In the Images of Development: City Design in the Global South

the “guardian of the public interest” and the only power capable of both protecting people from unscrupulous landlords and maintaining the peaceful coexistence of a diverse populace. These two fundamental colonial commitments collide at each turn in Building Colonial Hong Kong, whether in the provision of sanitation infrastructure, the regulation of working-class housing, the construction of suburban garden cities, or the imposition of rent restrictions. One of Chu’s more arresting examples of this tension is the “Chinese house,” or tong lau, a tenement typology peculiar to Hong Kong. Early urban reformers in the colony routinely pathologized these buildings, blaming them and their inhabitants for the spread of disease. But tong lau were also highly lucrative real estate investments, and the colonial government simultaneously feared that excessive regulation would lower tax revenue. This resulted in a series of half-hearted attempts at reform, often with unintended or perverse consequences. For instance, new regulations requiring backyards were quickly subverted by the construction of tall kitchens at the rear of each lot, effectively producing smoke-filled air shafts. Despite their limited immediate impact, Hong Kong’s early efforts at reforming the tong lau ultimately influenced later housing initiatives, including the colony’s famed public housing program. Chu’s commitment to unearthing such unsuccessful but consequential planning experiments is one of the strongest aspects of the book. Chu also dwells on the repeated effort to establish “European reservations,” such as the well-known Peak district, which reflected similar dynamics. Though these reservations were partly inspired by racial animus, Chu explains how they also reflected residents’ desires to be insulated from the full force of the speculative real estate market. This put racial segregation in direct conflict with the colonial government’s liberal commitment to universal property rights and its need to maximize tax revenue through a competitive housing market. Thus, although parts of Hong Kong were divided into racially exclusive residential zones, they were not nearly so prevalent (or effective) as they might otherwise have been. As Chu persuasively argues, Hong Kong’s early planning was not purely a reflection of top-down colonial power. Both Chinese and European residents opportunistically deployed the contradictions inherent in the colonial project to achieve their own urban development objectives. For instance, Chinese landlords routinely invoked the universalist principles of capitalism and property rights as protection against racially discriminatory policies, and they just as often appealed to racial essentialisms to push back against indiscriminate colonial regulation. The ideological commitment to speculation also served to bridge some of Hong Kong’s racial divides; for instance, by uniting Chinese and European landlords against government regulation. In addition to its focus on planning history, Chu’s analysis thus offers a revealing look at the intertwined development of racial and class politics in colonial Hong Kong. Building Colonial Hong Kong is necessary reading for scholars and students of colonial urbanization and planning, but it will also appeal to all those who are interested in the role of urban planning in the operation of the market and the pursuit of social justice. Insofar as the fundamental inequities of capitalist housing systems continue to be defined by issues such as race and class, Chu’s book is of significance to a much wider audience, who will find in colonial Hong Kong provocative and disquieting similarities to many of the challenges faced by contemporary planners around the world.