my logic was, when no one watch hollywood movie or tv, radio, would u build more theatre, made more tv monitor, radio to improve the situation?
the history of the project went back to 2003, when the government want the public to be aware of art and make hk became the world cultural hub... however, the problem is there are more than enough museum, gallery, theatre already and most of the time is deserted, since hk is more of a financial center and parents only encourage their kids to study finance or business oriented subject, art stuff is not a concern to public... if u studied art or subject related, it is almost impossible to survive as a profession since there is no art industry here...
the most important is education, since the local university does not offer adequate art subject, the best to improve is to sponsor student to study aboard and bring back what they learn. that's what happen to korea back then.
wiki does not give good explanation, but can give some background...
this is the second time the hk government is about to make a major mistake, the first one is cyberport, during the 2000 when there was this .com hype, they want to build a cyber hub so that to "improve" hk .com industry, now it turn out to be a place that sells appliances, wedding gowns and blockbuster theatre...
but vado pruitt igoe failed because of politics and policy, not architecture. iit was a good place according to the literature for first five years then failed when it became a dumping ground for problematic peoples....
japan did same thing creating tech centers, aspect. most of them don't quite work. i don't think that is intrinsic however. it is possible that such a project could be successful.
funny that you like ito though. i translated an essay for a small book for him once that was interesting but not sure if it offered anything more substantial than other theorists...
I think your made a very good argument here. I read the "hub" project before and we know it is not working eventually. By my understanding, HK has been over-concertrated on financial area for too long. the fact is, even the education is very commercialized and most professors run education like business (one of my friends who did his doctor program in the univrersity of hongkong and told me his feeling to me in 2002). I think the point is, what kind of program should be given to this site, as an important port in city. And the question is how should the program could be worked out. Qingyun Ma's conceptual sketch could be a right hint to this program or totally wrong, since such kind of huge project do need comprehensive research, otherwise, it is just another risky game or beautiful installation.
by the way, I am always asking myself, compare to New York, why hongkong lacks contemporary architecture and real arts? could any buddy live both in New York and Hongkong for a while tell its difference? That could be an interesting comparison.
Interesting...I mean he started a blog in a Chinese site where all articles are under surveillance. And he replied almost all the comments there! It seemed he had plenty of free time now. Long time ago he opened blogs in sina.com too but never posted any articles (or deleted later).
From there I went onto his company new web site in Shanghai and it was totally different from the previous design. The old site was very creative. However, the new site feels like......:) Mmm, suit the taste of local Chinese clients.
And about the letter to Rem, I don't know why he needed to post there. A way to declare he is a friend of Rem? A compatible of Rem?
i asked the same question of a colleague who maintains residence in HK, tokyo, NY, and london, xing. he said hong kong is there for money and nothing else and that is why he lives there too...i didn't know what to make of that answer, but it was as honest as it gets...
let the market/public to decide, government shall not intervene...
the site has a great potential for various kind of events, a large flat land at the heart of city and at waterfront, great place for outdoor performing arts, concerts, expo, conventions...etc...
the market will decide what's feasibile for events at certain time of the year...
hongkong is indeed lack of flat land at the center of the city!
In terms of a lot of public goods, the market simply fails. People benefiting or suffering from a decision are not directly part of the economic transaction.
I doubt that performing arts, concerts or conventions would eventually be what became of the land if the market was given free reins. Profitability per square foot is very low in those types of endevours - depending on what type of art it could even be negative and require government subsidy.
A large open tract in the middle of Hong Kong should definitely have government intervention, assuming the government acts in the interest of the people and is not corrupt.
kungapa, regarding externalities, we are not producing goods here, we are creating events for the interest of people... the land shall still be own by government and rent it out for public events... this might not be as profitabable as to building luxurous apartment but as per government original intent- the enjoyment for art for the people, i think that serves well... rather than having this mega-site, to insert any pre-condition program under one authority (especially our government), is very much likely deem to failed...
Aspect, we ARE producing goods. Events for the interest of people is simply another type of good.
The land being owned by the government and rented out for public events is an intervention in the market, to capture the externality benefit from these types of events. There is a perceived benefit of "art for the people" which would not be realized had the market been given free rein over the lands.
I agree that the land should not be used for another condominium project, and also inserting a mega-program on the space might be doomed to fail.
However, trusting the market to self-organize as well as equating the market with the people is a mistake.
when i spent time in HK i loved it and felt like it was much more than just a financial center... it was so beautiful and dense and interesting.
but you're right that there doesn't seem to be much of an architecture scene or an art scene... and a lot of the nightlife (i.e. LKF) was fratty-douchie-jocky-lame finance types from england...
