When will Hong Kong stop building skyscraping boxes with bay windows?

Undersecretary for Development David Lam Chi-man recently called for a fresh 'facilitator' mindset to streamline the project vetting and approval process, while the Buildings, Fire Services, Highways and Water Supplies Departments all committed to cutting excessive red tape. Such initiatives are a small step in saving resources and time, and a giant leap in inspiring new development interests.
Advertisement
The message shines a welcome light, showing that even bureaucracy can change and adapt to the current market conditions. To reinvent ourselves, we should not stop at streamlining the process, but should also question the quality of our built environments.
In his architectural manifesto Humanise,
British designer Thomas Heatherwick condemns modernism as spearheaded by Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier and popularised in the 20th century. He argues that as modernism took over the world, built environments were stripped of beauty, interesting elements and emotional connections with people.
His words remind me of Hong Kong buildings, and I don't mean particular starchitects' masterpieces, skyscrapers or cultural facilities. I mean the everyday architecture where most people live and work.
Surprisingly, Heatherwick gives a shout-out to Hong Kong as a positive example of visual interest. 'A lot of buildings in Hong Kong have visual complexity, as a direct result of a government initiative from a number of years ago that encouraged bay windows,' he writes. 'The towers that got built as a result were no longer flat and smooth but much more three-dimensional – and therefore more interesting for everyone passing by.'
Residential buildings in Hong Kong's Tseung Kwan O district, seen in November 2023. Photo: Sun Yeung

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RTHK

a day ago

• RTHK

UK MPs vote in favour of assisted dying bill

UK MPs vote in favour of assisted dying bill Supporters of the assisted dying law for terminally ill people hold up a banner in London. Photo: Reuters Britain took a historic step towards allowing euthanasia on Friday when MPs backed contentious legislation that would introduce assisted dying for terminally ill people. Lawmakers in the lower House of Commons chamber voted 314 in favour to 291 to send the proposal to the upper House of Lords for further scrutiny following four hours of emotional debate. The outcome sparked celebrations among supporters gathered outside parliament who say legalised euthanasia will give people with an incurable illness dignity and choice at the end of their lives. But opponents attending a neighbouring counter-protest said they feared vulnerable people could be coerced into dying and urged lawmakers to focus on improving palliative care instead. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow assisted suicide in England and Wales for adults who have been given less than six months to live. They would have to be able to administer the life-ending substance themselves, and any patient's wish to die would have to be signed off by two doctors and a panel of experts. A change in the law would see Britain emulate several other countries in Europe and elsewhere that allow some form of assisted dying, including Belgium and the Netherlands. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the legislation, said a law change would "offer a compassionate and safe choice" for terminally ill people. She said maintaining the status quo would mean more "heartbreaking stories" of "pain and trauma, suicide attempts, PTSD, lonely trips to Switzerland, [and] police investigations". But Vicky Foxcroft, also of Labour, said the proposal did not include adequate safeguards for disabled people. "We have to protect those people who are susceptible to coercion, who already feel like society doesn't value them, who often feel like a burden to the state, society and their family," she pleaded. Assisted suicide currently carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Separate legislation is going through the devolved Scottish parliament. At the end of March, the Isle of Man became the first British territory to pass an assisted dying bill. (AFP)

HKFP

3 days ago

• HKFP

Taiwan says UK Navy ship sailed through Taiwan Strait

Taiwan said Thursday a British Navy patrol vessel sailed through the Taiwan Strait, a move that challenges China's claim to the sensitive waterway. Beijing views Taiwan as part of its territory and claims jurisdiction over the body of water that separates the self-ruled island from the Chinese mainland. The United States and other countries view the 180-kilometre (112-mile) Taiwan Strait as international waters that should be open to all vessels. 'The British Royal Navy patrol vessel HMS Spey sailed through the Taiwan Strait on June 18,' Taiwan's foreign ministry said in a statement. 'The UK has once again taken concrete action to uphold freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait and demonstrate the firm position that the Taiwan Strait is international waters.' The last time a British Navy ship transited the Taiwan Strait was in 2021, when the HMS Richmond, a frigate deployed with Britain's aircraft carrier strike group, sailed through from Japan to Vietnam. China strongly condemned Britain at the time and deployed its military to follow the vessel. A Canadian warship passed through the strait in February this year, days after a US destroyer and a US ocean survey ship made the passage. Taiwan's military has been reporting near-daily sightings of Chinese warships around its waters, as well as sorties by drones and fighter jets around the island. Taiwan's defence ministry said Thursday it had detected 25 Chinese military aircraft and 7 navy vessels in the 24 hours to 6:00 am.

