Speculative Modern: Urban Forms and the Politics of Property in Colonial Hong Kong by Cecilia Louise Chu A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Nezar AlSayyad, Chair Professor C. Greig Crysler Professor Eugene F. Irschick Spring 2012 Speculative Modern: Urban Forms and the Politics of Property in Colonial Hong Kong Copyright 2012 by Cecilia Louise Chu 1 Abstract Speculative Modern: Urban Forms and the Politics of Property in Colonial Hong Kong Cecilia Louise Chu Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture University of California, Berkeley Professor Nezar AlSayyad, Chair This dissertation traces the genealogy of property development and emergence of an urban milieu in Hong Kong between the 1870s and mid 1930s. This is a period that saw the transition of colonial rule from one that relied heavily on coercion to one that was increasingly “civil,” in the sense that a growing number of native Chinese came to willingly abide by, if not whole-heartedly accept, the rules and regulations of the colonial state whilst becoming more assertive in exercising their rights under the rule of law. Long hailed for its laissez-faire credentials and market freedom, Hong Kong offers a unique context to study what I call “speculative urbanism,” wherein the colonial government’s heavy reliance on generating revenue from private property supported a lucrative housing market that enriched a large number of native property owners. Although resenting the discrimination they encountered in the colonial territory, they were able to accumulate economic and social capital by working within and around the colonial regulatory system. Meanwhile, the growing stake of Chinese capital in Hong Kong’s economy was perceived as a threat by local British and European residents, who tried to maintain their privileges via discriminatory legislation. A central goal of this study is to elucidate how particular forms of urban development predicated on opportunism and a “liberal governmentality” came to be consolidated within a racially divided, highly unequal, but nevertheless upwardly mobile, “modernizing” colonial city. By focusing on speculative building practices and the changing administrative framework that sought to regulate urban forms and social norms, this dissertation aims to illustrate some of the inherent contradictions in colonial development between the liberal, laissez-faire ideology that propelled capitalist expansion and the exclusionary impulses that clung to a hierarchical spatial order. Although this bifurcated milieu helped legitimized different rules for different peoples, it also opened up new channels for cultural and political negotiations. The examination of the competing discourses about the city and its development in Hong Kong’s early period also provides a crucial explanatory framework for the so-called “Hong Kong economic miracle” in the postwar era and the prevalence of speculative property activities that continues to the postcolonial present. i Table of Contents List of Appendices iii Acknowledgements iv Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1. The “Hong Kong Success Story” and Its Sub-versions 1.2. Negotiating Space: “Agency” and “Structures” in Colonial Urbanism 1.3. Colonialism and the Liberal Strategies of Exclusion 1.4. Historicizing the Rule of Difference 1.5. Modernization, Urban Improvement and the Construction of Colonial Cultures 1.6. Hong Kong: A “Colonial Exception”? 1.7. Sources and Organization of the Dissertation Chapter 2. A Geography of Accumulation: Speculation and Regulation in 26 Nineteenth Century Victoria 2.1. The Propensity of Land 2.2. A Dual-City in the Making: The Chinese Bazaar and Early Informal Segregation 2.3. The Tong Lau and the “Chinese house” 2.4. The Tenement Landlords: Outcasts, Middlemen and New Elites 2.5. Blurring Boundaries: The Limit of Housing Typologies 2.6. Consolidating the Divide: The 1888 European Residential Reservation Ordinance 2.7. Reappropriating Chineseness: The Petition Against the “Improved Tenements” Chapter 3. Making Sanitary Subjects: The Improvement Discourse and 54 the Colonial Conundrum 3.1. Contesting the “Sanitary Syndrome”: Hennessey’s “Pro-Chinese” Agenda 3.2. Creating “Liberal Infrastructures: The Controversies Over Water Supply 3.3. Chadwick’s Remedies and the Repeal of the Water Consolidation Bill 3.4. Advocating “Justice”: The Chinese Landlords’ Revolt Against Water Charges 3.5. The Bubonic Plague Outbreak and the Taipingshan Resumption 3.6. From Coercion to Self-Regulation: The Plague Prevention Experiment and the Rise of the Kai-fang ii Chapter 4. The Search for Forms: Building Legislation and the Emerging 84 Discourse of “Administrative Efficiency” 4.1. The Return of Chadwick and the Demand for “Representative Government” 4.2. Regularizing “Insanitary Properties”: Illegal Cubicles, Offensive Latrines and Obstructive Alleyways 4.3. The Inquiry into Irregularities: Reassessing the 1903 Public Health and Building Ordinance 4.4. Better Housing for the Working Class: From the PWD Models