In economic theory every transaction is an economic one. Everything is a good. You can not espouse a market-based solution and then disagree with the basic foundations of the ideas that your solution is based on.
Thomas Friedman is writing from an entirely different point of view, and his definitions of goods, products and brands is not really relevant to a market-based approach.
You raise an interesting question though - does architecture transcend economic theory? In the neoclassical understanding of economic theory it does not.
Fitting architecture into economic theory does not mean that everything can be quantifiable in terms of money - but it does mean that people have preferences and make choices based on those preferences.
Rem's projects are more and more disappointing. For these followers of Rem, what I would say is, wake up from his theories! He is the traitor of himself. His recent projects would be failed in any accredited architecture programs. But once he did, you say, What a marvelous piece!?!
maybe i missed out on some of the notes or on some of the links, but i haven't seen the background to this project that i know exists:
In 2002 there was an international competition for the WKCD project. the land was partly being generated by landfill into the harbour. it was to provide HK with a "cultural precinct", and as well to have some commercial components to help fund the development.
out of the competition, Foster and Partners were awarded the commission, along with an association with Rocco Design Limited (a HK office). this selection wasn't surprising as Foster had completed the HK airport and this was seen as a big prestigious project that needed someone with experience at this scale.
Foster's design was for a large (very large) covered canopy that covered a large section of the site. as well, if not mistaken, the winning scheme was also part of a commercial development plan, with the developer funding aspects of the cultural amenities, in exchange for development rights to other aspects.
this was not well supported by the local community and eventually it all came to nothing.
more recently, a new project is in the process of being launched, this time prefaced by the establishment of a WKCD Authority, who then set out:
"The preparation of the development plan will be conducted in three phases, which will take the form of workshops, discussion groups, brainstorming sessions and exhibitions etc. to allow ample opportunities for the public to participate in the discussions and express their views.
The Authority will also set up a consultation panel in accordance with the Ordinance in order to initiate dialogue with the arts and cultural sector and to collect public views in a systematic manner."
these consultations are currently underway, so it is not exactly sure as to the time line for the whole project.
i would suggest the Ma is suggesting to Rem that maybe they should look at developing something together - to use their experiences at seeing this larger urban scale projects in ways quite different to what emerged with Foster. i believe there is, as part of this new process, series of lecture, presentations, briefings, etc from well-known architects, to provide a range of views and insights into the project.
the new project still includes commercial components, but the number of cultural institutions has been increased and the question of how this fits into HK's cultural infrastructure (or lack thereof) is being debated. these public consultations maybe mere show, to get the project passed in an easier manner, but it may also suggest that a singular design - a la Foster - is not the way forward.
Ma's letter makes this clear as a problem ("the traditional sense of cultural facility, marked by their huge belly, fair skin, bare circumstance, free posture, and rare uses does not fit Hong Kong’s urban value").
he is suggesting that rather than "western-based" notions of a cultural complex, HK might need something quite different ("It is not the culture and art as we have come to known and bored with, but that can be produced and reproduced.
Therefore, new paradigms must be envisioned. Firstly, it is hybrid between housing and culture. They make symbiotic relation and proximation between art and living in orders as art living, living art and -l-a-l-a-l-a- so on and so forth").
he ends by mentioning he has had a conversation with Rocco Yim, (who was involved with Foster) and expressed concerns that the new project could be a disaster like the previous scheme.
the language of the letter is sometimes less than clear, but it does suggest some thought has gone into questioning what this project will become.
like all architects, Ma also wants to suggest that perhaps he (and others) have the means to provide some answers.
kungapa> the marriage of architecture and friedman's free market is a heavy subject and require an in depth research...
from my understanding, architecture works with limits, the limit of gravity, greed, inhumanity... etc while friedman's free market works with borderless world, automata...
the merging of two is a very interesting contemporary issue... sometimes architecture define the limit for a self-organizing markets to proliferate and at other times the market define the limit of architecture and use it as a tool to maximize profit (as in the case of dubai)
i'm in no position to give further comments since i have not done any research, just simply being aware of this issue.
"architects have this blind faith in receiving data from a developer, believing this is what the future needs… in the stock market, a smart investor will read behind the data knowing that this is the future the big player wants you to believe in."
let us forget about the English writing issues for a moment, here is some new photos and thoughts carried out by QMA. pls make sure visit the blog, there are many HK meeting pictures posted and some familiar faces.
