Advertisement

Carving Enclaves of Alternative Urbanisms in Hong Kong

  • Sonia Lam-Knott
Chapter

Abstract

Although alternative spaces are intended to represent a rupture from ‘mainstream’ forms of urbanity and are thus often depicted as autonomous enclaves by scholars, this chapter demonstrates how they are influenced by the very urban conditions they seek to challenge. Using Hong Kong as an example, the chapter examines how urban land-use policies and power imbalances between the government and the population affect the manifestation of alternative spaces and determine whether they can be maintained over time. Analysis of Occupy Central (2011–2012) and Woofer Ten (2009–2015) shows that despite using differing methods to challenge government-led urbanism, both alternative spaces shared common ground in straddling an ambiguous line between legality and illegality, antagonising Special Administrative Region (SAR) officials and ostracising support from the Hong Kong public, ultimately affecting the lifespan of these urban alternatives.

Keywords

Autonomous enclaves Youth activism Hong Kong SAR Occupy Urban politics Public space 

References

  1. Abbas, A. (1997). Hong Kong: Other Histories, Other Politics. Public Culture, 9, 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-9-3-293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple Daily. (2013, July 30). Faanbaakyun Wutfaateng zousauwui coengdei (反霸權活化廳 遭收回場地, Anti-Hegemonic Space Woofer Ten Met with Demand for Space to be Given Back). Retrieved from http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130730/18355283
  3. Asiasentinel. (2010, January 11). The Post-80s from Another Angle (A. Poon, Trans.). Retrieved from https://www.asiasentinel.com/alicepoon/hong-kong-current-events/the-post-80s-from-another-angle/
  4. Bresnihan, P., & Byrne, M. (2015). Escape into the City: Everyday Practices of Commoning and the Production of Urban Space in Dublin. Antipode, 47(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, A. (2012, November 6). Woofer Ten Tenancy Dispute. AsiaArtPacific. Retrieved from http://artasiapacific.com/News/WooferTenTenancyDispute
  6. Chatterton, P. (2010). Seeking the Urban Common: Furthering the Debate on Spatial Justice. City, 14(6), 625–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.525304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chatterton, P. (2016). Building Transitions to Post-Capitalist Urban Commons. Transactions, 41, 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, N. Y. (2012a, June 16). Gaagaacinzik Gongtit baakyun taizandi (加價前夕 港鐵霸權睇真啲, On the Eve of Fare Increase, Review the Hegemonic Practices of the MTR Corporation). Ming Pao Weekly, Issue 2275, pp. 82–109.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, N. Y. (2012b, August 18). Cingcoengcinzik Zimling satluk (清場前夕佔領實錄, Before Clearance, a Clear Record of Occupy Central). Ming Pao Weekly, Issue 2284, pp. 74–101.Google Scholar
  10. Crouch, D., & Parker, G. (2003). “Digging-up” Utopia? Space, Practice and Land Use Heritage. Geoforum, 34, 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00080-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuthbert, A. R. (1995). The Right to the City: Surveillance, Private Interest and the Public Domain in Hong Kong. Cities, 12(5), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(95)00073-UCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuthbert, A. R., & McKinnell, K. G. (1997). Ambiguous Space, Ambiguous Rights—Corporate Power and Social Control in Hong Kong. Cities, 14(5), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(97)00020-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. London: University of Berkeley Press.Google Scholar
  14. Doran, V. C. (2011, March 1). Viewed from a Train: Glimpses of the Artist as Hong Kong Citizen. Asia Art Archive [Online essay]. Retrieved from http://www.aaa.org.hk/en/ideas/ideas/viewed-from-a-train-glimpses-of-the-artist-as-hong-kong-citizen
  15. Feigenbaum, A., Frenzel, F., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Protest Camps. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  16. Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Kovacheff, C. (2017). Extreme Protest Tactics Reduce Popular Support for Social Movements. Rotman School of Management Working Paper No. 2911177. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2911177
  17. Gilchrist, P., & Ravenscrotft, N. (2013). Space Hijacking and the Anarcho-Politics of Leisure. Leisure Studies, 32, 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2012.680069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein, B. D. (2017). The Roots of Urban Renaissance: Gentrification and Struggle Over Harlem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review II, 53, 23–40 Retrieved from https://newleftreview.org/II/53/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-cityGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  21. Hetherington, K. (1998). Expressions of Identity: Space, Performance, Politics. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  22. HKSAR Lands Department. (2018). Land Sale Result 2017/2018 [PDF Report]. Retrieved from https://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/landsale/records/2017-2018.pdf
