Hong Kong heritage: can Central Market escape the fate of becoming just another shopping mall?

While commerce and responsible design are not necessarily incompatible, Central Market will be operated by the Urban Renewal Authority and a private developer
It remains to be seen whether they will be able to resist the purely profit motive

Dennis Lee

Published: 6:45am, 25 Feb 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

Twelve years after former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen announced that Central Market would be part of the “Conserving Central” initiative in his 2009 policy address, the project might finally see some progress with a 10-year revitalisation contract being awarded to Noble Vantage, a subsidiary of Chinachem Group.

While this is encouraging news, the realisation of the project is long overdue, having gone through cycles of design competition, public consultation, judicial review and the statutory approval process.

Similar to the nearby Tai Kwun and PMQ, Central Market is a former government property with deep historic significance dating back to the mid-19th century. The Bauhaus building – rebuilt in 1938 – is far from being statement architecture; rather, its merits lie in its historical significance as a bazaar in Hong Kong’s busiest district.

Unlike the two revitalisation projects mentioned above, Central Market will be implemented and operated by a consortium of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and a private developer instead of a charitable foundation or educational institution.

Only time will tell if such a delivery model will outperform the other two projects in execution and operation. But one thing we can be sure of: private developers enter any project for no other reason than to maximise returns on their investment, and the revenue streams are always rental yield and consumer spending.

05:08

Prisons in Hong Kong: The story of Victoria prison

Since changing its name from the Land Development Corporation 20 years ago, the URA has not necessarily had the best reputation and track record in building preservation or addressing local concerns, often being criticised for colluding with private developers to maximise profits and tearing apart the original fabric of the neighbourhood.

This certainly raises the possibility that Central Market could become just another shopping mall behind the rhetorical themes of “approachable, energetic and gregarious”, following in the footsteps of other URA projects.

One should not forget Lee Tung Street redevelopment, when the URA bulldozed the old buildings, destroying the local culture and business community, while promising to bring back the printing and wedding-themed shops.

In reality, prime retail space in the completed development is now leased to an electric car showroom, restaurants and cafes, boutiques, high-end fashion brands and a supermarket. None of the original business owners could afford to resettle there, so the wedding theme of the redevelopment has disappeared.

A view of Lee Tung Street in Wan Chai in September 2016. Once known for shops that specialised in printing wedding cards, its character completely changed after it was redeveloped by the URA and private developers. Photo: David Wong

The problem lies in the lack of checks and balances and accountability. Being a quasi-governmental organisation, the for-profit URA expropriates land as it sees fit, with small business owners and residents often ending up with raw deal.

In various projects including Kwun Tong Town Centre, the public engagement process was symbolic at best, with the URA carrying out the design and execution work with a lack of empathy and transparency. If private developers in Hong Kong are wolves, the URA is the sheep’s clothing.

How urban renewal cost Hong Kong historic business districts and handed developers big profits

Intentionally or not, details of the Central Market revitalisation contract were not revealed. The public would expect the self-financing URA, which was granted the site in 2017 by the government, and Chinachem to foot the redevelopment bill, once estimated to be more than HK$700 million.

Certainly, the price tag would be higher today, even for the “scaled down” version envisioned by the URA. Like any construction project, the consortium would need to account for increasingly high material and labour costs while attempting to fulfil Chinachem CEO Donald Choi Wun-hing’s promise of offering reasonable rent to future tenants.

While the building’s heritage offers a worthy script for a brand story, “local brands and start-ups”, which Choi claimed to champion, are hardly the type of tenants that can generate significant profits. The public will have to wait and see if these promises turn out to be as hollow as the ones for Lee Tung Street.

A view of Central Market in November 1977. Photo: SCMP

Central Market has a lot of design potential. The high ceiling, large clerestory windows and open atrium of the original building were meant to maximise natural light and ventilation, making the building ideal for environmentally responsible design – one that could put the underutilised, underperforming and programme-lacking Zero Carbon Building to shame.

The ground floor could be opened up as an extension of the busy pavements on four sides of the building; the first-floor connection between the Central escalators and International Finance Centre already allows the public to walk through the building.

By default, Central Market is an ideal piece of civic infrastructure, given its unique location and the surrounding urban context. Commerce and responsible design are not necessarily incompatible, the only question is whether the mission is in good hands.

Dennis Lee is a Hong Kong-born, American-licensed architect with 22 years of design experience in the US and China