The Urban Renewal Authority has just announced its plan to spend $1.33 billion on preserving historical buildings in Mong Kok, but how genuine are its intentions? By June Ng.

Once known as the government’s property developer, the Urban Renewal Authority seems to be changing its direction of late, focusing on heritage conservation rather than demolition. Last month, the authority announced two conservation projects in Mong Kok, supposedly to preserve 20 pre-war shophouses on Shanghai Street and Prince Edward Road West at a cost of $1.33 billion. The authority claims that it’s the largest single conservation initiative ever undertaken in Hong Kong. And sure enough, newspaper headlines all over town have been trumpeting the URA for its conservation efforts.
But is it really that simple? If you dig a little deeper, it soon becomes clear that out of the $1.33 billion the URA has set aside for the project, only $100 million—or 7.52 percent of the total budget—has been reserved for conservation. The remaining $1.23 billion will be used to acquire the 20 properties. In other words, not so much a conservation strategy as an acquisition or buy-out.

Right now, the 10-building cluster on Shanghai Street is mainly comprised of residential flats, and also serves as a hub for construction and home appliance shops. The 10 buildings along Prince Edward Road West meanwhile are primarily occupied by flower shops (the Mong Kok flower market sits just behind it), art schools and film production houses. But with the URA buying out the areas, they will all have to go. Why? Because the Authority has already decided what these areas will become after redevelopment. Yes, the flower shops will stay, but it’s anyone’s guess as to what might happen to other Prince Edward Road units. And as for the Shanghai Street, the plumbers and appliances stores will be kicked out, to be replaced by what the URA’s Barry Cheung calls a “popular food street,” or directly translated from the Chinese as “Food Paradise.”  

Experts are divided about the plans. Dr. Lee Ho-yin, the Programme Director of the Architectural Conservation Programme at the University of Hong Kong, believes that while preserving the hardware (the buildings themselves) is a good thing, more attention should be given to the original users. “Conservation is not all about preserving old things; it’s about how to adjust the pace of change and make it happen gradually,” he says. “We should consider the human factor too, in order to prevent drastic changes from occurring.”

Tenants aren’t happy about the plans, either. Ken Yeung, a sales manager at a Shanghai Street shower fixtures shop, is especially vocal on the matter. “Shanghai Street has the most construction material shops in Kowloon, if we get kicked out, I don’t think people could find anywhere as centralized to buy their essentials,” he says, adding that it’s almost impossible to find shop space for a reasonable price in the area anymore.

Yeung’s neighbor Chan Wing-chi, who owns a retro upstairs café, is upset by the URA’s decision because he believes that the URA’s acquisition of the area will not protect the buildings, the businesses or the residents. “The whole community will be kicked out and the place will be assigned a new use. The current users should be taken into account in their plan,” he says.

However, not everyone sees a problem with the URA’s plans. Dr. Lau Chi Pang, a history professor at Lingnan University and a member of the Antiquities Advisory Board, approves of the project and says it’s inevitable for the URA to incorporate commercial elements into its plans due to its self-financing nature. A historian himself, he believes that a lot of people are irrational when it comes to “historic value.” “We can’t just keep everything just because it’s old,” he says. “For instance, I never believed that there was any need to preserve Queen’s Pier. The public is sometimes misled by conservationists about what should be retained.” He thinks there’s no need to keep the home appliance shops there, considering that they have hardly any heritage or cultural significance.

Maintaining just the appearance of old buildings, however, is widely considered an old-fashioned model for heritage conservation, which ultimately fails to preserve the true character of the area. Chu Hoi-dick, an activist from Local Action, criticizes the URA’s plan. “They only keep the physical aspect of the area, and then assign it a new meaning based on commercial considerations—it’s laughable,” he says. He explains that in countries like Britain, related authorities do not have to own properties to carry out conservation works. Instead, they give funding to property owners and the two parties work together to preserve the buildings.

Yau Tsim Mong District Councilor Claudia Mao echoes Chu’s views. She believes that while the government has good intentions when it comes to preserving the buildings, she hopes that the areas in question will not be preserved in a superficial way. She cites Western Market in Sheung Wan as a conservation project that ultimately failed; the old market building is now occupied by businesses targeted to tourists. “I hope we won’t see Shanghai Street being dressed up like a wedding cake, just like what happened to Western Market,” she says. “You know, going over the top and ending up with something unnecessary and out of place.”

Have Your Say
The URA is not planning to conduct any public consultations on this project at the moment, but their spokesman says it will submit its plans to the Town Planning Board early next year. In the meantime, write to us to express your views at letters@asia-city.com.hk.