  23. Kränzle, E. (2017). Public Space in a Parallel Universe: Conflict, Coexistence, and Co-optation between Alternative Urbanisms and the Neoliberalising City. In J. Hou & S. Knierbien (Eds.), City Unsilenced: Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrinking Democracy (pp. 186–198). Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krischer, O. (2017). Thinking of Art as Informal Life Politics in Hong Kong. In T. Morris-Suzuki & E. J. Soh (Eds.), New Worlds from Below: Informal Life Politics and Grassroots Action in Twenty-First Century Northeast Asia (pp. 197–226). Australia: The Australian National University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lang, A. S., & Lang/Levitsky, D. (Eds.). (2013). Dreaming in Public: Building the Occupy movement. Oxford: New Internationalist.Google Scholar
  26. Lau, L. (2012). Hijacking the Public Sphere: Performance, Politics, and the Everyday Citizen at Hong Kong Times Square. Polymath, 2(3), 35–54 Retrieved from https://ojcs.siue.edu/ojs/index.php/polymath/article/view/2610
  27. Law, L. (2002). Defying Disappearance: Cosmopolitan Public Spaces in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 39(9), 1625–1645. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220151691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazar, S. (2015). “This is Not a Parade, It’s a Protest March”: Intertextuality, Citation, and Political Action on the Streets of Bolivia and Argentina. American Anthropologist, 117(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, C. F. (2017). Questions Out of the Demonstration Area (E. W. Ho, Interviewer). In H. Bashiron Mendolicchio & S. Bosch (Eds.), Art in Context: Learning from the Field (pp. 60–71). Berlin: Goethe-Institute e.V.Google Scholar
  30. Nissim, R. (2011). Land Administration and Practice in Hong Kong (3rd ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pierson, J., & Smith, J. (2001). Introduction. In J. Smith (Ed.), Rebuilding Community: Policy and Practice in Urban Regeneration (pp. 1–12). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poon, A. (2011). Hong Kong’s Land Policy: A Recipe for Social Trouble. Hong Kong Journal. Retrieved from http://www.hkjournal.org/PDF/2011_spring/3.pdf
  33. Purcell, M. (2013). Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramadan, A. (2012). From Tahrir to the World: The Camp as Public Political Space. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(1), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776412459863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shelton, B., Karakiewicz, J., & Kvan, T. (2015). The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Sito, P., & Li, S. (2017, January 23). Hong Kong the World’s Priciest Home Market for the Seventh Year. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/business/article/2064554/hong-kong-named-most-expensive-housing-market-world-seventh-straight-year
  37. Smith, P. C. (2013). Reshaping Hong Kong: Dimensions of Change in a Compact City. In V. Bharne (Ed.), The Emerging Asian City: Concomitant Urbanities and Urbanisms (pp. 213–224). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Sohn, H., Kousoulas, S., & Bruyns, G. (2015). Introduction: Commoning as Differentiated Publicness. Footprint: Delft Architecture Theory Journal, 16, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.9.1.895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soja, E. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thörn, H., Wasshede, C., & Nilson, T. (Eds.). (2011). Space for Urban Alternatives? Christiania 1971–2011. Vilnius: BALTOprint. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/26558/3/gupea_2077_26558_3.pdf
  41. Woofer Ten. (2012, October). Kap Hoenggongngaiseotfaatzinguk jikap gwaansum Wutfaateng dik gungzung dik gunghoiseon (給香港藝術發展局以及關心活化廳的公眾的公開信, An Open Letter to the Arts Development Council and to those Who are Concerned about Woofer Ten) [Blogspot post]. Retrieved from http://wooferten.blogspot.sg/2012/10/201210-25.html
  42. Woofer Ten. (2016). Woofer Ten’s Art/Activist in Residence (AAiR) 2013–15. Hong Kong: Woofer Ten.Google Scholar
  43. Yiğit-Turan, B. (2017). Occupy Gezi Park: In Search of a Public Space, Democracy and Alternative City Making. In J. Hou & S. Knierbein (Eds.), City Unsilenced: Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrinking Democracy (pp. 83–93). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asian UrbanismsNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations