We need your contribution of idea!
If you are Choi Hung Estate resident or you are keen on providing insight, just contact us by email or Instagram DM now!
We do not have a definitive solution for the preservation of Choi Hung Estate, as it requires further discussion among all stakeholders involved. Therefore, we need inspiration to better understand the challenges and opportunities from various perspectives. While reusing public housing heritage may be a relatively new concept in Hong Kong, it has been successfully implemented and within a mature heritage protection framework in the UK and other regions. What can we learn from that?
The ideas pool invites both international and local heritage, architectural experts to share their insights on the topic, and we also include residents of Choi Hung Estate to gain their unique perspective on the estate's value.
‘’ Modernist heritage is a unique and vulnerable living record of amazing innovation, and an extraordinary design legacy with the capacity to inspire the future. ‘’
Director of Twentieth Century Society
Catherine Croft
How would you assess the value of modernist heritage differently compared to those in neoclassical or other older architectural styles?
As the Twentieth Century Society has been preserving outstanding buildings constructed since 1914, why do you think it is important to maintain them as part of the British landscape?
Given that London is facing a housing crisis similar to Hong Kong's, why do you believe demonising or demolishing estates is not an effective direction?
There is a lot of talk about how modernist heritage might be different from that of previous periods, but I think fundamentally we value it for the same reasons and should apply the same principles when deciding how to treat it. The idea that what is significant about modernist architecture is primarily the original architect’s intention, the purity of his (very occasionally her) design ignores the fact that the construction methods and materials of a building record much information about what was available in terms of skills and products, and what that says about the society that produced the building. The materiality of modernist buildings is often undervalued, and should be treasured as much as that of earlier buildings, despite the perceived lack of craft skills sometimes cites as a reason to be more dismissive.
Like all periods, the C20 produced buildings of vast range of quality, for a range of budgets, intended life spans and for widely diverse briefs. The best C20 buildings (not all of which are modernist, of course) are outstanding and equal in value to those of earlier centuries, be that in terms of their design, the quality of materials and craftsmanship or the stories they tell about societies. The C20 was a time of enormous change, in terms of technology, economy, the architectural profession and lifestyles. It generated an unprecedented number of building types, many new styles of architecture, and so it has an extraordinarily rich history. There are also compelling environmental reasons to keep and reuse buildings.
I like to think we have got beyond demonizing public housing estates! Many of the best are now celebrated by listing, and some are designated as conservation areas. It is more and more widely accepted that it is usually not the original architecture which is the problem, but the lack of maintenance. Our problem is that even those estates with an element of high-rise now look very modest in height compared to what is being built new today, and think that is probably all the more the case in Hong Kong. I think we need to keep the best of the past both as exemplars of good practice and to inspire the future. This will only happen if enough people understand and value why they are special.
‘’ Council housing contributed immeasurably to not only the architectural, but also the social fabric of London.‘’
Author of the book ‘’ London Estates: Modernist Council Housing 1946-1981 ‘’
Thaddeus
Zupancic
What interests you in important documenting council housing in London, and what makes them special?
How would you describe the architectural value of council housing, considering the homogeneity present across different projects?
You must have visited some council housing that has been refurbished or redeveloped. Could you share one or two interesting or positive examples that could inspire us
The foundation of my interest in social housing in general and council housing in particular was Vienna: my father explained "Red Vienna" to me on one of our numerous visits to Austria - I grew up in the neighbouring Slovenia, which was then part of Yugoslavia. After I moved to London I quite quickly realised what an extraordinary history - so comprehensive and intriguing - of council housing there was in London and the rest of the United Kingdom too: indeed, only Vienna came close. There is a very important difference, of course: after the Housing Act 1980 there were very few new council housing schemes built in London, whereas in Vienna they continued and still continue. But the history... I have to say I started with very little knowledge about London. As a visitor you don’t have to grasp the intricacies of local government, but as a resident you should; it really is your civic duty. And then I started learning about the Lonodon County Council and its successor, the Greater London Council, the abolition of the latter, the role of local boroughs and the changes in 1965... The importance of documenting council houses in London is, I think, very simple: to show how things were done in the past, because the shortage of affordable and decent homes will only get worse.
I am not sure that there is really homogeneity: sure, most housing in the period I am interested in - from 1946 to 1981 - is Modernist, very often brutalist, but these are just signs of the time - it's interesting to see how adventurous and varied are architects' takes on the purported constraints, even dogma, of Modernism. If you really want to talk about homogeneity: what about the sameness, uniformity of housing built in the last seven or ten years?
Two good examples: a brilliant and award-winning refurbishment of Great Arthur House on the Golden Lane Estate - John Robertson Architects and Mott MacDonald did a truly excellent job with Chamberlin, Powell and Bon's first high-rise - and the continuous care by Westminster Council of their Churchill Gardens Estate - by Powell & Moya - and the Lillington Gardens Estate - by Darbourne & Darke: it is true that both estates are listed and therefore protected, but the council's management is also important. And one bad example: the grotesque refurbishment of Ernő Goldfinger's Balfron Tower in Poplar: what was done is not only questionable and wrong but also inexcusable - especially because the building is listed too.
Geraldine Dening
Assistant Professor at HKU, co-founder and lead architect of Architects for Social Housing (ASH) CIC
‘’ Refurbishment and infill can achieve the densities required. Refurbishment and infill is more socially and culturally beneficial, environmentally sustainable and economically viable than demolition and reconstruction. ‘’
Architects for Social Housing (ASH) has been advocating for an alternative future of social housing that avoids demolition. What key approaches can balance increasing housing supply while preserving the existing community?
Could you briefly introduce a successful social housing project you have worked on that could inspire us?
For the government, what do you believe is the strongest argument for refurbishing social housing rather than opting for complete demolition?
In all the social housing projects we worked on in the UK between 2014-2022, we were always able to find significant opportunities for additional housing in infill areas and on roof-top extensions. We were able to increase the density by 30-50% and in one case up to 80%, so these are definitely opportunities that should be explored before demolition is decided. We found that these options - combined with refurbishment and improvements to the existing buildings, landscape and community facilities - were considerably cheaper than demolition and rebuild, and had considerably lower environmental impact, and meant that the existing community was able to remain in their homes.
Our proposal for St Raphael’s estate demonstrated that we could add up to 80% more housing on the existing site. The sale or rent of around 50% of the new housing would be able to fund the new construction and the improvements to the existing estate. We have not yet encountered any estate that cannot be improved with refurbishment and incremental densification.
We believe the argument is 4 fold - economic, social, environmental and cultural. Economic - we demonstrated refurbishment and infill scheme was approximately 1/3 the cost of full demolition and rebuilding. Social - the existing community can remain and be supported Environmental - the environmental costs of demolition and rebuilding are immense - with air and noise pollution, loss of existing biodiversity, the area being blighted for decades, as well as the embodied carbon costs of demolishing and rebuilding which we calculated to be around 4 times that of a refurbishment and infill scheme. Cultural - the cultural value of existing housing estates and their communities is not sufficiently acknowledged. I do not believe that demolishing and erasing the past is a way to value or reinforce our communities and - albeit relatively recent - heritage. The identity of our cities is constructed, and it is the working classes that contribute the most, whose identity and culture is continually being erased and lost. We have not been presented with a sufficiently strong argument FOR wholesale demolition and reconstruction because I don’t believe the alternatives have been adequately explored.