to Li Sing’s “Modern Tenements” Chapter 5. Constructing a New Moral Topography 112 5.1. Campaigns Against “Native Takeover”: European Reservations at Kowloon 5.2. The Peak District Residential Reservation Ordinance and the Saga of “The Eyrie” 5.3. Segregation as Social Solution? Garden Cities for the “Poor Whites” 5.4. A Model Settlement for “Better Class Chinese”: The Kai Tak Bund Project at Kowloon Bay 5.5. In Demand for Equity: The Merits of Reservation and Myth of the “Free” Housing Market Chapter 6. Conclusion 143 Appendices 146 Bibliography 149 iii List of Appendices Appendix I Law Relating to the Regulation of Planning, Building and Public Health, 1841-1941 Appendix II Major Commissions Appointed to Inquire into Housing Conditions and Building Regulation, 1882-1941 Appendix III Governors of Hong Kong, 1841-1941 iv Acknowledgements I have accumulated many debts over the course of this research. First I must thank Nezar AlSayyad, my dissertation chair, for his intellectual guidance and unwavering support throughout my study at Berkeley. I first met Nezar as a volunteer at the IASTE conference in Hong Kong in 2002, when I had the fortune to attend his presentation and learn about his unique interdisciplinary scholarship in architectural history and urban studies. This experience eventually prompted me to apply to Berkeley’s Ph.D. program and embark on a new career path. Over the years Nezar has provided me with outstanding mentorship, motivating me not only to achieve high standards in coursework and research, but also to overcome difficulties and challenges in life that I had not thought possible in the past. My appreciation for his generosity and tireless encouragement goes beyond what words can describe. I also owe a great deal to other members of my dissertation committee. I would like to thank Greig Crysler for his invaluable advice on my research and for constantly pushing me to think more critically about architecture and the built environment. Gene Irschick has been a bulwark of support over the last 5 years. My taking of his history seminar on postcolonialism has been instrumental in shaping my understanding of social theory and the construction of cultural knowledge. I also need to thank William Schaefer, who has been my advisor in the early stage of my Ph.D. I treasure the many stimulating discussion sessions with William, who has always been extremely generous with his time and has encouraged me to think beyond disciplinary boundaries. In addition, I would like to thank Andy Shanken, Margaret Crawford, Marco Cenzatti, Greg Castillo, Paul Groth, and You- tien Hsing for offering me advice on teaching and research as well as on how to navigate my way in academia. My decision to pursue doctoral study would not have been possible without the support of Clive Dilnot and Hazel Clark, advisors for my MA in Design at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Although not directly involved with my Ph.D. dissertation, Clive and Hazel’s early guidance have been extremely influential on my intellectual development. I am indebted to Lynne DiStefano, advisor for my MSc. in Conservation at The University of Hong Kong. I cannot thank Lynne enough for her continuous faith in my work and for always being there for me during challenging times. I would also like to thank Hoyin Lee for his support and friendship and for being a role model for me as a dedicated teacher with unfailing commitment to public education. My fieldwork in Hong Kong has been supported by the Centre of Asian Studies at The University of Hong Kong. I want to thank the Centre’s director, Wong Siu-lun, for accommodating me as a visiting scholar there. During this time, I was fortunate to meet Leo Goodstadt, who has been so kind to share with me his vast knowledge about Hong Kong’s political history. I would also like to thank Helen Grace, Chair of the Department of Cultural and Religious Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, for spending v time with me to discuss many fascinating topics pertaining to colonial histories and cultures that traverse across different disciplines. In London, where I carried out the bulk of my archival research, I am grateful for the hospitality of Christine Gordon, who accommodated me in her beautiful home and helped make my stay there not only comfortable but also lively and fun. I greatly appreciate the assistance offered by the staff of the British Library, the British National Archives (BNA), and the Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London. I especially want to thank Hugh Alexander, manager of the Image Library of BNA, for introducing me to the Library’s wonderful image collection. I would like to thank all the departments and institutions that have funded my research: The Department of Architecture at UC Berkeley for the Spiro Kostof Fellowship and multi-year block grants, the Graduate Division for various research and travel grants, and the Institute of East Asian Studies (IEAS) for the Li-ka Shing Fellowship in Modern Chinese History.