Signs of the Times
There is nothing more iconic in Hong Kong than a street full of neon signs—but increasingly more people are fed up with the pollution they cause, and the danger posed by their potential collapse.
They are an important part of Hong Kong’s street culture and character——large neon signs dangling above the street, just inches from the passing double-decker buses. Tourists love them, and we love them. But not everyone does—green groups are upset with the amount of pollution they generate, and for unsuspecting pedestrians, falling pieces of derelict signs are a tragedy waiting to happen.
In 2008, there were 20 cases of material falling onto streets from signboards, resulting in at least one reported serious injury. Besides being smacked in the head with a falling sign, there are other, less obvious dangers. Dr. Cheung Luk-ki, the division head of scientific research and conservation at Green Power, says that many of the signs that line Nathan Road obstruct airflow and create an “urban heat island” effect (much like the skyscrapers in Central), creating increased temperatures and higher levels of air pollution. “There are too many signs like these around the city,” Dr. Cheung says, “and most of them are quite large, which results in the disruption of the horizontal movement of air. If it’s a busy main street with a lot of vehicles, such as Nathan Road, the effect is worsened.” For years, groups such as Green Power have been trying to find a solution, and have been recommending removals to the government.
The excessive amount of light pollution generated from these signs is another common complaint. Light pollution became a topic of popular concern in Hong Kong last year after environmental group Friends of the Earth called for a boycott against Prada unless they dimmed their illuminated signboard in Central. Legislative councilor for the architecture sector Patrick Lau says that many people are now calling for a law to protect against light pollution. Though Lau recognizes light pollution as a “disturbance,” he points out that “neon signs bring a sense of charm to our city.”
Engineer Dr. Greg Wong agrees that the lights are an important part of Hong Kong, but one must take into account the downsides. “As a prosperous commercial center and as a ‘shopper’s paradise’ we can’t avoid neon signs, and they provide a sense of visual pleasure you don’t get in other cities. But we must consider issues like public safety and pollution, which are more important than the issue of image. I’m not saying we should ban signboards. We just need to control them.“
The government recognizes the risk posed by derelict signboards and last year sunk $1 million into the inspection of 32,000 signs and removed 2,000 they determined were at risk of collapse. Some legislators are critical of the government’s methodology, however, pointing out that there is no clear and comprehensive review system to gauge the danger of signs, which is further complicated because as Dr. Cheung points out, many dangerous signs are derelict and no one can find the owners, if they still exist. Lau says, “There must be a system to remove signs that are dangerous and not well-maintained, and this is especially true during typhoon season.”
Signboards generally face a relative lack of governmental oversight. Currently, signboards are regulated only for maximum display area, dimension, position, material and the structural standard of signboards. Also, guidelines state that all signboards are supposed to be constructed in a way that “no part of a signboard shall obstruct or reduce the required natural lighting and ventilation or open space provided to a building,” according to a spokesperson for the Buildings Department. There are no regulations about the amount of light generated by an illuminated signboard.