Hong Kong Thoughts (2008-12-15 11:04)
What is the purpose for an project like wkad? Is it to boost urban vitality through art and culture, or is it to boost art by the intensity of urban lives? If it is the first case, the fact that all art scenes which are intreative with urbanism tend to fade and diminish would challenge us to conceive and construct extravagant public buildings which will be so difficult to remove in times when they are obsolete. If it is the second phase, museums in what we have encountered relate little to art production and cultural originality. They become simply places for presenting art and sufficate culture.
Michael's comments on organic growth and temporary construction is right on. I have posed a question during the Shenzhen Biennale, do we trust our judgment to the future? Not for us but for our children? The answer is obvious: no. But it is immensely difficult because the contemporary politics. Lack of human continuity and full of budgetary schedule simply prevents a very profound and simple intelligence. Therefore, it is hongkong's creativity to reformulate the political and financial protocols to succeed in this project. Political creativity is much more essential to hongkong's society! More than art.
Rem's suggestion is not organically free of planning, instead, it is a specifically strategized gradual accomplishment of collision between each programs and multiplication between the old and new Kowloon. It is to plan a city first then to use Art facilities to facilitate the city. Therefore, enters the number 2 purpose, which is art stimulates city! Then Art will be in a process of fading or reinvent itself in time and places.
A Recent letter to Rem Koolhaas By Qingyun Ma
This is the triumph of networking over content. Spy magazine had a section called "Logrolling in our times."
It applies here.
Maybe Archinect needs a new section called "Sucking up".
;-) Sorry for the snark but that's what this letter is.
Orhan. I do not and I really have no idea of this project. But would share if mroe info incoming.
xing, oh very sorry, i was wondering what happen and i look back and i found i type the wrong word...
should be "Qingyun Ma" does know shxt about hongkong and the west-kowloon project... any local architect knows better than this USC chinaman tourist.
sorry :(
and thanks for sharing the passage...
my logic was, when no one watch hollywood movie or tv, radio, would u build more theatre, made more tv monitor, radio to improve the situation?
the history of the project went back to 2003, when the government want the public to be aware of art and make hk became the world cultural hub... however, the problem is there are more than enough museum, gallery, theatre already and most of the time is deserted, since hk is more of a financial center and parents only encourage their kids to study finance or business oriented subject, art stuff is not a concern to public... if u studied art or subject related, it is almost impossible to survive as a profession since there is no art industry here...
the most important is education, since the local university does not offer adequate art subject, the best to improve is to sponsor student to study aboard and bring back what they learn. that's what happen to korea back then.
wiki does not give good explanation, but can give some background...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Kowloon_Cultural_District
this is the second time the hk government is about to make a major mistake, the first one is cyberport, during the 2000 when there was this .com hype, they want to build a cyber hub so that to "improve" hk .com industry, now it turn out to be a place that sells appliances, wedding gowns and blockbuster theatre...
reading Qingyun Ma writing, seems like architectural writing these days been downgrade to just fancy word without any research and substance.
for foreigners, i like ito writings, simple and full of substances.
but vado pruitt igoe failed because of politics and policy, not architecture. iit was a good place according to the literature for first five years then failed when it became a dumping ground for problematic peoples....
japan did same thing creating tech centers, aspect. most of them don't quite work. i don't think that is intrinsic however. it is possible that such a project could be successful.
funny that you like ito though. i translated an essay for a small book for him once that was interesting but not sure if it offered anything more substantial than other theorists...
iit certainly has become a dumping ground for problematic people. ;)
LOL
Dear Rem Koolhaas,
I am sick of your shit.
Yours Truly,
Ryan Reinicken
aspect, never mind.
I think your made a very good argument here. I read the "hub" project before and we know it is not working eventually. By my understanding, HK has been over-concertrated on financial area for too long. the fact is, even the education is very commercialized and most professors run education like business (one of my friends who did his doctor program in the univrersity of hongkong and told me his feeling to me in 2002). I think the point is, what kind of program should be given to this site, as an important port in city. And the question is how should the program could be worked out. Qingyun Ma's conceptual sketch could be a right hint to this program or totally wrong, since such kind of huge project do need comprehensive research, otherwise, it is just another risky game or beautiful installation.
by the way, I am always asking myself, compare to New York, why hongkong lacks contemporary architecture and real arts? could any buddy live both in New York and Hongkong for a while tell its difference? That could be an interesting comparison.
Interesting...I mean he started a blog in a Chinese site where all articles are under surveillance. And he replied almost all the comments there! It seemed he had plenty of free time now. Long time ago he opened blogs in sina.com too but never posted any articles (or deleted later).
