Mainland architects in Hong Kong after 1949: a bifurcated Title history of modern chinese architecture Author(s) Wang, Haoyu.; 王浩娛. Wang, H. [王浩娛]. (2008). Mainland architects in Hong Kong after 1949 : a bifurcated history of modern chinese architecture. Citation (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b4088793. Issued Date 2008 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/50262 The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights) Rights and the right to use in future works. Abstract of thesis entitled “Mainland Architects in Hong Kong after 1949 A Bifurcated History of Modern Chinese Architecture” Submitted by WANG Hao Yu for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in June 2008 This research sets out to identify a number of Chinese architects who migrated from Mainland China to Hong Kong in and around 1949. These “migrant architects” contributed greatly to the establishment of the architectural profession in Republican China (1911-1949), and played important roles in the building of post-war Hong Kong. However, their contributions have not been fully acknowledged in the field of architectural history research in both Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China (PRC, 1949-present). On one hand, in the history of Hong Kong architecture, the Mainland migrant architects and their subculture have long been overlooked due to the colonial and postcolonial context. Although case studies on several migrant architects have been conducted, these lack a connection with their Mainland background. On the other hand, in the history of modern Chinese architecture (中国近代建筑史) in the PRC, the pre-1949 contributions of some migrant architects in Mainland China have been highly valued; however, their migration and activities in Hong Kong are less recognized. This is because the architectural history, influenced by the PRC’s political linear narrative and its dominant nation-state ideology, accepts 1949 as the beginning of a new socialist era. Other post-1949 narratives such as that of Hong Kong, a British colony under a capitalist system, have been appropriated by the dominant narrative. This research attempts to write a “bifurcated history”1 by relating the difference in development in Hong Kong and Mainland China in a parallel process. Responding to the one-sided colonial and post-colonial narratives on the Hong Kong side, it highlights the 1 For a fuller explanation of the term “bifurcated history”, see p.5 Mainland background of the migrant architects, arguing that they made unique contributions to post-war architectural development by designing for the Mainland immigrants using their Mainland experience. Reacting to the dominant linear history of modern Chinese architecture on the PRC side, it emphasizes the multiplicity in the development of the migrant architects in capitalist Hong Kong, which was different from that of their contemporaries in socialist China. Based on investigation of archives and existing buildings, and interviews with architects and their relatives, this research discovers sixty-seven “migrant architects” who fit the three conditions of being Chinese, having pre-1949 Mainland professional experience, and re-establishing in post-1949 Hong Kong. It is found that: 1) they had an overwhelming Cantonese ancestry and diverse educational backgrounds with a higher proportion being engineering based and British trained; 2) before 1949, they moved among China’s modern cities including Hong Kong, driven by economic factors, political shifts, and threats of wars; then, in around 1949, they migrated to Hong Kong due to the rising power of the Chinese Communist Party; 3) their arrival in Hong Kong caused the reform of the host architectural profession in three aspects, that is, sinicization, identification, and organization; 4) they re-established their practices in Hong Kong through preserving former professional partnerships and resuming client relations with Mainland background, including upper level entrepreneurs and lower income refugees; and 5) their attitudes towards Chinese nationalism and the “Chinese style” of architecture were transformed by Hong Kong’s post-war environment. Their responses imply a multiplicity of Chinese identifications in architecture at the levels of region and city, apart from the dominant identity of the nation-state. This research reveals the unique contributions of the migrant architects to the development of Hong Kong’s architecture during the post-war era. Moreover, the Hong Kong case offers rich material for a bifurcated history that helps to critically re-think the dominant linear history of modern Chinese architecture in the PRC. Mainland Architects in Hong Kong after 1949： A Bifurcated History of Modern Chinese Architecture by WANG Hao Yu 王浩娱 B.Sc. (Arch) Southeast