	District	Development.	Retrieved	on	October	9,	2017	from:	index.html	Winchester,	H.	P.,	Kong,	L.,	&	Dunn,	K.	(2003).	Landscapes:	Ways	of	imagining	the	world.	Routledge.	Yeoh,	B.	S.	(2005).	The	global	cultural	city?	Spatial	imagineering	and	politics	in	the	(multi)	cultural	marketplaces	of	South-east	Asia.	Urban	Studies,	42(5-6),	945-958.	Yeoh,	B.	S.,	Huang,	S.,	&	Lam,	T.	(2005).	Transnationalizing	the	‘Asian’family:	imaginaries,	intimacies	and	strategic	intents.	Global	networks,	5(4),	307-315.	Yu,	T.	F.	L.	(2004).	From	a	‘Barren	Rock’	to	the	Financial	Hub	of	East	Asia:	Hong	Kong's	Economic	Transformation	in	the	Coordinating	Perspective.	Asia	Pacific	Business	Review,	10(3-4),	360-381.		 93	Yung,	E.	H.,	&	Chan,	E.	H.	(2011).	Problem	issues	of	public	participation	in	built-heritage	conservation:	Two	controversial	cases	in	Hong	Kong.	Habitat	International,	35(3),	457-466.	Zabielskis,	P.	(2008).	Towards	a	moral	ecology	of	the	city:	A	new	form	of	place-based	identity	and	social	action	in	Penang,	Malaysia.	International	Development	Planning	Review,	30(3),	267-291.	Zukin,	S.	(1991)	Landscapes	of	Power:	From	Detroit	to	Disney	World.	Berkeley:	University	of	California	Press.		_________.	(1996).	The	cultures	of	cities.	Wiley-Blackwell.	_________.	(2009).	Naked	city:	The	death	and	life	of	authentic	urban	places.	Oxford	University	Press.	


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items