From there I went onto his company new web site in Shanghai and it was totally different from the previous design. The old site was very creative. However, the new site feels like......:) Mmm, suit the taste of local Chinese clients.
And about the letter to Rem, I don't know why he needed to post there. A way to declare he is a friend of Rem? A compatible of Rem?
i asked the same question of a colleague who maintains residence in HK, tokyo, NY, and london, xing. he said hong kong is there for money and nothing else and that is why he lives there too...i didn't know what to make of that answer, but it was as honest as it gets...
let the market/public to decide, government shall not intervene...
the site has a great potential for various kind of events, a large flat land at the heart of city and at waterfront, great place for outdoor performing arts, concerts, expo, conventions...etc...
the market will decide what's feasibile for events at certain time of the year...
hongkong is indeed lack of flat land at the center of the city!
Aspect, your trust in the market is slightly disconcerting. As is equating the market with the public.
I don't know what your background apart from architecture is, but read up on externalities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
In terms of a lot of public goods, the market simply fails. People benefiting or suffering from a decision are not directly part of the economic transaction.
I doubt that performing arts, concerts or conventions would eventually be what became of the land if the market was given free reins. Profitability per square foot is very low in those types of endevours - depending on what type of art it could even be negative and require government subsidy.
A large open tract in the middle of Hong Kong should definitely have government intervention, assuming the government acts in the interest of the people and is not corrupt.
kungapa, regarding externalities, we are not producing goods here, we are creating events for the interest of people... the land shall still be own by government and rent it out for public events... this might not be as profitabable as to building luxurous apartment but as per government original intent- the enjoyment for art for the people, i think that serves well... rather than having this mega-site, to insert any pre-condition program under one authority (especially our government), is very much likely deem to failed...
Aspect, we ARE producing goods. Events for the interest of people is simply another type of good.
The land being owned by the government and rented out for public events is an intervention in the market, to capture the externality benefit from these types of events. There is a perceived benefit of "art for the people" which would not be realized had the market been given free rein over the lands.
I agree that the land should not be used for another condominium project, and also inserting a mega-program on the space might be doomed to fail.
However, trusting the market to self-organize as well as equating the market with the people is a mistake.
when i spent time in HK i loved it and felt like it was much more than just a financial center... it was so beautiful and dense and interesting.
but you're right that there doesn't seem to be much of an architecture scene or an art scene... and a lot of the nightlife (i.e. LKF) was fratty-douchie-jocky-lame finance types from england...
kungapa,
in the flat world (by thomas friedman) we are living in, there are goods, products and brands... i believe architecture is beyond that.
Aspect,
In economic theory every transaction is an economic one. Everything is a good. You can not espouse a market-based solution and then disagree with the basic foundations of the ideas that your solution is based on.
Thomas Friedman is writing from an entirely different point of view, and his definitions of goods, products and brands is not really relevant to a market-based approach.
You raise an interesting question though - does architecture transcend economic theory? In the neoclassical understanding of economic theory it does not.
Fitting architecture into economic theory does not mean that everything can be quantifiable in terms of money - but it does mean that people have preferences and make choices based on those preferences.
What a piece of sh*t!
Rem's projects are more and more disappointing. For these followers of Rem, what I would say is, wake up from his theories! He is the traitor of himself. His recent projects would be failed in any accredited architecture programs. But once he did, you say, What a marvelous piece!?!
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/05/rem_koolhaas_de.html
http://www.dezeen.com/2007/07/18/rak-gateway-by-oma/
http://www.dezeen.com/2007/01/11/new-shenzhen-images-from-oma/
he's got more up his sleeve than you realize ecode...
ecode, this letter is given by qma instead of Rem, and maybe rem is still consolidating his ideas that we never know.
maybe i missed out on some of the notes or on some of the links, but i haven't seen the background to this project that i know exists:
In 2002 there was an international competition for the WKCD project. the land was partly being generated by landfill into the harbour. it was to provide HK with a "cultural precinct", and as well to have some commercial components to help fund the development.
out of the competition, Foster and Partners were awarded the commission, along with an association with Rocco Design Limited (a HK office). this selection wasn't surprising as Foster had completed the HK airport and this was seen as a big prestigious project that needed someone with experience at this scale.
