Rediscovering the Hong Kong Cultural Centre

Since its opening in 1989, the evaluation of the Hong Kong Cultural Center as a city landmark has been mixed, and the almost closed building type or the pink "toilet bricks" on the outer walls of the Victoria Harbour have been criticized. But (perhaps until the West Kowloon venues come into service) the Cultural Centre is undeniably the most important cultural venue in Hong Kong for three decades, and a public space frequently used by the public and tourists, art lovers or not. When more in-depth discussions are covered by generally negative comments, it is easy to simply dismiss the importance of cultural centers. At a time when the development of the West Kowloon Cultural District has aroused public attention to cultural construction, now is the right time to review the story of the cultural center in the 7/80s for reference, and try to ignore the superficial beauty and ugliness to discuss the role of cultural construction as architecture and public institutions. concept.

The conception of the Hong Kong Cultural Center began as early as the 1960s, shortly after the completion of the City Hall, and the first version of the conceptual design and overall planning were announced in 1974. The 1970s and 1980s were an important period for Hong Kong's urban and cultural development. It evolved from an early colonial port to an international financial city, and gradually formed a unique identity and cultural identity. The design process of the cultural center built in this period provides various clues about the cultural environment of Hong Kong today, and the historical context also helps us to look forward to the future cultural development of Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Cultural Centre is the first large-scale public cultural building designed by a Chinese architect. The conception to design execution of the entire project was undertaken by Jose Lei, the chief architect of the government, and a team of young local architects who were mostly graduates of the University of Hong Kong at the time, marking the localization transition of senior civil servants in Hong Kong. Although John Prescott, chairman and member of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, advocated in the early days that such a large-scale public project should be subject to international bidding, the Urban Council, as a decision maker, did not accept his opinion and decided to implement it by government architects. This is directly related to the institutional reform of the Municipal Council's financial and administrative independence in 1973. The then chairman of the Urban Council, Salis, had great ambitions for large-scale public construction, and the Cultural Center project is one of the representative works. Therefore, the Urban Council also used time and efficiency as an excuse to allow the project to be executed by the government's internal architects to maintain a high degree of control. . Although there were many discussions at the level of civil society and the Legislative Council, it can be seen that the Urban Council had a certain degree of autonomy at that time, with the Chairman of the Urban Council as the head to promote and manage public cultural projects.

The architectural concept and design process of the Cultural Center also represent the development direction of Hong Kong's public cultural buildings over the next two decades until the handover. The Architectural Office of the early colonial government has always been headed by British architects, and many British and European post-war modern architectural concepts have been adopted in Hong Kong's public architectural practice. Based on the principle of low-cost and pragmatic design, most of Hong Kong's public buildings (such as the City Hall) in the 1960s were known for their functional modern style. By the mid-to-late 1970s, although economy and practicality were still one of the main considerations, the design of the Hong Kong Cultural Center also added the vision of building a cultural landmark . Discussions at that time often took the Sydney Opera House as an example, with a unique building as a city symbol for external promotion. This attitude of paying attention to architectural symbolism was probably also influenced by the postmodernist architecture that was popular at the time, and it was also in line with Hong Kong's economic boom and self-confidence, which needed to be displayed to the outside world.

On the other hand, after the war, many Western countries (including the United Kingdom) implemented welfarist policies, and cultural development was one of the core policies of social reconstruction, giving rise to the concept of "cultural centers" as public cultural institutions. "Cultural centers" in different places such as comprehensive theaters/exhibition halls/activity rooms aim to build a civil society, which is reflected in its architectural space and functional planning, educating citizens through cultural activities and fostering a sense of community belonging. Hong Kong was a British colony at that time, was there a corresponding cultural policy? Is the Hong Kong Cultural Centre patrolling the development of this idea? Looking back on the development of public cultural buildings in Hong Kong since the war, the government built a number of cultural facilities such as regional town halls/civil centers and theaters at the end of the 20th century. Their functional planning and design standards are mostly based on the Hong Kong Cultural Center. Therefore, the importance of the Hong Kong Cultural Center is not only its own architectural features, but also the benchmark and model for the design of many subsequent public buildings by government departments such as the Architectural Services Department and the LCSD. The final architectural space and form of a public project actually largely reflects the impact of policies and systems on pre-planning, and the "design brief" (the brief) is not only a document listing functions and area requirements, but also represents the future The vision and goals of the cultural institution that manages the venue. Taking the Hong Kong Cultural Center as an example, the design and construction process has always included the opinions and discussions of different stakeholders such as government officials/members and the public. These different positions and tensions directly affect the subsequent cultural policy and development. direction.

Therefore, the importance of the Hong Kong Cultural Center lies in the overlap of its construction time with the urban transformation of Hong Kong, and also lays the foundation for the development of local public cultural institutions. From the first public concept plan in 1974 to the opening ceremony in November 1989, the construction process and its ups and downs for more than ten years have become a portrayal of Hong Kong's culture and urban development. The next few articles will explore the design and construction process of this cultural landmark in detail, in order to analyze the characteristics and concepts of local cultural buildings and public spaces.