Asia Times

3 days ago

• Asia Times

Trump made clear he does not fit in with G7, nor does he want to

Working alongside western democratic allies has not been a natural fit for Donald Trump. The US president left the recently concluded G7 summit in Canada early, with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron assuming this was to work on addressing the most severe escalation between Iran and Israel in decades. But Trump offered little communication with other G7 members, which include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, of what his plans were. He said he had to leave the summit 'for obvious reasons', though failed to elaborate on what he meant. After exiting the summit, he lambasted Macron on social media. Trump wrote: 'Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire.' Trump continued by saying his exit was due to something 'much bigger than that' – adding, 'Emmanuel always gets it wrong.' This has prompted discussion over whether US forces may join Israel's strikes on Iran. Despite initially distancing the US from the Israeli attacks, Trump said on June 17: 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He has since demanded Tehran's 'unconditional surrender', while also issuing a chilling threat to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describing him as an 'easy target.' The pressure campaign employed by Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to convince Trump that the time is right for a military assault on Iran seems to be working. Exploiting Trump's impulsive nature, Netanyahu may soon be able to convince Trump to give Israel what it needs to destroy Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites: a 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bomb and a B-2 bomber to carry it. The US's western allies have been left scrambling to interpret Trump's social media posts and figure out the real reason he left the G7 summit early. The only aircraft capable of carrying 'bunker-buster' bombs is the B-2. Mariusz Lopusiewicz / Shutterstock This wasn't the first time that Trump has left a G7 forum early. In 2018, the last time such a meeting was held in Canada, Trump also left early after Macron and the then Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, promised to confront Trump over the imposition of tariffs on US allies. The latest G7 summit also wasn't the first time Trump has treated traditional US allies with suspicion. Trump has cast doubt on US willingness to defend NATO allies if they don't pay more for their own defense. He has repeatedly threatened to leave the alliance and has frequently denigrated it – even calling alliance members 'delinquent.' Trump thinks the US gains an advantage by abandoning relationships with 'free riders.' But experts have made clear alienating allies makes the US weaker. While the alliance system has given the US unprecedented influence over the foreign policies of US allies in the past, Trump's pressure to increase their defense spending will make them more independent of the US in the long-term. Trump seems to prefer a world guided by short-term self-interest at the expense of long-term collective security. Indeed, with an 'America first' agenda, multilateral cooperation is not Trump's strong suit. With the G7, Trump is yet again making clear that he does not fit in, nor does he want to. Because the G7 is small and relatively homogenous in membership, meetings between members are supposed to promote collective and decisive decision-making. However, even the task of coming up with a joint statement on the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel proved challenging. Trump eventually joined other leaders in calling for deescalation in the Middle East, and the G7 was in agreement that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. But Trump's social media activity since then has left US allies in the dark over what role the US might play in the conflict. Trump also alarmed G7 members with calls for Russia to return to the forum. He claimed that the war in Ukraine would not have happened had Moscow not been ejected from the former G8 grouping in 2014. Then, on his way out of the summit, Trump bragged to reporters that Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, 'doesn't speak to anybody else' but him. Trump added that Putin was insulted when Russia was thrown out of the G8, 'as I would be, as you would be, as anybody would be.' Following weeks of frustration over Russia's refusal to engage in serious peace talks about ending the war in Ukraine, Trump seems to have returned to being Putin's most loyal advocate. During Trump's first term, he pushed multilateralism to the brink. But he did not completely disengage. The US withdrew from the Paris climate accords, the nuclear deal with Iran and negotiations for a trade deal with Pacific nations – and Washington imposed sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court. However, when multilateral initiatives served Trump's short-term objectives, he was willing to get on board. A trade deal struck with Canada and Mexico in his first term Trump described as 'the most important' ever agreed by the US. He said the deal would bring thousands of jobs back to North America. The second Trump administration has been even more hostile to multilateralism. Not only has the trade deal with Canada and Mexico been undermined by Trump's love of tariffs, his administration has been more antagonistic toward almost all of the US's traditional allies. In fact, most of Trump's ire is reserved for democracies not autocracies. In contrast to the G7, where he clearly felt out of place, Trump was in his element during his May trip to the Middle East. Trump has a more natural connection to the leaders of the Gulf who do not have to adhere to democratic norms and human rights, and where deals can get done immediately. Trump left the Middle East reveling in all of the billion-dollar deals he made, which he exaggerated were worth US$2 trillion. The G7, on the other hand, doesn't offer much to Trump. He sees it as more of a nuisance. The G7 forum is supposed to reassure the public that the most powerful countries in the world are united in their commitment to stability. But Trump's antics are undermining the credibility of that message. It is these antics that risk dragging the west into a dangerous confrontation with Iran. Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.