Foster's design was for a large (very large) covered canopy that covered a large section of the site. as well, if not mistaken, the winning scheme was also part of a commercial development plan, with the developer funding aspects of the cultural amenities, in exchange for development rights to other aspects.
this was not well supported by the local community and eventually it all came to nothing.
more recently, a new project is in the process of being launched, this time prefaced by the establishment of a WKCD Authority, who then set out:
"The preparation of the development plan will be conducted in three phases, which will take the form of workshops, discussion groups, brainstorming sessions and exhibitions etc. to allow ample opportunities for the public to participate in the discussions and express their views.
The Authority will also set up a consultation panel in accordance with the Ordinance in order to initiate dialogue with the arts and cultural sector and to collect public views in a systematic manner."
these consultations are currently underway, so it is not exactly sure as to the time line for the whole project.
i would suggest the Ma is suggesting to Rem that maybe they should look at developing something together - to use their experiences at seeing this larger urban scale projects in ways quite different to what emerged with Foster. i believe there is, as part of this new process, series of lecture, presentations, briefings, etc from well-known architects, to provide a range of views and insights into the project.
the new project still includes commercial components, but the number of cultural institutions has been increased and the question of how this fits into HK's cultural infrastructure (or lack thereof) is being debated. these public consultations maybe mere show, to get the project passed in an easier manner, but it may also suggest that a singular design - a la Foster - is not the way forward.
Ma's letter makes this clear as a problem ("the traditional sense of cultural facility, marked by their huge belly, fair skin, bare circumstance, free posture, and rare uses does not fit Hong Kong’s urban value").
he is suggesting that rather than "western-based" notions of a cultural complex, HK might need something quite different ("It is not the culture and art as we have come to known and bored with, but that can be produced and reproduced.
Therefore, new paradigms must be envisioned. Firstly, it is hybrid between housing and culture. They make symbiotic relation and proximation between art and living in orders as art living, living art and -l-a-l-a-l-a- so on and so forth").
he ends by mentioning he has had a conversation with Rocco Yim, (who was involved with Foster) and expressed concerns that the new project could be a disaster like the previous scheme.
the language of the letter is sometimes less than clear, but it does suggest some thought has gone into questioning what this project will become.
like all architects, Ma also wants to suggest that perhaps he (and others) have the means to provide some answers.
kungapa> the marriage of architecture and friedman's free market is a heavy subject and require an in depth research...
from my understanding, architecture works with limits, the limit of gravity, greed, inhumanity... etc while friedman's free market works with borderless world, automata...
the merging of two is a very interesting contemporary issue... sometimes architecture define the limit for a self-organizing markets to proliferate and at other times the market define the limit of architecture and use it as a tool to maximize profit (as in the case of dubai)
i'm in no position to give further comments since i have not done any research, just simply being aware of this issue.
lebbes wood make a similar point of the issue i mentioned...
http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/bad-faith/
i also leave comments there at the end-
"architects have this blind faith in receiving data from a developer, believing this is what the future needs… in the stock market, a smart investor will read behind the data knowing that this is the future the big player wants you to believe in."
i revisit his blog and more crap writing... wonder if USC ppl are too nice to tell him his writing is shxt?
guys,
let us forget about the English writing issues for a moment, here is some new photos and thoughts carried out by QMA. pls make sure visit the blog, there are many HK meeting pictures posted and some familiar faces.
Hong Kong Thoughts (2008-12-15 11:04)
What is the purpose for an project like wkad? Is it to boost urban vitality through art and culture, or is it to boost art by the intensity of urban lives? If it is the first case, the fact that all art scenes which are intreative with urbanism tend to fade and diminish would challenge us to conceive and construct extravagant public buildings which will be so difficult to remove in times when they are obsolete. If it is the second phase, museums in what we have encountered relate little to art production and cultural originality. They become simply places for presenting art and sufficate culture.
Michael's comments on organic growth and temporary construction is right on. I have posed a question during the Shenzhen Biennale, do we trust our judgment to the future? Not for us but for our children? The answer is obvious: no. But it is immensely difficult because the contemporary politics. Lack of human continuity and full of budgetary schedule simply prevents a very profound and simple intelligence. Therefore, it is hongkong's creativity to reformulate the political and financial protocols to succeed in this project. Political creativity is much more essential to hongkong's society! More than art.
Rem's suggestion is not organically free of planning, instead, it is a specifically strategized gradual accomplishment of collision between each programs and multiplication between the old and new Kowloon. It is to plan a city first then to use Art facilities to facilitate the city. Therefore, enters the number 2 purpose, which is art stimulates city! Then Art will be in a process of fading or reinvent itself in time and places.
source: http://blog.sina.com.cn/spamaps
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.