University, Nanjing M.Sc. (Arch) Southeast University, Nanjing A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong June 2008 Declaration I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowledgment is made, and that it has not been previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report submitted to this University or any other institution or a degree, diploma or other qualification. Signed………………………………………………… WANG Hao Yu i Acknowledgments My sincere gratitude must first be given to my primary supervisor, Professor Desmond C K Hui, for his decisive influence on this research. I remember how Professor Hui encouraged me to study the current research topic at an early stage of my work, when I had only found a few migrant architects and their works. Fortunately, I followed his advice step by step and the results were fruitful in that as many as sixty-seven migrant architects and hundreds of works have been discovered. Without his wise guidance and constant support, I would not have made such progress, nor could I have finished this intriguing yet frustrating PhD work on time. I am also indebted to my co-supervisor, Dr. B S Jia. It is the meeting with Dr. Jia at a conference in 2002 that opened the opportunity for me to further my post-graduate study at the University of Hong Kong (HKU). I am also grateful for his helpful critique and support to improve my research during the past years. I thank Dr. Lai Delin in particular, a leading scholar in the field, who although not my supervisor, gave me insightful advice throughout my PhD study. He also generously shared with me his collection of primary data on Chinese architects, which became part of the foundation of this research. I express special gratitude to Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼) and Robert FAN Zheng (范政), the only migrant architects whom I was able to interview. Although they live in North America, both granted me face-to-face meetings when they visited Hong Kong, as well communicating with me using mails, emails, and phone calls. Both provided invaluable primary data about themselves and the history. Moreover, both read the draft of my thesis. Gratitude is also due to the descendants of LUKE Him-sau (陆谦受), a key migrant architect. Luk Shing Chark, the middle son, shared with me his excellent memory, family album, and the collections of Luke’s office documents including about 2,400 drawings. And, Luk Men-Chong, Luke’s grand-daughter, made great effort to search for the collections, to research on Luke’s works, and kindly shared with me her findings. Without Men-Chong’s effort and passion, the treasure of the collections could not have been discovered. ii I also appreciate the contributions I received from other scholars, colleagues, and friends. In Hong Kong, I thank Tim Ko, a local historian, for guiding me in the understanding of the history of Hong Kong. I thank Dr. Hans W Y Yeung, an expert in the urban history of Guangzhou and Hong Kong, for his insights on Hong Kong’s urban history. I thank Dr. Lee Pui Tak at the Centre of Asian Studies (CAS) at HKU, for offering me the opportunity to present my research in CAS’s seminars on the Shanghai-Hong Kong connections through immigrants. This provided me a broadened perspective of the 1949 migration. I thank the HKIA researchers of the “100 years of Hong Kong architecture” project, particular Sid Chu, K C Ng, and Tony Lam, for sharing their experience in the study of Hong Kong’s architectural history. I thank Professor Tunny Lee, former Head of the Department of Architecture, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), and Chang Ping Hung at CUHK for sharing their memories of the migrant architect CHANG Chao Kang (张肇康). I thank Dr. Gu Da Qing at CUHK for providing information on the migrant architect WONG Ting-Tsai (王定斋) and on the design of Chung Chi campus. I thank Dr. Oliver Chou at HKU for sharing materials about his father, the migrant architect Charles CHOU Lun (周滋汎). My gratitude is due to Professor David P Y Lung at the Department of Architecture, HKU for his encouragement on my research topic; to Professor Kvan Thomas for the discussion on the architectural profession in Mainland China and post-war Hong Kong; and to my thesis examiners Wang Wei Jen and Lee Hoyin for their insightful comments on the revision. I also thank other architectural post-graduate students at HKU, particularly Jia Yun Yan, Selia Tan, Ou Ying Qing, Wang Jun, Zheng Jie and Yu Yang for their help. Outside Hong Kong, I thank Dr. Peng Chang Xin at Guangzhou University for his knowledge of the architectural modernization in the Lingnan (Cantonese) region. I thank Dr. Qian Feng at Tongji University and Dr. Eduard Koegel in Berlin for their comments on the architectural education at St. John’s University in Shanghai. I am grateful to