Let's show originality in architecture

Post date: Dec 08, 2015 5:48:36 PM

Working with the Urban Renewal Authority to revitalise Hong Kong's historic Central Market, architect Arata Isozaki was recently quoted as saying: 'Hong Kong has no need of iconic buildings but simply architecture that takes care of people's needs.'

Did Mr Isozaki actually mean to say interesting architecture and not cookie-cutter boxes built in the 1960s and '70s? Would Hong Kong people be accused of being greedy by demanding that iconic landmarks as important as the Central Market be both very beautiful and practical?

Mr Isozaki's comments run counter to our wish and determination to build an artistically sophisticated city, one that would extend open arms to works done by the likes of Frank Gehry, Wang Shu or our very own Andre Fu.

Most of us interested in buildings argue that if we could relive the past, pre-war architectural gems such as the old Gloucester Building or the General Post Office would have been saved from the wrecking balls, and the '60s building craze could have been be tightly contained.

Buildings give a city its brand and identity, much like the household product brands we come to know today. They also represent a people's culture, and ours do leave a lot to be desired.

The Hong Kong government is now playing catch-up to make amends. The public and private sectors have woken up to the fact that what we build today will have a lasting effect on future generations. So let's not turn back the clock to that era of cookie-cutter architecture. Philip S.K.Leung, Pok Fu Lam

15 June, 2012 http://www.scmp.com/article/1004021/letters