Page 55 - JCAU-7-3

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Rural–urban village regeneration

abuses, including selling small houses and Ding rights, subject to stringent restrictions. Houses built after 1961
have led to criminal offenses, such as false declarations. are classified as NTEH, allowing ground-floor spaces to
While the SHP is widely regarded as inequitable by be used as schools or restaurants. In contrast, houses built
modern standards, the indigenous Ding right, viewed before 1961 are not recognized as NTEH, and their use
as a traditional custom, remains politically difficult to is restricted solely to residential purposes. Furthermore,
challenge. Even the government has acknowledged the several village houses on old scheduled lots are also
problem, noting in a 2016 Legislative Council report that considered unauthorized building work.
“the remaining issues were complex and required further
deliberation within the Administration” to review the SHP 5. Government-funded regenerative
(LegCo, 2016). initiatives: Tactical intervention,
The prioritization of small house development has architectural restoration, and
intensified rural sprawl. The colonial government faced reinterpretation
criticism for its pro-development approach, which often To rejuvenate Shui Hau village and enhance its eco-cultural
came at the expense of environmental protection (Tang identity and sense of community as part of a rural–urban
et al., 2005). After establishing new towns, greenbelts were symbiosis (Bell, 1992; Chang, 2022), three regenerative
introduced to mediate urban sprawl and provide passive initiatives were proposed: tactical interventions,
recreational spaces. Despite the general presumption architectural restoration, and reinterpretation.
against development in greenbelt zones, researchers
pointed out that these areas served to selectively support 5.1. Tactical interventions: Mobile kiosks
urbanization (Tang et al., 2005), with structures such Given the inaccessibility of formal community spaces,
as village houses, low-density residences, schools, and the research team explored alternative semi-public spaces
temples permitted. Nonetheless, there is a notable lack within the village fabric for communal use. Two mobile
of programmatic diversity in practice. Research indicates kiosks – a design-thinking kiosk and a gastronomy
that up to 33 percent of development in greenbelt zones kiosk – were created to test whether underutilized semi-
comprises small houses (Tang et al., 2007). public spaces could be activated for temporary community

4.4. Inflexible land use and building regulations events using these tactical interventions.
The existing village area is confined to the “village- One example of such underutilized spaces is primary
type development” zone, which permits a limited list of schools and their ancillary sports courts. Typically, these
developments. However, there is a noticeable reluctance spaces are not accessible to the community outside of regular
to establish flexible, rural-specific regulations that weekday operations. With appropriate programming, it is
address local needs and balance optimal development argued that school grounds, as a valuable land resource,
with cultural conservation. For instance, the semi- can be transformed to accommodate medium-scale
communal events. To test this idea, a full-day design-
outdoor shading structure of Phoenix Store (a local thinking workshop for 30 participants was organized at
grocery store) was demolished after being audited as the basketball court of Bui O Primary School, utilizing
Unauthorized Building Work – despite its presence for a mobile design-thinking kiosk. The kiosk is designed
decades (Figure 3). Without the canopy, the grocery to be transformable. It could be folded into a compact
store lost its communal function as a vital informal social transport trolley (Figure 4) and expanded into four panels
hub in Shui Hau village. Due to the time-consuming for conducting various engagement activities. Key features
and costly formal application process for rebuilding the include magnetic whiteboards for instant graphical pin-ups
structure, the owner was forced to abandon the semi-
outdoor social space. In addition, building usage is

Figure 3. Phoenix Store in the 1970s (left panel) and the canopy
structure before demolition (right panel) Figure 4. The mobile design-thinking kiosk for conducting workshops
Source: Left: Photo by the villagers (1980); Right: Photo by the authors (2020). Source: Photo by the authors (2020).

Volume 7 Issue 3 (2025) 6 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.4992