Dr. Muramatsu, Shin, Dr. Xu Su Bing and Dr. Bao Mu Ping at Tokyo University for their research methodology on modern architectural history in Hong Kong and China. I thank Professor Zhao Chen at Nanjing University for his comments on mainstream and non-mainstream historical writing on modern Chinese iii architecture, and Dr. Zhu Jian Fei at University of Melbourne for sharing his understanding of the macro picture of twentieth century Chinese architectural history. I also thank Dr. Feng Jin in the US for his insights on the “Chinese style” of architecture. My acknowledgment further goes to Linda Cooley, who taught me thesis writing, Rosemary Tan, who proofread my thesis, as well as my colleagues Sid Chu, Canny Herr, and Shaleeni Coorey, who corrected errors in my texts. Without their help, I would have encountered more difficulties in writing English. The Department of Architecture, the Faculty of Architecture, the HKU Main Library, and the University of Hong Kong deserve my appreciation. The completion of my research is inseparable from their financial support as well as the useful facilities and resources. Finally, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my family, particularly my husband, Yang Guodong. Being an architect himself, he was not only able to help me collect data and go on field trips, but was able to give me the support I needed during the most difficult times of my thesis writing. I also thank my spiritual brothers and sisters in the Union Church and Hong Kong Mandarin Bible Church, for their continual prayers and love. This has not only led to a PhD degree but also to a new life in Jesus Christ. iv Contents Declaration……………………………………………………………………………i Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………ii Contents………………………………………………………………………………v List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………viii List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………...xi Introduction 1 1 General Background…………………………………………………………………1 2 Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………6 2.1 The History of Mainland Architects in Hong Kong …………………...........6 2.2 The History of Modern Chinese Architecture in the PRC …………………11 3 Statement of Research Problem……………………………………………...17 4 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………….22 4.1 Orient vs. Occident: Remapping Modern China in the World Setting……..23 4.2 Urban Network: Repositioning Hong Kong in Modern China…………….26 4.3 Identity Building: Mainland Architects in Hong Kong…………………….30 5 Data and the Treatment of Data…………………………………………………….36 5.1 Primary Data……………………………………………………………….36 5.2 Systematic Collection of Data……………………………………………...39 5.3 Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………39 6 Contributions and Delimitation…………………………………………………….44 Chapter One: The Migrant Architects 47 1 The Emergence of Chinese Architects……………………………………………..47 2 The Migrant Architects……………………………………………………………..54 3 Characteristics of the Migrant Architects…………………………………………..61 3.1 Native Place………………………………………………………………...64 3.2 Educational Background…………………………………………………...65 4 Summary…………………………………………………………………………...69 v Chapter Two: The 1949 Migration 70 1 Chinese Architects and the Republican Architectural Nexus………………………71 2 The Pre-1949 Building Dynamics………………………………………………….76 2.1 Practice Distribution………………………………………………………..76 2.2 Three Main Migrations……………………………………………………..77 3 The 1949 Migration………………………………………………………………...84 3.1 Departure: Timing and Reasons……………………………………………84 3.2 Arrival: Migration Destinations……………………………………………89 3.3 Kwan Chu & Yang, Architects (基泰工程司) …………………………….91 3.4 LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受) …………………………………………………97 4 Summary………………………………………………………………………….105 Chapter Three: Reform of the Profession 110 1 A Comparison of the Architectural Profession in Hong Kong and Mainland China before 1949………………………………………………………………………….110 2 The Rise of the Chinese…………………………………………………………...124 3 Architect vs. Engineer…………………………………………………………….129 4 Founding of the HKSA…………………………………………………………...136 5 Efforts towards Multidiscipliniarity………………………………………………145 6 Summary………………………………………………………………………….149 Chapter Four: Practice Re-establishment 151 1 New Momentum of Urban Development in Post-war Hong Kong……………….151 2 Professional Partnerships…………………………………………………………158 2.1 Resumption of Former Professional Relationships……………………….160 2.2 New Professional Network Establishment………………………………..166 3 Client Relations…………………………………………………………………...173 3.1 The Public Sector…………………………………………………………174 3.2 The Private Sector………………………………………………………...177 3.3 The Overlapping Sector…………………………………………………...190 4 Designing for Mainland Entrepreneurs…………………………………………...203 5 Building for Mainland Refugees………………………………………………….213 6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………227 vi