As I entered the revitalized Central Market, the 500 red lampshades (「紅A」燈罩) iconic of the local wet market caught my attention. “A preservation of Hong Kong local culture,” said a young woman in her mid-twenties, queuing up for a cup of cold brew. “Or is it?” - a question that lingered in my mind as I walked down the market hallway.
The Central Market Revitalization Project is an urban renewal project of the 80-year-old grade three historic building under the mandate of the Hong Kong Urban Renewal Authority (URA). After 18 years of the wet market closure, 4 years of restoration effort, and a cacophony of objections from conservationists and the public, the HK$500-million project finally had its grand opening on the 24th of August 2021. Alongside PMQ and Tai Kwun, the three together would be known as Central’s ‘heritage triangle’.
But following the ‘revitalization’, how much of the cultural heritage still remains? Sure, the tangible aspects are there - the red wet market lamps at Central Market, the dormitory-turned-shops in PMQ, the red brick walls of Tai Kwun. But how about the intangible parts? The local and familiar "feel" of the market for example. More importantly, who could still remain?
In discussing this topic, it is important to distinguish the differences between urban revitalization and gentrification. Urban revitalization or urban renewal is the rehabilitation of old structures, while gentrification refers to renovating an architecture or district for the sole purpose of conforming to a higher-class taste. The former is not necessarily a bad thing, as urban revitalization aims to create new jobs and improve the quality of living of civilians. The problem lies in the thin line between the two, and how urban revitalization can easily turn into gentrification if not properly executed, especially in Hong Kong.
The main pivotal question of ‘who gets to stay’ after the revitalization is what draws the line here. In terms of creating new jobs and keeping the idea of food stalls in the market, the project does fit within the definition of revitalization. However, specifically who gets the jobs, who runs the stalls and who shops at the stalls also need to be taken into account. Consider this, Is it truly revitalization if the former locals do not benefit? Hence when looking at the creation of new jobs and business, it is important to look at the demographic specifically, rather than generally. As such, the issue with gentrification is not only limited to whether heritage is kept intact, but more importantly, the specific demographic changes and displacement of local residents. All of whom shape the true value of the place.
The ‘revitalized’ Central Market is the perfect example of displacement of local residents. In fact, one of the main reasons for the public objection of the Central Market was the job loss of the local hawkers, alongside other negative impacts on gentrifying the market. The new businesses generated do not benefit the local residents, the hawker in dirty white plastic boots, nor the lady in the floral apron. They serve the middle-class who can afford to get a cup of coffee for $45 on a Sunday afternoon rather than the more modest local community. Hence it seems that despite the creation of new jobs after 20 long years of reconstruction, the local community will not be the main beneficiaries of this advancement.
Another core problem of these revitalization projects is the uprooting of the intangible culture, as a result of displacing local residents. I have rarely in my life seen a wet market in Hong Kong that doesn’t feature a cockroach crossing the two sides of the stalls, or a hawker trying to catch a slippery eel on the also slippery floor. These daily scenes at wet markets are now replaced by pristine white ceilings with plasticky green plants. The peddling of fish hawkers and bargaining at the fruit stalls are now silenced by the lo-fi background music at the eco-friendly stores selling metal straws and reusable cups. All of this poses the question, is ‘revitalization’ truly conserving our history or is it just a facade for the blatant commercialization of our cultural heritage?
Either way, I guess we should appreciate the fact that the URA made an effort to install the 500 red lampshades to “preserve Hong Kong local culture”.
Writer: Joanne Yau
Editor: Eric Wang
Artist: Alicia Fok
Comments